Search

Background: End-systolic diameter (ESD) is an important parameter in the prognosis and indication for surgery in chronic aortic regurgitation (AR). It has been suggested that ESD values noncorrected for body surface area (BSA) could be inappropriate in the management of patients with extreme BSA. The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of indexed ESD (IESD) of the left ventricle in the management of patients with severe isolated chronic AR., Methods: One hundred forty-seven patients underwent surgery for chronic AR and were followed up for a mean of 8 +/- 6 years (1-22 years). A post hoc assessment was made of the prognostic value of preoperative ESD and IESD in different BSA percentiles: group 1, 25th percentile and 75th percentile (BSA 1.92-2.24 m(2), n = 39)., Results: Age-adjusted preoperative ESD and IESD were independent predictors of mortality or heart failure in the entire population. Magnitude of the relative risk was slightly greater using preoperative IESD than ESD (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.29, P = .017; HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08, P = .016). In group 1, the age-adjusted expected mortality rate would drop if IESD of 25 mm/m(2) was used as a surgical criterion instead of ESD 50 mm, from 37.94% to 24.27% at 10 years (P = .002)., Conclusions: The use of IESD improves the prediction of unfavorable outcomes after surgery in patients with low BSA but not in those with high BSA. In patients with low BSA, IESD >or=25 mm/m(2) should be used as a cutoff point for surgery rather than ESD >50 mm.

Background: Intervention is advised in selected asymptomatic patients with aortic valve disease. However, little is known regarding their actual management., Methods: The Euro Heart Survey was designed to evaluate practices. Severe isolated aortic stenosis (AS) was defined by a valve area < or = 0.6 cm2/m2 body surface area or mean gradient > or = 50 mm Hg. Severe aortic regurgitation (AR) was defined by a grade > or = 3/4. Patients were classified as asymptomatic when they were in New York Heart Association class I and were without angina. Decision to operate was analyzed by comparing patient characteristics with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommendations., Results: Of the 5001 patients, 136 had severe, isolated, and asymptomatic aortic valve disease (84 with AS and 52 with AR). Stress testing was performed in only 6 patients (4%). A decision to operate was taken in 45 patients (54%) with AS and 21 (40%) with AR. Indications for surgery were in accordance with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines in 57 patients (68%) with AS and in 41 (83%) with AR. However, the decision to operate was frequently based on class IIb recommendations in patients with AS. Intervention was "overused" in 18 patients with AS (21%) and in 5 (9%) with AR. Intervention was "underused" in 9 patients (11%) with AS and in 4 (8%) with AR., Conclusions: In asymptomatic patients with severe aortic valve disease, a decision to operate is frequently taken; and it is most often in agreement with guidelines, although often based on low-level recommendations.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcome in two groups of patients with chronic severe aortic regurgitation (AR): those operated on early and those operated on late according to the guidelines., Background: The impact of earlier surgery for chronic severe AR as defined in guidelines has not been evaluated., Methods: A total of 170 patients with chronic severe AR submitted to aortic valve replacement were prospectively followed up. Patients were divided in two groups depending on the clinical situation at the time of surgery. Group A were 60 patients who were operated on following guidelines advice of earlier surgery, and group B were 110 patients who were operated on late with regard to guideline recommendations., Results: Follow-up was 10 +/- 6 years (1 to 22 years). During follow-up 44 patients died, 7 patients (12%) from group A and 37 (37%) from group B (p = 0.001). The cause of death was non-cardiac in 11 patients, 2 (3%) in group A and 9 (8%) in group B. Cardiac deaths occurred in 33 patients, 5 (9%) from group A and 28 (28%) from group B (p = 0.002). Causes of death differed between groups A and B: heart failure or sudden death were significantly more frequent in group B (20 patients vs. 1 patient, p = 0.001). Overall survival in groups A and B was 90 +/- 4% vs. 75 +/- 8% at 5 years, 86 +/- 5% vs. 64 +/- 5% at 10 years, and 78 +/- 7% vs. 53 +/- 6% at 15 years, respectively (p = 0.009)., Conclusions: Early operation as defined in the guidelines improves long-term survival in patients with chronic AR.

Background: Vasodilator therapy can reduce the left ventricular volume and mass and improve left ventricular performance in patients with aortic regurgitation. Accordingly, it has been suggested that such therapy may reduce or delay the need for aortic-valve replacement., Methods: We randomly assigned 95 patients with asymptomatic severe aortic regurgitation and normal left ventricular function to receive open-label nifedipine (20 mg every 12 hours), open-label enalapril (20 mg per day), or no treatment (control group) to identify the possible beneficial effects of vasodilator therapy on left ventricular function and the need for aortic-valve replacement., Results: After a mean of seven years of follow-up, the rate of aortic-valve replacement was similar among the groups: 39 percent in the control group, 50 percent in the enalapril group, and 41 percent in the nifedipine group (P=0.62). In addition, there were no significant differences among the groups in aortic regurgitant volume, left ventricular size, left ventricular mass, mean wall stress, or ejection fraction. One year after valve replacement, the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and end-systolic diameter had decreased to a similar degree among the patients who underwent surgery in each of the three groups, and all the patients had a normal ejection fraction., Conclusions: Long-term vasodilator therapy with nifedipine or enalapril did not reduce or delay the need for aortic-valve replacement in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic regurgitation and normal left ventricular systolic function. Furthermore, such therapy did not reduce the aortic regurgitant volume, decrease the size of the left ventricle, or improve left ventricular function., (Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.)