The effect of aortic valve replacement on plasma B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with severe aortic stenosis - one year follow-up

Abstract Transcatheter Aortic valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients considered at high or prohibitive operative risk. It is widely known the short and mid-term outcomes, however, is limited about long-term outcomes in according to age. The aim of this study was to determine the survival and the clinical outcomes on based of age. after TAVR with the CoreValve prosthesis. Methods From April 2008 to December 2017, the CoreValve and Sapiens 3 prosthesis were implanted in 667 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with deemed high risk on base to age, <80 years and ≥80 years old Results The mean age in patients <80 compared with ≥80 years, was 73.6±7 vs. 83.4±2.8 years and the logistic EuroSCORE and STS score were 16.3±11% vs. 18.1±11%. In-hospital mortality was 3.4%, and the combined endpoint of death, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, majopr bleeding or stroke had a rate of 18.3%. The late mortality (beyond 30 days) was 40.5%. When compared both groups, there were no differences for the presence of threatening bleeding 3.5% vs. 3.6% (HR = 1.033 [IC95% 0.452–2.360], p=0.557), myocardial infarction4.2% vs. 2.9% (HR = 0.67 [IC95% 0.290–1,530], p=0.0.226), stroke 8.9% vs. 9.4% (HR = 1.067 [IC95% 0.625–1.821], p=0.814) and mortality 44.5% vs. 41.1% (HR=0.971388 [IC95% 0.639–1.188], p=0.214) and there was difference in between groups in hospitalizations for heart failure 13.8% vs. 7.7% (HR = 1.374 [IC95% 1.037–1.821], p=0.008. Survival at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were similar in both groups (86.9% vs. 89.8%, 78.4 vs. 78.3%, 65.5 vs. 72.5%, 57.9% vs. 62.8% and 51.1 vs. 52.8%>; log Rank 0.992, p=0.319), respectively, after a mean follow-up of 43.9±27 months. Conclusions TAVR is associated with significant survival benefit throughout 3.2 years of follow-up. Survival during follow-up was similar in patients with <80 compared with ≥80 years old.

Download Full-text

Severe aortic stenosis without left ventricular hypertrophy: prevalence, predictors, and short-term follow up after aortic valve replacement.

Heart ◽

10.1136/hrt.76.3.250 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 76 (3) ◽

pp. 250-255 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

C. Seiler ◽

R. Jenni

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽

Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Short Term

Download Full-text

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide measurement is useful in predicting left ventricular hypertrophy regression after aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Heart Asia ◽

10.1136/heartasia-2014-010593 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 23-28

Author(s):

M. Lee ◽

J.-O. Choi ◽

S.-J. Park ◽

E. Y. Kim ◽

P. Park ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Natriuretic Peptide ◽

Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽

Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Regression

Download Full-text

Heart Team for Optimal Management of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis—Long-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life from Tertiary Cardiovascular Care Center

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10225408 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (22) ◽

pp. 5408

Author(s):

Szymon Jonik ◽

Michał Marchel ◽

Ewa Pędzich-Placha ◽

Zenon Huczek ◽

Janusz Kochman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽

Heart Team ◽

Secondary Endpoints

Background: This retrospective study was proposed to investigate outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) after implementation of various treatment strategies following dedicated Heart Team (HT) decisions. Methods: Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a median follow-up of 866 days of patients with severe AS qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or OMT and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal disabling strokes and non-fatal rehospitalizations for AS were considered, while other clinical outcomes were determined as secondary endpoints. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held, and a total of 482 participants with severe AS and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, TAVR and SAVR for 79, 318 and 85, respectively) were included in the final analysis. SAVR and TAVR were found to be superior to OMT for primary and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05). Comparing interventional strategies only, TAVR was associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury, new onset of atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, while the superiority of SAVR for major vascular complications and need for permanent pacemaker implantation was observed (p < 0.05). The quality of life assessed at the end of follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR than in OMT-group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We demonstrated that after careful implementation of HT decisions interventional strategies compared to OMT only provide superior outcomes and quality of life for patients with AS.

Download Full-text

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9020439 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 439 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Polimeni ◽

Sorrentino ◽

De Rosa ◽

Spaccarotella ◽

Mongiardo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Surgical Risk ◽

Randomized Studies ◽

One Year

Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42–1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17–0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14–0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14–0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31–11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33–9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41–1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53–1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43–1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved.

Download Full-text

6097Aminoterminal proB-type natriuretic peptide: a key parameter to optimise therapeutic management of low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0131 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

M S Annabi ◽

J Bergler-Klein ◽

A Dahou ◽

I G Burwash ◽

G Ong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Natriuretic Peptide ◽

Conservative Management ◽

Survival Benefit ◽

Low Flow ◽

Time To Death ◽

One Year

Abstract Background B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and aminoterminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP) are well established surrogates of LV function impairment. However, data are scarce regarding their prognostic value to risk-stratify patients with classical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS, with low left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction). Methods The TOPAS study is a prospective observational cohort of 240 patients with aortic valve area <0.6 cm2/m2, mean gradient<40 mmHg and LVEF<50%. True severe AS was adjudicated using flow independent grading schemes. Results BNP significantly predicted one-year (area under the receiver operating-characteristic curve [AUC]) 0.62±0.04, p=0.026) but not three-year mortality. After adjustment for the severity of AS, initial treatment (aortic valve replacement [AVR] vs. conservative management [ConsRx]), age, sex and the EuroSCORE (Model#1), BNP-ratio>550 pg/ml had a trend to predict time to death (HR=2.14 [1.00–4.58], p=0.05). In contrast, NT-proBNP ratio significantly predicted both one and three-year mortality (AUC=0.67±0.04 and 0.66±0.05, both p=0.001), and independently predicted time to death (HR=1.39 per 1 unit of Log transformed NT-proBNP [1.11–1.74], p=0.004). In a head-to-head comparison (108 patients with both biomarkers), the AUCs to predict one and thre-year mortality were significantly higher with NT-proBNP versus BNP (p<0.009). NT-proBNP but not BNP independently predicted mortality and significantly improved Model#1 (Likelihood ratio test Chi2=15.95, p<0.001). The category-free net reclassification index of NT-proBNP was 0.71 (p=0.008) versus 0.38 (p=0.15) for BNP. Furthermore, there was a marked survival benefit associated with AVR in patients with NT-proBNP ≥1700 pg/ml (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) associated to AVR vs conservative management=0.52 [0.31–0.85], p=0.009), while those<1700 pg/ml had excellent one-year survival under ConsRx (only one death [4.5±4.4%] at one year as compared to 23 [37±6.2%] for ConsRx-NTproBNP>1700, aHR=0.11 [0.01–0.83], p=0.033). The survival benefit associated with AVR interacted with NT-proBNP (p<0.001) but not with true or pseudosevere AS (p=0.53 for interaction), suggesting that NT-proBNP might identify moderate AS patients but sufficiently severe valvulo-ventricular disease to justify AVR. Survival according to NT-proBNP and AVR Conclusion NT-proBNP appears to be an excellent biomarker for the clinical purpose of risk-stratifying classical LFLG-AS. A threshold of 1700 pg/ml i.e. close to the diagnostic threshold for heart failure in acute dyspnea, was a strong independent determinant of the survival benefit associated with aortic valve replacement. Our findings suggest that NT-proBNP should be preferred over BNP. Acknowledgement/Funding Canadian Institute of Health Research

Download Full-text