Life Expectancy of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in Relation to Age and Surgical Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding shorter life expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Among 3815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, there were 1469 patients (initial AVR: n = 647; conservative strategy: n = 822) with low surgical risk, 1642 patients (initial AVR: n = 433; conservative strategy: n = 1209) with intermediate surgical risk, and 704 patients (initial AVR: n = 117; conservative strategy: n = 587) with high surgical risk. Among 1163 patients who actually underwent surgical AVR as the initial strategy, patients were divided into 4 groups according to age <65 years (n = 185), 65 to 74 (n = 394), 75 to 80 (n = 345), and >80 (n = 239). The expected survival of the general Japanese population was obtained from the Statistics Bureau of Japan. The surgical risk was estimated using The Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 3.7 years. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death were significantly lower in the initial AVR strategy than in the initial conservative strategy across the 3 STS groups. Shorter life expectancy after surgical AVR was seen especially in younger patients. The observed mortality in low-risk patients was comparable to the expected mortality across all the age-groups, while intermediate-risk patients aged <75 years, and high-risk patients across all age-groups had higher mortality compared with the expected mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The risk stratification according to age and STS score might be useful to estimate shorter life expectancy after AVR, and these findings have implications for decision making in the choice of surgical or transcatheter AVR.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: There has been no previous report evaluating the long impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical outcomes stratified by the initial management [conservative or aortic valve replacement (AVR)] strategies of severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: We analyzed 3815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry. Patients with AF were defined as those having a history of AF when severe AS was found on the index echocardiography. The primary outcome measure was a composite of aortic valve-related death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in patients with AF than in those without AF (44.2 % versus 33.2 %, HR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.35-1.76). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of AF relative to no AF remained significant (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.16-1.56). The magnitude of excess adjusted risk of AF for the primary outcome measure was greater in the initial AVR stratum (N = 1197, HR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.36-2.78) than in the conservative stratum (N = 2618, HR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.08-1.47) with a significant interaction (p = 0.04). In patients with AF, there was a significant excess adjusted risk of paroxysmal AF (N = 254) relative to chronic AF (N = 528) for the primary outcome measure (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.01-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS, concomitant AF was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of the initial management strategies. In those patients with conservative strategy, paroxysmal AF is stronger risk factor than chronic AF.

Clinical outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk Japanese patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Two randomized control trials demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with 1-2 year clinical outcomes comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, no previous study has reported the clinical outcomes after SAVR in Japanese patients with low surgical risk. From 3815 consecutive patients enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry, we retrieved 220 patients who underwent SAVR in reference to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the PARTNER 3 trial. Age and surgical risk score in the current study population were comparable to those in the PARTNER 3 trial (Age: 75 years versus 74 years, and STS-PROM score: 2.3 versus 1.9). The cumulative incidence of a composite all-cause death or stroke was comparable between the current study population and the SAVR patients in the PARTNER 3 trial both at 30-day (2.3% versus 3.3%), and at 1-year (4.1% versus 4.9%). The clinical outcomes of SAVR in low surgical risk patients with severe AS selected from a real world Japanese registry according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the PARTNER 3 trial was favorable and numerically comparable to those of SAVR patients in the PARTNER 3 trial.

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.

Impact of home- and community-based services in the long-term care insurance system on outcomes of patients with acute heart failure: Insights from the Kitakawachi Clinical Background and Outcome of Heart Failure Registry.

AIM: In Japan, the long-term care insurance (LTCI) system is important for elderly people living at home; however, no clinical studies have revealed a relationship between home- or community-based services and outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with AHF enrolled between April 2015 and August 2017. Patients aged ≥65 years with LTCI were divided into those receiving home- and community-based services (service users) and without home and community-based services (service non-users). The endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint, which included all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure after discharge. Subgroup analyses were performed for elderly patients (<85 years) or super-elderly patients (≥85 years). RESULTS: The study participants were eligible for LTCI two times more than community-dwelling people were. At the 1-year follow-up period, the rate of the composite endpoint showed no significant difference between service users and service non-users among all patients or super-elderly patients. However, in elderly patients, the rate of the composite endpoint was significantly lower among service users than service non-users. The difference was independently maintained even after adjustments for differences in comorbidities or in social backgrounds (adjusted hazard ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.99, and adjusted hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, adverse events following discharge of patients with AHF who used home- and community-based services were prevented only in elderly patients, not in super-elderly patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 967-973.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Heart Failure Patients With Long-Term Care Insurance　- Insights From the Kitakawachi Clinical Background and Outcome of Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, the long-term care insurance (LTCI) system has an important role in helping elderly people, but there have been no clinical studies that have examined the relationship between the LTCI and prognosis for patients with acute heart failure (HF).Methods and Results:This registry was a prospective multicenter cohort, 1,253 patients were enrolled and 965 patients with acute HF aged ≥65 years were comprised the study group. The composite endpoint included all-cause death and hospitalization for HF after discharge. We divided the patients into 4 groups: (i) patients without LTCI, (ii) patients requiring support level 1 or 2, (iii) patients with care level 1 or 2, and (iv) patients with care levels 3-5. The Kaplan-Meier analysis identified a lower rate of the composite endpoint in group (i) than in the other groups. After adjusting for potentially confounding effects using a Cox proportional regression model, the hazard ratio (HR) of the composite endpoint increased significantly in groups (iii) and (iv) (adjusted HR, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-1.98 and adjusted HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.23-2.14, respectively) when compared with group (i). However, there was no significant difference between groups (i) and (ii). CONCLUSIONS: The level of LTCI was associated with a higher risk of the composite endpoint after discharge in acute HF patients.

