Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.Methods and Results: We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

Additional Effects of Antiplatelet Therapy on Anticoagulant Agents in Patients With Bioprosthetic Valves and Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The additional effects of single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) on anticoagulant therapy are still unclear in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after bioprosthetic valve replacement.Methods and Results:We conducted a subanalysis of a multicenter, retrospective, observational registry of patients with bioprosthetic valves and AF in Japan. Patients administered anticoagulants alone comprised the ACA group (n=107), and patients given concomitant SAPT and anticoagulant therapy comprised the On SAPT group (n=82). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of stroke/systemic embolism, and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding. The observation period was 46.3±24.6 months. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 12 patients, and the cumulative incidence of primary efficacy events was significantly higher in the ACA group compared with the On SAPT group (P=0.039). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 22 patients, and the cumulative incidence of primary safety events was similar between groups (P=0.66). No differences between the groups were observed for cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Additional SAPT on anticoagulant therapy in patients with bioprosthetic valves and AF was associated with a reduction in stroke/systemic embolic events, although the cumulative incidence of bleeding was similar, regardless of additional SAPT. These findings suggest that additional SAPT on anticoagulant therapy may be safe and effective in real-world clinical settings.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves　- Real-World Data From the Multicenter, Prospective, Observational BPV-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacements are becoming more common within our aging society, there are limited prospective data on the appropriate antithrombotic therapy for East Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and BPV replacement. Antithrombotic therapy and thrombotic and hemorrhagic event rates in Japanese patients with AF and BPV replacement are investigated.Methods and Results:This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with BPV replacement and AF. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Of the 894 patients analyzed, 54.7%, 29.4%, and 9.6%, were treated with warfarin-based therapy, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-based therapy, or antiplatelet therapy without anticoagulants, respectively; 6.3% did not receive any antithrombotic drugs. The mean observation period was 15.3±4.0 months. The event rates for stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding were 1.95%/year and 1.86%/year, respectively. The multivariate adjusted hazard ratios for DOAC vs. warfarin were 1.02 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.30-3.41 [P=0.979]) for systemic embolic events and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.29-3.16 [P=0.945]) for major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of patients with AF and BPV replacement were treated with DOAC. The risks of major bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism were similar between warfarin- and DOAC-treated patients with AF who had BPV replacement. Treatment with DOACs could be an alternative to warfarin in this population.

Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and an Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines equally recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a bioprosthetic valve (BPV); however, there are limited data comparing DOACs and warfarin in AF patients with an aortic BPV.Methods and Results: This post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational registry (BPV-AF Registry) aimed to compare DOACs and warfarin in AF patients with an aortic BPV. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, heart failure requiring hospitalization, all-cause death, or BPV reoperation. The analysis included 479 patients (warfarin group, n=258; DOAC group, n=221). Surgical aortic valve replacement was performed in 74.4% and 36.7% of patients in the warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. During a mean follow up of 15.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 45 (17.4%) and 32 (14.5%) patients in the warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-1.50). No significant multiplicative interaction was observed between the anticoagulant effects and type of aortic valve procedure (P=0.577). CONCLUSIONS: Among AF patients with an aortic BPV, no significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of adverse clinical events between patients treated with warfarin and those treated with DOACs, suggesting that DOACs can be used as alternatives to warfarin in these patients.

Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce data evaluating the current practice pattern and clinical outcomes for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), including both those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and those who were managed conservatively in the TAVI era.Methods and Results: The Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis (CURRENT AS) Registry-2 is a prospective, physician-initiated, multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients who were diagnosed with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 among 21 centers in Japan. The rationale for the prospective enrollment was to standardize the assessment of symptomatic status, echocardiographic evaluation, and other recommended diagnostic examinations such as computed tomography and measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide. Moreover, the schedule of clinical and echocardiographic follow up was prospectively defined and strongly recommended for patients who were managed conservatively. The entire study population consisted of 3,394 patients (mean age: 81.6 years and women: 60%). Etiology of AS was degenerative in 90% of patients. AS-related symptoms were present in 60% of patients; these were most often heart failure symptoms. The prevalence of high- and low-gradient AS was 58% and 42%, respectively, with classical and paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS in 4.6% and 6.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CURRENT AS Registry-2 might be large and meticulous enough to determine the appropriate timing of intervention for patients with severe AS in contemporary clinical practice.

Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- A Report From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) has not been well addressed in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:We analyzed 3,815 patients from a retrospective multicenter registry of severe AS in Japan (CURRENT AS registry). We compared the clinical outcomes between patients with moderate/severe MR and with none/mild MR according to the initial treatment strategy (initial aortic valve replacement [AVR] or conservative strategy). The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization. At baseline, moderate/severe MR was present in 227/1,197 (19%) patients with initial AVR strategy and in 536/2,618 (20%) patients with a conservative strategy. The crude cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in patients with moderate/severe MR than in those with none/mild MR, regardless of the initial treatment strategy (25.2% vs. 14.4%, P<0.001 in the initial AVR strategy, and 63.3% vs. 40.7%, P<0.001 in the conservative strategy). After adjusting confounders, moderate/severe MR was not independently associated with higher risk for the primary outcome measure in the initial AVR strategy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.83, P=0.69), and in the conservative strategy (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant moderate/severe MR was not independently associated with higher risk for the primary outcome measure regardless of the initial treatment strategy.

Relationship between the Amount of Menstrual Flow and Cardiac Status in Women with Fontan Circulation.

A high prevalence of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) has been reported in women with Fontan circulation. Cyanosis has been reported to contribute to HMB, and menstruation has been suggested to affect cardiac status in women with congenital heart disease. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the amount of menstrual flow and cardiac status in women with Fontan circulation.Twenty women who had undergone the Fontan procedure were prospectively investigated and the amount of their menstrual flow was evaluated using a questionnaire. Participants were divided into two groups-small and large menstrual bleeding groups-and their clinical data, including the results of hematological tests and echocardiographic findings, were evaluated.One (5%) woman showed primary amenorrhea. Eight of the remaining 19 (42%) women were included in the large menstrual bleeding group. Women with large menstrual bleeding showed a significantly higher hematocrit level (47.1% [36.2%-50.3%] versus 42.1% [35.3%-44.9%], P = 0.006) and longer QRS duration (106 [92-172] ms versus 88 [78-140] ms, P = 0.008), as well as a lower fractional area change (37.4% [35.6%-47.2%] versus 47.0% [38.2%-55.7%], P = 0.010) and global longitudinal strain (-10.5% [-14.9% to -6.6%] versus -13.9% [-20.5% to -7.8%], P = 0.041) of the dominant ventricle on echocardiography, than women with small bleeding.Erythrocytosis, longer QRS duration, and reduced ventricular function were related to increased menstrual bleeding in women with Fontan circulation. These functions may be interrelated with the amount of menstrual flow in such women.

Long-Term Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Initially Conservatively Managed Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common comorbidity of aortic stenosis (AS), clinical evidence about the long-term effect of DM on patients with AS is insufficient.Methods and Results:Data were acquired from CURRENT AS, a large Japanese multicenter registry that enrolled 3,815 patients with severe AS. Patients without initial valve replacement were defined as the conservative group; among them, 621 (23.4%) had DM, whereas 1997 did not. The DM group was further divided into 2 groups according to insulin treatment (insulin-treated DM, n=130; non-insulin treated DM, n=491). The primary outcome was a composite of aortic valve (AV)-related death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were AV-related death, HF hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, sudden death, and surgical or transcatheter AV replacement during follow up. As a result, DM was associated with higher risk for the primary outcome (52.8% vs. 42.9%, P<0.001), with a statistically significant adjusted hazard ratio (HR 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.56, P<0.001). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between DM and non-DM patients after adjusting for confounding factors, except for HF hospitalization. Insulin use was not associated with higher incidence of primary or secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In initially conservatively managed patients with AS, DM was independently associated with higher risk for a composite of AV-related death or HF hospitalization; however, insulin use was not associated with poor outcomes.

