Search

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed, Cloppenburg, Germany. NF, RPS and DM-Z have received honoraria for advisory board meetings and TKR speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centres have received funding for employing a study nurse. JK and MT are employees of the funder of this registry. As this is a disease registry, neither the type of intervention (SAVR, TAVI or medical management) nor on the valves to be used was pre-specified., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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 cm 2 , indexed AVA <0.6 cm 2 /m 2 , maximum jet-velocity (V max ) >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 cm 2 , V max 4.3 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB is the representative of the IPPMed. NF, RPS, TKR and DM-Z have received speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. The institutions of these three and those of the remaining authors representing study centers have received funding from the sponsor for employing a study nurse for the duration of the study. IPPMed designed and executed the study, collected and analysed the data and drafted/revised the manuscript in collaboration with the other authors., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.