Age-Stratified Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The management of aortic stenosis has evolved to stratification by age as reflected in recent societal guidelines. We evaluated age-stratified surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) trends and outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. METHODS: This cohort included adults (≥18 years) undergoing SAVR for severe aortic stenosis between July 2011 and December 2022. Comparisons were stratified by age (<65 years, 65-79 years, ≥80 years) and BAV or TAV status. Primary end points included operative mortality, composite morbidity and mortality, and permanent stroke. Observed to expected ratios by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 200,849 SAVR patients (55,326 BAV [27.5%], 145,526 TAV [72.5%]) from 1238 participating hospitals met study criteria. Annual SAVR volumes decreased by 45% (19,560 to 10,851) during the study period. The decrease was greatest (96%) for patients ≥80 years of age (4914 to 207). The relative prevalence of BAV was greater in younger patients (<65 years, 69,068 [49.5% BAV]; 65-79 years, 104,382 [19.1% BAV]; ≥80 years, 27,399 [4.5% BAV]). The observed mortality in <80-year-old BAV patients (<65 years, 1.08; 65-79 years, 1.21; ≥80 years, 3.68) was better than the expected mortality rate (<65 years, 1.22; 65-79 years, 1.54; ≥80 years, 3.14). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR volume in the transcatheter era has decreased substantially, particularly for patients ≥80 years old and for those with TAV. Younger patients with BAV have better than expected outcomes, which should be carefully considered during shared decision-making in the treatment of aortic stenosis. SAVR should remain the preferred therapy in this population.

Degenerative mitral regurgitation.

Degenerative mitral regurgitation is a major threat to public health and affects at least 24 million people worldwide, with an estimated 0.88 million disability-adjusted life years and 34,000 deaths in 2019. Improving access to diagnostic testing and to timely curative therapies such as surgical mitral valve repair will improve the outcomes of many individuals. Imaging such as echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance allow accurate diagnosis and have provided new insights for a better definition of the most appropriate timing for intervention. Advances in surgical techniques allow minimally invasive treatment with durable results that last for ≥20 years. Transcatheter therapies can provide good results in select patients who are considered high risk for surgery and have a suitable anatomy; the durability of such repairs is up to 5 years. Translational science has provided new knowledge on the pathophysiology of degenerative mitral regurgitation and may pave the road to the development of medical therapies that could be used to halt the progression of the disease.

Imaging Methods for Evaluation of Chronic Aortic Regurgitation in Adults: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

A global multidisciplinary workshop was convened to discuss the multimodality diagnostic evaluation of aortic regurgitation (AR). Specifically, the focus was on assessment tools for AR severity and analyzing evolving data on the optimal timing of aortic valve intervention. The key concepts from this expert panel are summarized as: 1) echocardiography is the primary imaging modality for assessment of AR severity; however, when data is incongruent or incomplete, cardiac magnetic resonance may be helpful; 2) assessment of left ventricular size and function is crucial in determining the timing of intervention; 3) recent evidence suggests current cutpoints for intervention in asymptomatic severe AR patients requires further scrutiny; 4) left ventricular end-systolic volume index has emerged as an additional parameter that has promise in guiding timing of intervention; and 5) the role of additional factors (including global longitudinal strain, regurgitant fraction, and myocardial extracellular volume) is worthy of future investigation.

Aortic Regurgitation and Heart Failure: Advances in Diagnosis, Management, and Interventions.

This review discusses the contemporary clinical evaluation and management of patients with comorbid aortic regurgitation (AR) and heart failure (HF) (AR-HF). Importantly, as clinical HF exists along the spectrum of AR severity, the present review also details novel strategies to detect early signs of HF before the clinical syndrome ensues. Indeed, there may be a vulnerable cohort of AR patients who benefit from early detection and management of HF. Additionally, while the mainstay of operative management for AR has historically been surgical aortic valve replacement, this review discusses alternate procedures that may be beneficial in high-risk cohorts.

Influence of Cardiac Remodeling on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Aortic Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) outcome studies in aortic regurgitation (AR) are few. It is unclear if volume measurements are beneficial over diameters. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of CMR quantitative thresholds and outcomes in AR patients. METHODS: In a multicenter study, asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe AR on CMR with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated. Primary outcome was development of symptoms or decrease in LVEF to <50%, development of guideline indications for surgery based on LV dimensions, or death under medical management. Secondary outcome was the same as the primary outcome, excluding surgery for remodeling indications. We excluded patients who underwent surgery within 30 days of CMR. Receiver-operating characteristic analyses for the association with outcomes were performed. RESULTS: We studied 458 patients (median age: 60 years; IQR: 46-70 years). During a median follow-up of 2.4 years (IQR: 0.9-5.3 years), 133 events occurred. Optimal thresholds were regurgitant volume of 47 mL and regurgitant fraction of 43%, indexed LV end-systolic (iLVES) volume of 43 mL/m2, indexed LV end-diastolic volume of 109 mL/m2, and iLVES diameter of 2 cm/m2. In multivariable regression analysis, iLVES volume of ≥43 mL/m2 (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.75-3.66; P < 0.001) and indexed LV end-diastolic volume of ≥109 mL/m2 were independently associated with the outcomes and provided additional discrimination improvement over iLVES diameter, whereas iLVES diameter was independently associated with the primary outcome but not the secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic AR patients with preserved LVEF, CMR findings can be used to guide management. CMR-based LVES volume assessment performed favorably compared to LV diameters.

