BACKGROUND The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.OBJECTIVES The purpose of... Show moreBACKGROUND The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes.METHODS Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes.RESULTS Among 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved inw15%, remained unchanged inw60%, and worsened in w25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years.CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics.... Show moreA virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Abuter, R.; Allouche, F.; Amorim, A.; Bailet, C.; Bauböck, M.; Berger, J.-P.; ... ; Zins, G. 2022
