Recent updates on asymptomatic and symptomatic aortic valve stenosis its diagnosis, pathogenesis, management and future perspectives.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is very common in mid-aged and elderly patients, and it has been reported to have a negative impact on both short and long-term survival with a high mortality rate. The current study identified methods of diagnosis, incidence, and causes of AS, pathogenesis, intervention and management and future perspectives of Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Aortic stenosis. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL, using the Mesh terms and key words "Aortic stenosis", "diagnostic criteria", "pathogenesis", "incidence and causes of AS" and" intervention and management strategies". Studies were retained for review after meeting strict inclusion criteria that included studies evaluating Asymptomatic and Symptomatic AS. Studies were excluded if duplicate publication, overlap of patients, subgroup studies of a main study, lack of data on AS severity, case reports and letters to editors. Forty-five articles were selected for inclusion. Incidence of AS across the studies ranged from 3 % to 7 %. Many factors have been associated with incidence and increased risk of AS, highest incidence of AS was described after aortic valve calcification, rheumatic heart disease, degenerative aortic valve disease, bicuspid aortic valve and other factors. AS is common and can be predicted by aortic root calcification volume, rheumatic heart disease, degenerative aortic valve disease, bicuspid aortic valve. Intervention and management for AS patients is a complex decision that takes into consideration multiple factors. On the other hand, there is not enough progress in preventive pharmacotherapy to slow the progression of AS.

An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care. METHODS: This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter. RESULTS: 30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality. CONCLUSIONS: AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Fetal aortic valvuloplasty as the first step in a complex therapeutic strategy.

BACKGROUND: Fetal aortic valvuloplasty (FAV) is proposed to prevent hypoplastic left heart syndrome due to fetal critical aortic stenosis. OBJECTIVE: to report our experience on FAV as the first step in a complex therapeutic strategy. METHOD: Series of patients with FAV over an 18-year period. RESULTS: 27 FAVs were performed in 26 fetuses, with technical success in 82% (22/27) and periprocedural fetal demise in 22% (6/27), decreasing to 15% in the second half-cohort. Loss to follow-up was due to birth or postnatal therapy in other centers (5) and termination of pregnancy (1), A normal-sized LV at birth was observed in 46% (6/13), 4 neonates underwent aortic valvuloplasty and 2 cardiac surgeries, with 5/6 achieving biventricular circulation at 28 days, and 3 transplant-free survival at mid-term follow-up. The 7/13 born with a borderline LV underwent LV rehabilitation strategy, with survival at 28 days in 4/7 and at mid-term in 3: one with biventricular circulation, one with a ventricle-and-a-half repair, and one lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: FAV was feasible in most cases, with no maternal complications, and biventricular circulation at 28 days in ∼40% of survivors. After FAV, a diverse range of postnatal cardiac interventions are performed, reflecting the challenging innovation in current cardiovascular therapy.

Elevated Lp(a): Guidance for Identifying and Managing Patients.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a unique low-density lipoprotein-like lipoprotein that is considered an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis. The Lp(a) molecule also contains apolipoprotein A and apolipoprotein B, which collectively promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and inflammation. Lp(a) is highly genetic and minimally responsive to nonpharmacological measures. Lp(a) serum levels ≥125 nmol/L are associated with increased ASCVD risk, but this threshold has not been accepted universally. Elevated Lp(a) is the most common genetic dyslipidemia affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Certain currently available lipid-lowering drugs, including the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 therapies, produce moderate reductions in Lp(a); however, none are indicated for the treatment of elevated Lp(a). There are currently four investigational RNA-based therapeutic agents that reduce Lp(a) by 70% to 100%. Two of these agents are being evaluated for ASCVD risk reduction in adequately powered outcomes trials, with results expected in 2 to 3 years. Until such therapies become available and demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes, strategies for elevated Lp(a) primarily involve early and intensive ASCVD risk factor management.

[Update Valvular Heart Disease: Heart Team Decision-Making Based on Patient Examples]. / Update valvuläre Herzkrankheiten: Entscheidungen im interdisziplinären Herzteam anhand von Beispielen.