A risk prediction model in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis: CURRENT-AS risk score.

AIMS: Early aortic valve replacement (AVR) might be beneficial in selected high-risk asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), considering their poor prognosis when managed conservatively. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical scoring system to predict AS-related events within 1 year after diagnosis in asymptomatic severe AS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1274 asymptomatic severe AS patients derived from a retrospective multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients with severe AS in Japan (CURRENT AS registry), who were managed conservatively and completed 1-year follow-up without AVR. From a randomly assigned derivation set (N = 849), we developed CURRENT AS risk score for the AS-related event (a composite of AS-related death and heart failure hospitalization) within 1 year using a multivariable logistic regression model. The risk score comprised independent risk predictors including left ventricular ejection fraction <60%, haemoglobin ≤11.0 g/dL, chronic lung disease (2 points), diabetes mellitus, haemodialysis, and any concomitant valve disease (1 point). The predictive accuracy of the model was good with the area under the curve of 0.79 and 0.77 in the derivation and validation sets (N = 425). In the validation set, the 1-year incidence of AS-related events was much higher in patients with score ≥2 than in patients with score ≤1 (Score 0: 2.2%, Score 1: 1.9%, Score 2: 13.4%, Score 3: 14.3%, and Score ≥4: 22.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The CURRENT-AS risk score integrating clinical and echocardiographic factors well-predicted the risk of AS-related events at 1 year in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and was validated internally.

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.

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.

Anemia in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Prognostic impact of anemia complicating severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear. We assessed the impact of anemia on cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in 3403 patients enrolled in the CURRENT AS registry. 835 patients (25%) had mild (hemoglobin 11.0-12.9 g/dl for men/11.0-11.9 g/dl for women) and 1282 patients (38%) had moderate/severe anemia (Hb ≤ 10.9 g/dl) at diagnosis of severe AS. Mild and moderate/severe anemia were associated with significantly increased risks relative to no anemia (hemoglobin ≥13.0 g/dl for men/≥12.0 g/dl for women) for the primary outcome measure (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) in the entire population [hazard ratio (HR): 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.57 and HR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.31-1.87, respectively] and in the conservative management stratum (HR: 1.73; 95%CI: 1.40-2.13 and HR: 2.05; 95%CI: 1.69-2.47, respectively). Even in the initial aortic valve replacement stratum, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly increased risk for the primary outcome measure (HR: 2.12; 95%CI: 1.44-3.11). Moreover, moderate/severe anemia was associated with significantly increased risk for major bleeding while under conservative management (HR: 1.93; 95%CI: 1.21-3.06). These results warrant further study to explore whether better management of anemia would lead to improvement of clinical outcomes.

Prognostic Impact of Aortic Valve Area in Conservatively Managed Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm2, N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm2 ≥AVA >0.6 cm2, N=465; and group 3: AVA ≤0.6 cm2, N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ≥60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 3 and group 2 relative to group 1 for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio, 2.21, 95% CI, 1.56-3.11, P<0.001; and hazard ratio, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.01-1.78, P=0.04, respectively). Conclusions AVA ≤0.6 cm2 would be a useful marker to identify those high-risk patients with asymptomatic severe AS, who might benefit from early AVR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.umin.ac.jp . Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.