Elective Non-Cardiac Surgery in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Observations From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) might be at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events at the time of non-cardiac surgery.Methods and Results:The current study population included 348 patients who underwent elective non-cardiac surgery under general or spinal anesthesia during the follow up of 3,815 patients in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) registry. There were 187 patients with untreated severe AS at time of surgery (untreated severe AS group) and 161 patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement (AVR) before surgery (prior AVR group), including 23 patients with prophylactic AVR. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality after non-cardiac surgery. At 30 days after non-cardiac surgery, 8 patients (4.3%) died in the untreated severe AS group, while no patients died in the prior AVR group (P=0.008). The causes of death were cardiovascular in 6 out of 8 patients. Mortality at 30 days was higher in untreated severe AS patients with AS-related symptoms before surgery than in those without AS-related symptoms (7.2% vs. 3.1%). Higher surgical risk estimates of the non-cardiac surgery incrementally increased the risk of 30-day mortality in patients with untreated severe AS, though the difference was not statistically significant (low-risk: 0%, intermediate-risk: 4.3%, and high-risk: 6.6 %, P=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS might be associated with higher risk of 30-day mortality if untreated before elective intermediate- and high-risk non-cardiac surgery, while no patient with prior AVR died after elective non-cardiac surgery.

Age-Related Differences in the Effects of Initial Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Strategy on Long-Term Outcomes in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy relative to a conservative strategy on long-term outcomes stratified by age among asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:Among 1,808 asymptomatic severe AS patients in the CURRENT AS registry, there were 1,166 patients aged ≥75 years (initial AVR: n=124, and conservative: n=1,042), and 642 patients with age <75 years (initial AVR: n=167, and conservative: n=475). Median follow-up interval was 1,280 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1,012-1,611) days, and 1461 (IQR: 1,132-1,886) days in patients aged ≥ and <75 years, respectively. The favorable effect of the initial AVR strategy relative to conservative strategy for heart failure (HF) hospitalization was seen regardless of the age stratum (≥75 years: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.34, and <75 years: HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.99, interaction P=0.35). However, the lower mortality risk of the initial AVR strategy relative to conservative strategy was significant in patients aged ≥75 years, but not in patients <75 years, with significant interaction (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.61, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.41-1.16, interaction P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of initial AVR in reducing HF hospitalization in asymptomatic patients with severe AS was consistently seen regardless of age. The magnitude of mortality benefit of initial AVR was greater in super-elder patients than in non-super-elder patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis in Real-World Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: There are no data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes in real clinical practice in Japan. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined 2 independent registries, the K-TAVI Registry (a 6-center prospective registry of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI) and the CURRENT AS Registry (a large, 27-center registry of 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis [AS]). In the K-TAVI Registry, 338 patients underwent TAVI with SAPIEN XT balloon-expandable valves from October 2013 to January 2016, whereas in the CURRENT AS Registry 237 patients with severe AS underwent SAVR from January 2003 to December 2011. Propensity score matching was conducted, with final cohort comprising 306 patients. The cumulative 2-year incidence of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization did not differ significantly between the TAVI and SAVR groups (13.7% vs. 12.4% [P=0.81] and 7.9% vs 3.9% [P=0.13], respectively). After adjusting for residual confounders, there were no significant differences between the TAVI and SAVR groups in the risk for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.58; P=0.43) or HF hospitalization (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.40-4.59; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: These findings from 2 independent Japanese registries suggest that the 2-year risk of all-cause mortality and HF does not differ significantly between TAVI and SAVR groups in real-world practice in Japan.

Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of the BioProsthetic Valves with Atrial Fibrillation (BPV-AF) Study.

PURPOSE: To date, clinical data on real-world treatment practices in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement are needed. We conducted a large-scale, prospective, multicenter study to understand the actual usage of antithrombotic therapy and the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in these patients, and to eliminate the clinical data gap between Japan and Western countries. METHODS: This was an observational study, in patients who had undergone BPV replacement and had a confirmed diagnosis of AF, with no mandated interventions. We report the baseline demographic and clinical data for the 899 evaluable patients at the end of the enrollment period. RESULTS: Overall, 45.7% of patients were male; the mean age was 80.3 years; AF was paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent in 36.9%, 34.6%, and 28.5% of patients, respectively. Mean risk scores for stroke and bleeding were 2.5 (CHADS2), 4.1 (CHA2DS2-VASc), and 2.5 (HAS-BLED). Many patients (76.2%) had comorbid hypertension and 54.8% had heart failure. Most BPVs (65.5%) were positioned in the aortic valve. Warfarin-based therapy, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-based therapy, and antiplatelet therapy (without warfarin and DOAC) were administered to 55.0%, 29.3%, and 9.7% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled into this study are typical of the wider Japanese AF/BPV population in terms of age and clinical history. Future data accruing from the observational period will contribute to future treatment recommendations and guide therapeutic decisions in patients with BPV and AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: UMIN000034485.