INTRODUCTION: In Europe, mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis are the most common valve lesions requiring interventions. In advanced stages, these valve pathologies affect patients' quality of life and prognosis. The prevalence of mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis is increasing with age. In view of an aging population and the comorbidities associated with age, these valve defects represent an increasing challenge to health care providers. Nowadays, surgical as well as catheter-based treatment options are available to treat affected patients. Therapeutic strategies suitable to the individual patient should be discussed in interdisciplinary heart teams. The aim of the present article is to give an overview of possible guideline-conform heart team decisions based on patient examples.

Resultados intrahospitalarios tras tratamiento percutáneo frente a quirúrgico en pacientes con estenosis aórtica y enfermedad arterial coronaria concomitante / In-hospital outcomes following percutaneous versus surgical intervention in the treatment of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease

Introducción y objetivos: La enfermedad coronaria (EC) es frecuente en pacientes con estenosis aórtica; sin embargo, la estrategia terapéutica óptima sigue siendo objeto de debate. Investigamos los resultados periprocedimiento en pacientes sometidos a implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica con intervención coronaria percutánea (TAVI/ICP) frente al recambio valvular aórtico con injerto de derivación de arteria coronaria (RVAo/CABG) en pacientes con estenosis aórtica con EC.Métodos: Con los datos de alta del Sistema Nacional de Salud Español, se identificaron 6.194 pacientes (5.217 RVAo/CABG y 977 TAVI/ICP) entre 2016 y 2019. Se realizó un análisis emparejado por puntuación de propensión ajustado por características basales. El objetivo primario fue la mortalidad hospitalaria, Los objetivos secundarios fueron las complicaciones hospitalarias y rehospitalización cardiovascular a 30 días.Resultados: Tras el emparejamiento, se seleccionaron 774 parejas de pacientes. La mortalidad total hospitalaria fue más frecuente en el grupo quirúrgico (3,4 frente a 9,4%, p <0,001), al igual que el ictus periprocedimiento (0,9 frente a 2,2%, p=0,004), fallo renal agudo (4,3 frente a 16,0%, p <0,002), transfusión (9,6 frente a 21,1%, p <0,001) y neumonía intrahospitalaria (0,1 frente a 1,7%, p=0,001). La implantación de marcapasos permanente fue más frecuente en el tratamiento percutáneo (12,0 frente a 5,7%, p <0,001). Los centros de menor volumen (< 130 procedimientos por año) tuvieron mayor mortalidad hospitalaria para ambos procedimientos: TAVI/ICP (3,6 frente a 2,9%, p <0,001) y RVAo/CABG (9,3 frente a 6,8%, p <0,001). La rehospitalización cardiovascular a 30 días no difirió entre los grupos.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among aortic stenosis patients; however the optimal therapeutic strategy remains debated. We investigated periprocedural outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVI/PCI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR/CABG) for aortic stenosis with CAD.Methods: Using discharge data from the Spanish National Health System, we identified 6194 patients (5217 SAVR/CABG and 977 TAVI/PCI) between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day cardiovascular readmission.Results: Matching resulted in 774 pairs. In-hospital all-cause mortality was more common in the SAVR/CABG group (3.4% vs 9.4%, P <.001) as was periprocedural stroke (0.9% vs 2.2%; P=.004), acute kidney injury (4.3% vs 16.0%, P <.001), blood transfusion (9.6% vs 21.1%, P <.001), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (0.1% vs 1.7%, P=.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher for matched TAVI/PCI (12.0% vs 5.7%, P <.001). Lower volume centers (< 130 procedures/y) had higher in-hospital all-cause mortality for both procedures: TAVI/PCI (3.6% vs 2.9%, P <.001) and SAVR/CABG (8.3 vs 6.8%, P <.001). Thirty-day cardiovascular readmission did not differ between groups.Conclusions: In this large contemporary nationwide study, percutaneous management of aortic stenosis and CAD with TAVI/PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgical intervention. Higher volume centers had less in-hospital mortality in both groups. Dedicated national high-volume heart centers warrant further investigation.(AU)

