IMPULSE: the impact of gender on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis across Europe.

AIMS: There is an increasing awareness of gender-related differences in patients with severe aortic stenosis and their outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Data from the IMPULSE registry were analysed. Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were enrolled between March 2015 and April 2017 and stratified by gender. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess the impact of age. RESULTS: Overall, 2171 patients were enrolled, and 48.0% were female. Women were characterised by a higher rate of renal impairment (31.7 vs 23.3%; p<0.001), were at higher surgical risk (EuroSCORE II: 4.5 vs 3.6%; p=0.001) and more often in a critical preoperative state (7.0vs 4.2%; p=0.003). Men had an increased rate of previous cardiac surgery (9.4 vs 4.7%; p<0.001) and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (4.9 vs 1.3%; p<0.001). Concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve disease was substantially more common among women. Symptoms were highly prevalent in both women and men (83.6 vs 77.3%; p<0.001). AVR was planned in 1379 cases. Women were more frequently scheduled to undergo TAVI (49.3 vs 41.0%; p<0.001) and less frequently for SAVR (20.3 vs 27.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present data show that female patients with severe AS have a distinct patient profile and are managed in a different way to males. Gender-based differences in the management of patients with severe AS need to be taken into account more systematically to improve outcomes, especially for women.

Management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the TAVI-era: how recent recommendations are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3.4% of adults aged >75 years suffer from aortic stenosis (AS). Guideline indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) distinguish between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS. The present analysis aims to assess contemporary practice in the treatment of severe AS across Europe and identify characteristics associated with treatment decisions, namely denial of AVR in symptomatic patients and assignment of asymptomatic patients to AVR. METHODS: Participants of the prospective, multinational IMPULSE database of patients with severe AS were grouped according to AS symptoms, and stratified into subgroups based on assignment to/denial of AVR. RESULTS: Of 1608 symptomatic patients, 23.8% did not undergo AVR and underwent medical treatment. Denial was independently associated with multiple factors, including severe frailty (p=0.024); mitral (p=0.002) or tricuspid (p=0.004) regurgitation grade III/IV, and the presence of renal impairment (p=0.017). Of 392 asymptomatic patients, 86.5% had no prespecified indication for AVR. Regardless, 36.3% were assigned to valve replacement. Those with an indexed aortic valve area (AVA; p=0.045) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; p<0.001) below the study median; or with a left ventricular end systolic diameter above the study median (p=0.007) were more likely to be assigned to AVR. CONCLUSIONS: There may be considerable discrepancies between guideline-based recommendations and clinical practice decision-making in the treatment of AS. It appears that guidelines may not fully capture the complete clinical spectrum of patients with AS. Thus, there is a need to find ways to increase their acceptance and the rate of adoption.

Differences in the presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in different European centres.

BACKGROUND: An investigation into differences in the management and treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) between Germany, France and the UK may allow benchmarking of the different healthcare systems and identification of levers for improvement. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of severe AS under management at centres within the IMPULSE and IMPULSE enhanced registries were eligible. RESULTS: Data were collected from 2052 patients (795 Germany; 542 France; 715 UK). Patients in Germany were older (79.8 years), often symptomatic (89.5%) and female (49.8%) and had a lower EF (53.8%) than patients in France and UK. Comorbidities were more common and they had a higher mean Euroscore II.Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was planned within 3 months in 70.2%. This was higher (p<0.001) in Germany than France/ UK. Of those with planned AVR, 82.3% received it within 3 months with a gradual decline (Germany>France> UK; p<0.001). In 253 patients, AVR was not performed, despite planned. Germany had a strong transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) preference (83.2%) versus France/ UK (p<0.001). Waiting time for TAVI was shorter in Germany (24.9 days) and France (19.5 days) than UK (40.3 days).Symptomatic patients were scheduled for an AVR in 79.4% (Germany> France> UK; p<0.001) and performed in 83.6% with a TAVI preference (73.1%). 20.4% of the asymptomatic patients were intervened. CONCLUSION: Patients in Germany had more advanced disease. The rate of intervention within 3 months after diagnosis was startlingly low in the UK. Asymptomatic patients without a formal indication often underwent an intervention in Germany and France.

Impact of selected comorbidities on the presentation and management of aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data regarding the impact of comorbidities on the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. METHODS: Prospective registry of severe patients with AS across 23 centres in nine European countries. RESULTS: Of the 2171 patients, chronic kidney disease (CKD 27.3%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (22.0%), atrial fibrillation (15.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.4%) were the most prevalent comorbidities (49.3% none, 33.9% one and 16.8% ≥2 of these). The decision to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR) was taken in a comparable proportion (67%, 72% and 69%, in patients with 0, 1 and ≥2 comorbidities; p=0.186). However, the decision for TAVI was more common with more comorbidities (35.4%, 54.0% and 57.0% for no, 1 and ≥2; p<0.001), while the decision for surgical AVR (SAVR) was decreased with increasing comorbidity burden (31.9%, 17.4% and 12.3%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients with planned AVRs that were performed within 3 months was significantly higher in patients with 1 or ≥2 comorbidities than in those without (8.7%, 10.0% and 15.7%; p<0.001). Furthermore, the mean time to AVR was significantly shorter in patients with one (30.5 days) or ≥2 comorbidities (30.8 days) than in those without (35.7 days; p=0.012). Patients with reduced LVEF tended to be offered an AVR more frequently and with a shorter delay while patients with CKD were less frequently treated. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities in severe patients with AS affect the presentation and management of patients with severe AS. TAVI was offered more often than SAVR and performed within a shorter time period.