The contribution of amyloid deposition in the aortic valve to calcification and aortic stenosis.

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) and stenosis have a complex pathogenesis, and no therapies are available that can halt or slow their progression. Several studies have shown the presence of apolipoprotein-related amyloid deposits in close proximity to calcified areas in diseased aortic valves. In this Perspective, we explore a possible relationship between amyloid deposits, calcification and the development of aortic valve stenosis. These amyloid deposits might contribute to the amplification of the inflammatory cycle in the aortic valve, including extracellular matrix remodelling and myofibroblast and osteoblast-like cell proliferation. Further investigation in this area is needed to characterize the amyloid deposits associated with CAVD, which could allow the use of antisense oligonucleotides and/or isotype gene therapies for the prevention and/or treatment of CAVD.

Systolic reverse flow derived from 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance in bicuspid aortic valve is associated with aortic dilation and aortic valve stenosis: a cross sectional study in 655 subjects.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is associated with increased risk of aortopathy. In addition to current intervention guidelines, BAV mediated changes in aortic 3D hemodynamics have been considered as risk stratification measures. We aimed to evaluate the association of 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived voxel-wise aortic reverse flow with aortic dilation and to investigate the role of aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and stenosis (AS) on reverse flow in systole and diastole. METHODS: 510 patients with BAV (52 ± 14 years) and 120 patients with trileaflet aortic valve (TAV) (61 ± 11 years) and mid-ascending aorta diameter (MAAD) > 35 mm who underwent CMR including 4D flow CMR were retrospectively included. An age and sex-matched healthy control cohort (n = 25, 49 ± 12 years) was selected. Voxel-wise reverse flow was calculated in the aorta and quantified by the mean reverse flow in the ascending aorta (AAo) during systole and diastole. RESULTS: BAV patients without AS and AR demonstrated significantly increased systolic and diastolic reverse flow (222% and 13% increases respectively, p < 0.01) compared to healthy controls and also had significantly increased systolic reverse flow compared to TAV patients with aortic dilation (79% increase, p < 0.01). In patients with isolated AR, systolic and diastolic AAo reverse flow increased significantly with AR severity (c = - 83.2 and c = - 205.6, p < 0.001). In patients with isolated AS, AS severity was associated with an increase in both systolic (c = - 253.1, p < 0.001) and diastolic (c = - 87.0, p = 0.02) AAo reverse flow. Right and left/right and non-coronary fusion phenotype showed elevated systolic reverse flow (> 17% increase, p < 0.01). Right and non-coronary fusion phenotype showed decreased diastolic reverse flow (> 27% decrease, p < 0.01). MAAD was an independent predictor of systolic (p < 0.001), but not diastolic, reverse flow (p > 0.1). CONCLUSION: 4D flow CMR derived reverse flow associated with BAV was successfully captured even in the absence of AR or AS and in comparison to TAV patients with aortic dilation. Diastolic AAo reverse flow increased with AR severity while AS severity strongly correlated with increased systolic reverse flow in the AAo. Additionally, increasing MAAD was independently associated with increasing systolic AAo reverse flow. Thus, systolic AAo reverse flow may be a valuable metric for evaluating disease severity in future longitudinal outcome studies.

Management Challenges in Patients Younger Than 65 Years With Severe Aortic Valve Disease: A Review.

Importance: The management of aortic valve disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation (AR), in younger adult patients (age <65 years) is complex, and the optimal strategy is often unclear, contingent on multiple anatomic and holistic factors. Observations: Traditional surgical approaches carry significant considerations, including compulsory lifelong anticoagulation for patients who receive a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the risk of structural valvular deterioration and need for subsequent valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR. These factors are magnified in young adults who are considering pregnancy, for whom issues of anticoagulation and valve longevity are heightened. The Ross procedure has emerged as a promising alternative; however, its adoption is limited to highly specialized centers. Valve repair is an option for selected patients with AR. These treatment options offer varying degrees of durability and are associated with different risks and complications, especially for younger adult patients. Patient-centered care from a multidisciplinary valve team allows for discussion of the optimal timing of intervention and the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options. Conclusions and Relevance: The management of severe aortic valve disease in adults younger than 65 years is complex, and there are numerous considerations with each management decision. While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards of care, other options are emerging for selected patients but are not yet generalizable beyond specialized surgical centers. A detailed discussion by members of the multidisciplinary heart team and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.