Impact of early versus class I-triggered surgery on postoperative survival in severe aortic regurgitation: An observational study from the Aortic Valve Insufficiency and Ascending Aorta Aneurysm International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Class I triggers for severe and chronic aortic regurgitation surgery mainly rely on symptoms or systolic dysfunction, resulting in a negative outcome despite surgical correction. Therefore, US and European guidelines now advocate for earlier surgery. We sought to determine whether earlier surgery leads to improved postoperative survival. METHODS: We evaluated the postoperative survival of patients who underwent surgery for severe aortic regurgitation in the international multicenter registry for aortic valve surgery, Aortic Valve Insufficiency and Ascending Aorta Aneurysm International Registry, over a median follow-up of 37 months. RESULTS: Among 1899 patients (aged 49 ± 15 years, 85% were male), 83% and 84% had class I indication according to the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology, respectively, and most were offered repair surgery (92%). Twelve patients (0.6%) died after surgery, and 68 patients died within 10 years after the procedure. Heart failure symptoms (hazard ratio, 2.60 [1.20-5.66], P = .016) and either left ventricular end-systolic diameter greater than 50 mm or left ventricular end-systolic diameter index greater than 25 mm/m2 (hazard ratio, 1.64 [1.05-2.55], P = .030) predicted survival independently over and above age, gender, and bicuspid phenotype. Therefore, patients who underwent surgery based on any class I trigger had worse adjusted survival. However, patients who underwent surgery while meeting early imaging triggers (left ventricular end-systolic diameter index 20-25 mm/m2 or left ventricular ejection fraction 50% to 55%) had no significant outcome penalty. CONCLUSIONS: In this international registry of severe aortic regurgitation, surgery when meeting class I triggers led to postoperative outcome penalty compared with earlier triggers (left ventricular end-systolic diameter index 20-25 mm/m2 or ventricular ejection fraction 50%-55%). This observation, which applies to expert centers where aortic valve repair is feasible, should encourage the global use of repair techniques and the conduction of randomized trials.

Multivendor comparison of global and regional 2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking strains vs tissue tagging at 3T.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) 2D feature tracking (FT) left ventricular (LV) myocardial strain has seen widespread use to characterize myocardial deformation. Yet, validation of CMR FT measurements remains scarce, particularly for regional strain. Therefore, we aimed to perform intervendor comparison of 3 different FT software against tagging. METHODS: In 61 subjects (18 healthy subjects, 18 patients with chronic myocardial infarction, 15 with dilated cardiomyopathy, and 10 with LV hypertrophy due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or aortic stenosis) were prospectively compared global (G) and regional transmural peak-systolic Lagrangian longitudinal (LS), circumferential (CS) and radial strains (RS) by 3 FT software (cvi42, Segment, and Tomtec) among each other and with tagging at 3T. We also evaluated the ability of regional LS, CS, and RS by different FT software vs tagging to identify late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in the 18 infarct patients. RESULTS: GLS and GCS by all 3 software had an excellent agreement among each other (ICC = 0.94-0.98 for GLS and ICC = 0.96-0.98 for GCS respectively) and against tagging (ICC = 0.92-0.94 for GLS and ICC = 0.88-0.91 for GCS respectively), while GRS showed inconsistent agreement between vendors (ICC 0.10-0.81). For regional LS, the agreement was good (ICC = 0.68) between 2 vendors but less vs the 3rd (ICC 0.50-0.59) and moderate to poor (ICC 0.44-0.47) between all three FT software and tagging. Also, for regional CS agreement between 2 software was higher (ICC = 0.80) than against the 3rd (ICC = 0.58-0.60), and both better agreed with tagging (ICC = 0.70-0.72) than the 3rd (ICC = 0.57). Regional RS had more variation in the agreement between methods ranging from good (ICC = 0.75) to poor (ICC = 0.05). Finally, the accuracy of scar detection by regional strains differed among the 3 FT software. While the accuracy of regional LS was similar, CS by one software was less accurate (AUC 0.68) than tagging (AUC 0.80, p < 0.006) and RS less accurate (AUC 0.578) than the other two (AUC 0.76 and 0.73, p < 0.02) to discriminate segments with LGE. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm good agreement of CMR FT and little intervendor difference for GLS and GCS evaluation, with variable agreement for GRS. For regional strain evaluation, intervendor difference was larger, especially for RS, and the diagnostic performance varied more substantially among different vendors for regional strain analysis.