Facilitated Data Relay and Effects on Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis in Europe.

Background Many patients with severe aortic stenosis are referred late with advanced symptoms or inappropriately denied intervention. The objective was to investigate whether a structured communication to referring physicians (facilitated data relay) might improve the rate and timeliness of intervention. Methods and Results A prospective registry of consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis at 23 centers in 9 European countries with transcatheter as well as surgical aortic valve replacement being available was performed. The study included a 3-month documentation of the status quo (phase A), a 6-month intervention phase (implementing facilitated data relay), and a 3-month documentation of a legacy effect (phase-B). Two thousand one hundred seventy-one patients with severe aortic stenoses were enrolled (phase A: 759; intervention: 905; phase-B: 507). Mean age was 77.9±10.0 years, and 80% were symptomatic, including 52% with severe symptoms. During phase A, intervention was planned in 464/696 (67%), 138 (20%) were assigned to watchful waiting, 8 (1%) to balloon aortic valvuloplasty, 60 (9%) were listed as not for active treatment, and in 26 (4%), no decision was made. Three hundred sixty-three of 464 (78%) patients received the planned intervention within 3 months. Timeliness of the intervention improved as shown by the higher number of aortic valve replacements performed within 3 months (59% versus 51%, P=0.002) and a significant decrease in the time to intervention (36±38 versus 30±33 days, P=0.002). Conclusions A simple, low-cost, facilitated data relay improves timeliness of treatment for patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis, resulting in a shorter time to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This effect was mainly driven by a significant improvement in timeliness of intervention in transcatheter aortic valve replacement but not surgical aortic valve replacement. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02241447.

Symptoms, disease severity and treatment of adults with a new diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Contemporary data on patients with previously undiagnosed severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. We aimed to address this gap by gathering data from consecutive patients diagnosed with severe AS on echocardiography. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, multinational, registry in 23 tertiary care hospitals across 9 European countries. Patients with a diagnosis of severe AS were included using echocardiography (aortic valve area (AVA) <1 cm2, indexed AVA <0.6 cm2/m2, maximum jet-velocity (Vmax) >4 m/s and/or mean transvalvular gradient >40 mm Hg). RESULTS: The 2171 participants had a mean age of 77.9 years and 48.0% were female. The mean AVA was 0.73 cm2, Vmax4.3 m/s and mean gradient 47.1 mm Hg; 62.1% had left ventricular hypertrophy and 27.3% an ejection fraction (EF) <50%. 1743 patients (80.3%) were symptomatic (shortness-of-breath 91.0%; dizziness 30.2%, chest pain 28.9%). Patients had a EuroSCORE II of 4.0; 25.3% had a creatinine clearance <50 mL/min, and 3.2% had an EF <30%. Symptomatic patients were older and had more comorbidities than asymptomatic patients. Despite European Society of Cardiology 2017 valvular heart disease guideline class I recommendation, in only 76.2% a decision was made for an intervention (transcatheter 50.4%, surgical aortic valve replacement 25.8%). In asymptomatic patients, 57.7% with a class I/IIa indication were scheduled for a procedure, while 36.3% patients without an indication had their valve replaced. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with severe AS presented at an advanced disease stage. Management of severe AS remained suboptimal in a significant proportion of contemporary patients with severe AS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02241447;Results.

Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valves.

BACKGROUND: Stentless aortic bioprostheses have been advocated as being superior to conventional bioprosthetic valves, with benefits including superior left ventricular mass regression and larger effective orifice area. Several high-quality randomized studies now exist on this topic, and we sought to summarize them by meta-analysis. METHODS: The literature was searched from 1995 to 2006, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CRISP, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane database. Experts were also contacted and reference lists searched. Studies were combined using the inverse variance fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed and a sensitivity analysis performed. Publication bias was also investigated. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that included 919 patients in which the Freedom (Sorin Biomedica Cardio, Via Crescentino, Italy), Freestyle (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Prima Plus (Edwards Life Sciences, Irvine, CA) and the Toronto and Biocor (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN) valves were used. The mean aortic valve gradient was lower in the stentless groups, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -3.57 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.36 to -2.78; p < 0.01). The left ventricular mass index was significantly lower in the stentless groups at 6 months (WMD, -6.42; 95% CI, -11.63 to -1.21; p = 0.02), but this improvement disappeared after 12 months (WMD, 1.19; 95% CI, -4.15 to 6.53; p = 0.66). The weighted mean increase in cross-clamp time was 23 minutes, and the increase in bypass time was 29 minutes with a stentless valve. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that stentless aortic valves provide an improved level of left ventricular mass regression at 6 months, reduced aortic gradients, and an improved effective orifice area index, at the expense of a 23-minute longer cross-clamp time and a 29-minute longer bypass time.