Occurrence of right ventricular dysfunction immediately after pericardiocentesis.

The changes in cardiac function that occur after pericardiocentesis are unclear. An understanding of the effect of pericardiocentesis on right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) function is clinically important. This study was performed to assess RV and LV function with echocardiography before and after pericardiocentesis. In total, 19 consecutive patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for more than moderate pericardial effusion were prospectively enrolled from August 2015 to October 2017. Comprehensive transthoracic echocardiography was performed before, immediately after (within 3 h), and 1 day after pericardiocentesis to investigate the changes in RV and LV function. The mean age of all patients was 72.6 ± 12.2 years. No pericardiocentesis-related complications occurred during the procedure, but one patient died of right heart failure 8 h after pericardiocentesis. After pericardiocentesis, RV inflow and outflow diameters increased (p < 0.05 versus values before pericardiocentesis), and the parameters of RV function (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity, fractional area change, and RV free wall longitudinal strain) significantly decreased (p < 0.001 versus values before pericardiocentesis). These abnormal values or RV dysfunction remained 1 day after pericardiocentesis (p > 0.05 versus values immediately after pericardiocentesis). Conversely, no parameters of LV function changed after pericardiocentesis. Of 19 patients, 13 patients showed RV dysfunction immediately after pericardiocentesis and 6 patients did not. RV free wall longitudinal strain before pericardiocentesis in patients with post-procedural RV dysfunction was reduced compared to those without post-procedural RV dysfunction ( - 18.9 ± 3.6 versus - 28.4 ± 6.3%; p = 0.005). The area under the curve values for prediction of post-procedural RV dysfunction was 0.910 for RV free wall longitudinal strain. The occurrence of RV dysfunction after pericardiocentesis should be given more attention, and pre-procedural RV free wall longitudinal strain may be a predictor of post-procedural RV dysfunction.

Reasons for Choosing Conservative Management in Symptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Observations From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has not been a previous report on the long-term outcomes of those patients who refuse aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite physicians' recommendations.Methods and Results:Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry, the study population comprised 2,005 symptomatic patients, who were subdivided into 3 groups by their treatment strategy and the reasons for conservative strategy (Initial AVR group: n=905; Patient rejection group: n=256; Physician judgment group, n=844). The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death and heart failure hospitalization. Patients in the patient rejection group as compared with those in the physician judgment group were younger, and had less comorbidities, and lower surgical risk scores. The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure in the patient rejection group was markedly higher than that in the initial AVR group, and was similar to that in the physician judgment group (60.7%, 19.0%, and 66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patient rejection was the reason for non-referral to AVR in nearly one-quarter of the symptomatic patients with severe AS who were managed conservatively. The dismal outcome in patients who refused AVR was similar to that in patients who were not referred to AVR based on physician judgment despite less comorbidities and lower surgical risk scores in the former than in the latter.

Very long-term follow-up data of non-ischemic idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy after beta-blocker therapy: recurrence of left ventricular dysfunction and predictive value of 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy.

The management of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is well established. However, a subset of patients do not have recovery from or have recurrences of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction despite receiving optimal medical therapy. There are limited long-term follow-up data about LV function and the predictive value of iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) scintigraphy, especially among the Japanese population. We retrospectively investigated 81 consecutive patients with DCM (mean LV ejection fraction (EF) 28 ± 7.5%) who had undergone 123I-MIBG scintigraphy before starting ß-blockers. According to chronological changes in LVEF, study patients were classified into three subgroups: sustained recovery group, recurrence group, and non-recovery group. The outcome measure was cardiac death. Mean age was 59 ± 11 years and median follow-up was 11.5 (5.8-15.0) years. Thirty-six patients had recovery, 11 had recurrences, and 34 did not have recovery. The sustained recovery group had the best cardiac death-free survival, followed by the recurrence and non-recovery groups. Prolonged time to initial recovery was associated with recurrence of LV dysfunction. Large LV end-diastolic diameter and reduced heart to mediastinum ratio were associated with poor prognosis. In conclusion, with ß-blocker therapy, 14% of patients showed recurrences of LV dysfunction. Thus, careful follow-up is needed, keeping in mind the possibility of recurrence, even if LVEF once improved, especially in patients whose time to initial recovery was long. 123I-MIBG scintigraphy provides clinicians with additional prognostic information.