Comparison of different percutaneous revascularisation timing strategies in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients remains unknown. AIMS: We sought to compare different PCI timing strategies in TAVI patients. METHODS: The REVASC-TAVI registry is an international registry including patients undergoing TAVI with significant, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) at preprocedural workup. In this analysis, patients scheduled to undergo PCI before, after or concomitantly with TAVI were included. The main endpoints were all-cause death and a composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or rehospitalisation for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 2 years. Outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,603 patients were included. PCI was performed before, after or concomitantly with TAVI in 65.6% (n=1,052), 9.8% (n=157) or 24.6% (n=394), respectively. At 2 years, all-cause death was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (6.8% vs 20.1% vs 20.6%; p<0.001). Likewise, the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (17.4% vs 30.4% vs 30.0%; p=0.003). Results were confirmed at landmark analyses considering events from 0 to 30 days and from 31 to 720 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and stable coronary artery disease scheduled for TAVI, performance of PCI after TAVI seems to be associated with improved 2-year clinical outcomes compared with other revascularisation timing strategies. These results need to be confirmed in randomised clinical trials.

The common pathobiology between coronary artery disease and calcific aortic stenosis: Evidence and clinical implications.

Calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAS), the most prevalent valvular disease worldwide, has been demonstrated to frequently occur in conjunction with coronary artery disease (CAD), the third leading cause of death worldwide. Atherosclerosis has been proven to be the main mechanism involved in CAS and CAD. Evidence also exists that obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome (among others), along with specific genes involved in lipid metabolism, are important risk factors for CAS and CAD, leading to common pathological processes of atherosclerosis in both diseases. Therefore, it has been suggested that CAS could also be used as a marker of CAD. An understanding of the commonalities between the two conditions may improve therapeutic strategies for treating both CAD and CAS. This review explores the common pathogenesis and disparities between CAS and CAD, alongside their etiology. It also discusses clinical implications and provides evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of both diseases.

Pathophysiology, emerging techniques for the assessment and novel treatment of aortic stenosis.

Our perspectives on aortic stenosis (AS) are changing. Evolving from the traditional thought of a passive degenerative disease, developing a greater understanding of the condition's mechanistic underpinning has shifted the paradigm to an active disease process. This advancement from the 'wear and tear' model is a result of the growing economic and health burden of AS, particularly within industrialised countries, prompting further research. The pathophysiology of calcific AS (CAS) is complex, yet can be characterised similarly to that of atherosclerosis. Progressive remodelling involves lipid-protein complexes, with lipoprotein(a) being of particular interest for diagnostics and potential future treatment options.There is an unmet clinical need for asymptomatic patient management; no pharmacotherapies are proven to slow progression and intervention timing varies. Novel approaches are developing to address this through: (1) screening with circulating biomarkers; (2) development of drugs to slow disease progression and (3) early valve intervention guided by medical imaging. Existing biomarkers (troponin and brain natriuretic peptide) are non-specific, but cost-effective predictors of ventricular dysfunction. In addition, their integration with cardiovascular MRI can provide accurate risk stratification, aiding aortic valve replacement decision making. Currently, invasive intervention is the only treatment for AS. In comparison, the development of lipoprotein(a) lowering therapies could provide an alternative; slowing progression of CAS, preventing left ventricular dysfunction and reducing reliance on surgical intervention.The landscape of AS management is rapidly evolving. This review outlines current understanding of the pathophysiology of AS, its management and future perspectives for the condition's assessment and treatment.