A decline in activities of daily living due to acute heart failure is an independent risk factor of hospitalization for heart failure and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Although activities of daily living (ADL) are recognized as being pertinent in averting relevant readmission of heart failure (HF) and mortality, little research has been conducted to assess a correlation between a decline in ADL and outcomes in HF patients. METHODS: The Kitakawachi Clinical Background and Outcome of Heart Failure Registry is a prospective, multicenter, community-based cohort of HF patients. We categorized the patients into four types of ADL: independent outdoor walking, independent indoor walking, indoor walking with assistance, and abasia. We defined a decline in ADL (decline ADL) as downgrade of ADL and others (non-decline ADL) as preservation of ADL before discharge compared with admission. RESULTS: Among 1253 registered patients, 923 were eligible, comprising 98 (10.6%) with decline ADL and 825 (89.4%) with non-decline ADL. Decline ADL exhibited a higher risk of hospitalization for HF and mortality compared with non-decline ADL. A multivariate analysis revealed that decline ADL emerged as an independent risk factor of hospitalization for HF [hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.96; p=0.046] and mortality (HR, 1.95; 95% CI: 1.23-2.99; p<0.01). Although 66.3% of patients with decline ADL were registered for long-term care insurance, few received daycare services (32.7%) or home-visit medical services (8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Decline in ADL is a predictor of hospitalization for HF and mortality in HF patients.

B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), who were not referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: We used data from a Japanese multicentre registry, the Contemporary outcomes after sURgery and medical tREatmeNT in patients with severe Aortic Stenosis Registry, which enrolled 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Of those, 387 asymptomatic patients who were not referred for AVR without left ventricular dysfunction and very severe AS were subdivided into four groups based on their BNP levels (BNP<100 pg/mL, n=201; 100≤BNP<200 pg/mL, n=94; 200≤BNP<300 pg/mL, n=42 and BNP>300 pg/mL, n=50). RESULTS: The cumulative 5-year incidence of AS-related events (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalisation) was incrementally higher with increasing BNP level (14.2%, 29.6%, 46.3% and 47.0%, p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk for AS-related events was incrementally greater with increasing BNP levels (HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 0.97 to 3.98, p=0.06; HR: 3.59, 95% CI: 1.55 to 8.32, p=0.03 and HR: 7.38, 95% CI: 3.21 to 16.9, p<0.001, respectively). Notably, asymptomatic patients with BNPlevels of <100 pg/mL had an event rate of only 2.1% at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Increased BNP level was associated with a higher risk for AS-related adverse events in patients with asymptomatic severe AS with normal left ventricular ejection fraction who were not referred for AVR. Asymptomatic patients with BNP levels of <100 pg/mL had relatively low event rate, who might be safely followed with watchful waiting strategy. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000012140.

Asymptomatic versus Symptomatic Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

It is unknown how much different are the clinical outcomes between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In the CURRENT AS registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS, we compared the long-term outcomes between 1808 asymptomatic and 1215 symptomatic patients (exertional dyspnea: N = 813, syncope: N = 136, and angina: N = 266) without heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Symptomatic patients had greater AS severity, and more depressed left ventricular function than asymptomatic patients without much difference in other baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 62% of symptomatic patients, and 38% of asymptomatic patients. The cumulative 5-year incidences for the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or HF hospitalization) was higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (32.3% versus 27.6%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for AVR and other variables, the greater risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients for the primary outcome measure was significant (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.41-1.96, P < 0.001). In conclusions, the excess risk of symptomatic relative to asymptomatic patients with severe AS for the aortic valve-related event was significant. However, the prevalence of AVR in symptomatic patients was not optimal.

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.

Causes of Death in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Observational study.

Whether patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) die because of AS-related causes is an important issue for the management of these patients. We used data from CURRENT AS registry, a Japanese multicenter registry, to assess the causes of death in severe AS patients and to identify the factors associated with non-cardiac mortality. We enrolled 3815 consecutive patients with a median follow-up of 1176 days; the 1449 overall deaths comprised 802 (55.3%) from cardiac and 647 (44.7%) from non-cardiac causes. Heart failure (HF) (25.7%) and sudden death (13.0%) caused the most cardiac deaths, whereas infection (13.0%) and malignancy (11.1%) were the main non-cardiac causes. According to treatment strategies, infection was the most common cause of non-cardiac death, followed by malignancy, in both the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) cohort (N = 1197), and the conservative management cohort (N = 2618). Both non-cardiac factors (age, male, body mass index <22, diabetes, prior history of stroke, dialysis, anemia, and malignancy) and cardiac factors (atrial fibrillation, ejection fraction <68%, and the initial AVR strategy) were associated with non-cardiac death. These findings highlight the importance of close monitoring of non-cardiac comorbidities, as well as HF and sudden death, to improve the mortality rate of severe AS patients.