Extremely short setting of optimal sensed atrioventricular interval in patients after Fontan procedure with implanted dual-chamber pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular interval optimisation is important in patients with dual-chamber pacing, especially with heart failure. In patients with CHD, especially in those with Fontan circulation, the systemic atrial contraction is supposed to be more important than in patients without structural heart disease. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated two patients after Fontan procedure with dual-chamber pacemaker with a unique setting of optimal sensed atrioventricular interval. RESULTS: The optimal sensed atrioventricular interval determined by echocardiogram was extremely short sensed atrioventricular interval at 25 and 30 ms in both cases; however, the actual P wave and ventricular pacing interval showed 180 and 140 ms, respectively. In both cases, the atrial epicardial leads were implanted on the opposite site of the origin of their own atrial rhythm. The time differences between sensed atrioventricular interval and actual P wave and ventricular pacing interval occurred because of the site of the epicardial atrial pacing leads and the intra-atrial conduction delay. CONCLUSION: We need to consider the origin of the atrial rhythm, the site of the epicardial atrial lead, and the atrial conduction delay by using electrocardiogram and X-ray when we set the optimal sensed atrioventricular interval in complicated CHD.

Acute Heart Failure in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical profiles of acute heart failure (AHF) complicating severe aortic stenosis (AS) remain unclear.Methods and Results:From a Japanese multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS, 3,813 patients were categorized into the 3 groups according to the symptom of heart failure (HF); No HF (n=2,210), chronic HF (CHF) (n=813) and AHF defined as hospitalized HF at enrolment (n=790). Median follow-up was 1,123 days with 93% follow-up rate at 2 years. Risk factors for developing AHF included age, female sex, lower body mass index, untreated coronary artery stenosis, anemia, history of HF, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, presence of any combined valvular disease, peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s and tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient ≥40 mmHg, and negative risk factors included dyslipidemia, history of percutaneous coronary intervention and hemodialysis. Respective cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in No HF, CHF and AHF groups were 37.1%, 41.8% and 61.8% (P<0.001) and 20.7%, 33.8% and 52.3% (P<0.001). Even in the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) stratum, AHF was associated with excess 5-year mortality risk relative to No HF and CHF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-2.36, P=0.008; adjusted HR 1.47; 95% CI: 1.03-2.11, P=0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AHF complicating severe AS was associated with an extremely dismal prognosis, which could not be fully resolved by AVR. Careful management to avoid the development of AHF is crucial.

Early Surgery vs. Surgery After Watchful Waiting for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: There is no large-scale study comparing postoperative mortality after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) between initial treatment with AVR vs. eventual AVR after conservative management. Methods and Results: We analyzed data from a multicenter registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Of 1,808 asymptomatic patients, 286 patients initially underwent AVR (initial AVR group), and 377 patients were initially managed conservatively and eventually underwent AVR (AVR after watchful waiting group). Mortality after AVR was compared between the 2 groups. Subgroup analysis according to peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) at diagnosis was also conducted. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in 5-year overall survival (OS; 86.0% vs. 84.1%, P=0.34) or cardiovascular death-free survival (DFS; 91.3% vs. 91.1%, P=0.61), but on subgroup analysis of patients with Vmax ≥4.5 m/s at diagnosis, the initial AVR group was superior to the AVR after watchful waiting group in both 5-year OS (88.4% vs. 70.6%, P=0.003) and cardiovascular DFS (91.9% vs. 81.7%, P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic severe AS patients who underwent AVR after watchful waiting had a postoperative survival rate similar to those who initially underwent AVR. In a subgroup of patients with Vmax ≥4.5 m/s at diagnosis, however, the AVR after watchful waiting group had worse postoperative survival rate than the initial AVR group.