Routine cerebral embolic protection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: rationale and design of the randomised British Heart Foundation PROTECT-TAVI trial.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for aortic stenosis. Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may impact periprocedural stroke by capturing debris destined for the brain. However, there is a lack of high-quality randomised trial evidence supporting the use of CEP during TAVI. The British Heart Foundation (BHF) PROTECT-TAVI trial will address whether the routine use of CEP reduces the incidence of stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is a prospective, open-label, outcome-adjudicated, multicentre randomised controlled trial. The trial is open to all adult patients scheduled for TAVI at participating specialist cardiac centres across the United Kingdom who are able to receive the CEP device. The trial will recruit 7,730 participants. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVI with CEP or TAVI without CEP (standard of care). The primary outcome is the incidence of stroke at 72 hours post-TAVI. Key secondary outcomes include the incidence of stroke and all-cause mortality up to 12 months post-TAVI, disability and cognitive outcomes, stroke severity, access site complications and a health economics analysis. The sample size of 7,730 participants has 80% power to detect a 33% relative risk reduction from a 3% incidence of the primary outcome in the controls. Trial recruitment commenced in October 2020. As of October 2022, 3,068 patients have been enrolled. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is designed to provide definitive evidence on the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using routine CEP with the SENTINEL device to reduce stroke in TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive and costly treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to systematically review the published literature focusing on economic evaluation of TAVI compared with other alternative treatments in AS populations. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from inception until May 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Embase databases. The qualities of included studies were evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) criteria. Data of costs, outcomes, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness to pay were extracted. To compare results, ICERs were converted to the 2020 United States dollar (USD) rate. RESULTS: Of the 29 included cost-effectiveness studies, TAVI was cost-effective in all studies in the low-risk group (3/3), 77% of studies (7/9) in the intermediate-risk group, half of the studies (6/12) in the high-risk group, and 83% of studies (10/12) in the inoperable group. When adjusted to USD 2020, ICERs ranged from USD 2741 to 1027,674 USD per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is potentially a cost-effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with operable AS with low, intermediate or high risk compared with medical management (MM) for patients with inoperable AS. TAVI was associated with a significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years in almost all studies compared to either SAVR or MM. TAVI is a costly procedure; therefore, justifying its cost-effectiveness depends on the acceptable threshold in each country.

Valvular Heart Disease: New Concepts in Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Approaches.

This review discusses recent advancements in the field of valvular heart disease. Topics covered include recognition of the impact of atrial fibrillation on development and assessment of valvular disease, strategies for global prevention of rheumatic heart disease, understanding and management of secondary mitral regurgitation, the updated classification of bicuspid aortic valve disease, recognition of heightened cardiovascular risk associated with moderate aortic stenosis, and a growing armamentarium of transcatheter therapies.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend including the patient's values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS. METHODS: This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients' most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters. RESULTS: 51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36-92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients' value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

The Transaxillary Route as a Second Access Option in TAVI Procedures: Experience of a Single Centre.

Background: The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of transaxillary (TAX) TAVI in patients not eligible for the transfemoral route. Methods: This is a retrospective study of a single center. We analysed 262 patients treated with TAVI. In 17 patients (6.5%), the procedure was performed with the TAX approach. Procedural and hospital data, 30-day safety, and clinical efficacy were assessed and compared between the transfemoral and TAX groups. Results: In the TAX groups, we found a higher prevalence of men (p = 0.001), smokers (p = 0.033), and previous strokes (p = 0.02). The EUROSCORE II was higher in the TAX group (p = 0.014). The success rate of the device was 100%. TAX was associated with a longer procedure time (p = 0.001) and shorter median device time (p = 0.034) in minutes. Patients treated with TAX had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.005) and higher overall bleeding rate (p = 0.001). Peripheral neurological complications were more frequent with TAX (p = 0.001), which almost completely resolved by 30 days. Conclusions: TAX TAVI is safe and effective and should be considered as a second choice when transfemoral TAVI is not feasible due to severe comorbidities.

Management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The management of severe aortic stenosis mandates consideration of aortic valve intervention for symptomatic patients. However, for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, recent randomised trials supported earlier intervention. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all the available data comparing the two management strategies. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception until 10 January 2022. The search key terms were 'asymptomatic', 'severe aortic stenosis' and 'intervention'. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of two published randomised trials, AVATAR and RECOVERY, included 302 patients and showed that early intervention resulted in 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; I2 0%) and 79% reduction in risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR=0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.96; I2 15%). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular death between the two groups (HR=0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.78; I2 78%). Additionally, meta-analysis of eight observational studies showed improved mortality in patients treated with early intervention (HR=0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; I2 77%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides evidence that, in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis, early intervention reduces all-cause mortality and improves outcomes compared with conservative management. While this is very encouraging, further randomised controlled studies are needed to draw firm conclusions and identify the optimal timing of intervention. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022301037.