Prognostic Impact of Peak Aortic Jet Velocity in Conservatively Managed Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Observation From the CURRENT AS Registry.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the risk stratification based on peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the study population consisted of 1075 conservatively managed patients with Vmax ≥4.0 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on Vmax (group 1, 4.0 ≤ Vmax <4.5 m/s, N=550; group 2, 4.5 ≤ Vmax <5 m/s, N=279; and group 3, Vmax ≥5 m/s, N=246). Cumulative 5-year incidence of AS-related events (aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with increasing Vmax (entire population; 38.0%, 49.4%, and 62.8%, P<0.001; symptomatic patients; 55.7%, 60.9%, and 72.2%, P=0.008; and asymptomatic patients; 29.4%, 38.9%, and 47.7%, P=0.005). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 2 and group 3 relative to group 1 for AS-related events remained significant (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.81; P=0.02, and hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; P=0.002, respectively). The effect size of group 3 relative to group 1 for AS-related events in asymptomatic patients (N=479) was similar to that in symptomatic patients (N=596; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.01-2.52; P=0.047, and hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40, P=0.008, respectively), and there was no significant overall interaction between the symptomatic status and the effect of the Vmax categories on AS-related events (interaction, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In conservatively managed severe AS patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, increasing Vmax was associated with incrementally higher risk for AS-related events. However, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the AS-related events remained very high even in asymptomatic patients with less greater Vmax.

High- Versus Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: Demographics, Clinical Outcomes, and Effects of the Initial Aortic Valve Replacement Strategy on Long-Term Prognosis.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable debate on the management of patients with low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (LG-AS), defined as aortic valve area <1 cm2 with peak aortic jet velocity ≤4.0 m/s, and mean aortic pressure gradient ≤40 mm Hg. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CURRENT AS registry (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis), there were 2097 patients (initial aortic valve replacement [AVR] strategy: n=977, and conservative strategy: n=1120) with high-gradient severe aortic stenosis (HG-AS) and 1712 patients (initial AVR strategy: n=219, and conservative strategy: n=1493) with LG-AS. AVR was more frequently performed in HG-AS patients than in LG-AS patients (60% versus 28%) during the entire follow-up. In the comparison between the initial AVR and conservative groups, the propensity score-matched cohorts were developed in both HG-AS (n=887 for each group) and LG-AS (n=218 for each group) strata. The initial AVR strategy when compared with the conservative strategy was associated with markedly lower risk for a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization in both HG-AS and LG-AS strata (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.37; P<0.001 and hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.67; P<0.001, respectively). Among 1358 patients with LG-AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, the initial AVR strategy was associated with a better outcome than the conservative strategy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.59; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The initial AVR strategy was associated with better outcomes than the conservative strategy in both HG-AS and LG-AS patients, although AVR was less frequently performed in LG-AS patients than in HG-AS patients. The favorable effect of initial AVR strategy was also seen in patients with LG-AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Unique identifier: UMIN000012140.

Sex Differences in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Clinical Presentation and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the sex differences in the prevalence, clinical presentation, and prognosis of aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:A total of 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS were enrolled in the multicenter CURRENT AS registry between January 2003 and December 2011. The registry included 1,443 men (38%) and 2,372 women (62%). Women were much older than men (79±10 vs. 75±10 years, P<0.0001), and the ratio of women to men increased with age. The cumulative 5-year incidence of all-cause death was significantly higher in men than in women (47% vs. 41%, P=0.003), although women were more symptomatic and much older. The 5-year mortality was similar between men and women at age <65 years (16% vs. 15%, P=0.99), whereas it was significantly higher in men than in women at age ≥65 years (65-74 years, 38% vs. 19%, P<0.0001; 75-84 years, 55% vs. 34%, P<0.0001; ≥85 years: 82% vs. 72%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A large Japanese multicenter registry of consecutive patients with severe AS included a much higher proportion of women than men, with the female:male sex ratio increasing with age. The 5-year mortality rate of women was lower than that of men. Lower 5-year mortality rates in women were consistently seen across all age groups >65 years.

Clinical Characteristics and Social Frailty of Super-Elderly Patients With Heart Failure　- The Kitakawachi Clinical Background and Outcome of Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Social background is important in preventing admission/readmission of heart failure (HF) patients. However, few clinical studies have been conducted to assess the social background of these patients, especially elderly patients.Methods and Results:The Kitakawachi Clinical Background and Outcome of Heart Failure (KICKOFF) Registry is a prospective multicenter community-based cohort of HF patients, established in April 2015. We compared the clinical characteristics and social background of the super-elderly group (≥85 years old) and the non-super-elderly group (<85 years old). This study included 647 patients; 11.8% of the super-elderly patients were living alone, 15.6% were living with only a partner, and of these, only 66.7% had the support of other family members. The super-elderly group had less control over their diet and drug therapies than the non-super-elderly group. Most patients in the super-elderly group were registered for long-term care insurance (77.4%); 73.5% of the super-elderly patients could walk independently before admission, but only 55.5% could walk independently at discharge, whereas 94% of the non-super-elderly patients could walk independently before admission and 89.4% could walk independently at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The KICKOFF Registry provides unique detailed social background information of Japanese patients with HF. Super-elderly patients are at serious risk of social frailty; they need the support of other people and their ability to perform activities of daily living decline when hospitalized.