Aortic valve stenosis in community medical practice

Determinants of outcome and implications for aortic valve replacement

Joseph Malouf, Thierry Le Tourneau, Patricia Pellikka, Thoralf M. Sundt, Christopher Scott, Hartzell V Schaff, Maurice E Sarano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To define the objective and subjective measures of aortic stenosis (AS) severity linked to survival after diagnosis in community practice. Methods: All 360 Olmsted County, Minnesota residents (74 ± 14 years; 44% men) with AS diagnosed from 1988 to 1997 by echocardiography and without life-threatening comorbid conditions were enrolled. The presentation at first diagnosis, outcomes (mortality, heart failure, cardiac surgery), and coherence of guideline-based criteria for severe AS were analyzed. Results: The presentation was challenging. Cardiac symptoms were frequent (59%) and unassociated with the AS severity (all P >.13). Of the patients with severe AS, as determined by a valve area less than 1.0 cm2, 67% had low gradient AS (≤40 mm Hg). An aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2 was the only objective measure independently determining survival (adjusted risk ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.70; P < .01) and heart failure (adjusted risk ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.0; P < .01), even in patients with low-gradient AS and/or an ejection fraction of 50% or greater. Excess mortality (vs expected mortality) occurred with an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 (risk ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.35; P < .001) even without symptoms (risk ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.05-2.47; P = .02). Aortic valve replacement, ultimately performed in only 45% of those with an aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2, reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94; P = .02) and heart failure (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.64; P < .01). Conclusions: In community practice, AS affects elderly patients, and its presentation is challenging owing to the high frequency of low-gradient severe AS despite a normal ejection fraction and because symptoms are frequently not specific to AS. Consequently, aortic valve replacement is seldom performed despite its considerable benefit. Physicians should be aware that an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 predicts for unfavorable outcomes, irrespective of symptoms or gradient. Thus, such patients should undergo a thorough evaluation to detect those who could benefit from aortic valve replacement, despite their challenging presentation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1421-1427
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume144
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve Stenosis
Aortic Valve
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Heart Failure
Mortality
Survival
Thoracic Surgery
Echocardiography
Guidelines
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Aortic valve stenosis in community medical practice : Determinants of outcome and implications for aortic valve replacement. / Malouf, Joseph; Le Tourneau, Thierry; Pellikka, Patricia; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Scott, Christopher; Schaff, Hartzell V; Sarano, Maurice E.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 144, No. 6, 12.2012, p. 1421-1427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cf5f66b7f2d744ba83198d545c46d618,
title = "Aortic valve stenosis in community medical practice: Determinants of outcome and implications for aortic valve replacement",
abstract = "Objective: To define the objective and subjective measures of aortic stenosis (AS) severity linked to survival after diagnosis in community practice. Methods: All 360 Olmsted County, Minnesota residents (74 ± 14 years; 44{\%} men) with AS diagnosed from 1988 to 1997 by echocardiography and without life-threatening comorbid conditions were enrolled. The presentation at first diagnosis, outcomes (mortality, heart failure, cardiac surgery), and coherence of guideline-based criteria for severe AS were analyzed. Results: The presentation was challenging. Cardiac symptoms were frequent (59{\%}) and unassociated with the AS severity (all P >.13). Of the patients with severe AS, as determined by a valve area less than 1.0 cm2, 67{\%} had low gradient AS (≤40 mm Hg). An aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2 was the only objective measure independently determining survival (adjusted risk ratio, 1.81; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.70; P < .01) and heart failure (adjusted risk ratio, 2.3; 95{\%} CI, 1.3-4.0; P < .01), even in patients with low-gradient AS and/or an ejection fraction of 50{\%} or greater. Excess mortality (vs expected mortality) occurred with an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 (risk ratio, 1.78; 95{\%} CI, 1.33-2.35; P < .001) even without symptoms (risk ratio, 1.65; 95{\%} CI, 1.05-2.47; P = .02). Aortic valve replacement, ultimately performed in only 45{\%} of those with an aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2, reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.61; 95{\%} CI, 0.39-0.94; P = .02) and heart failure (risk ratio, 0.29; 95{\%} CI, 0.13-0.64; P < .01). Conclusions: In community practice, AS affects elderly patients, and its presentation is challenging owing to the high frequency of low-gradient severe AS despite a normal ejection fraction and because symptoms are frequently not specific to AS. Consequently, aortic valve replacement is seldom performed despite its considerable benefit. Physicians should be aware that an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 predicts for unfavorable outcomes, irrespective of symptoms or gradient. Thus, such patients should undergo a thorough evaluation to detect those who could benefit from aortic valve replacement, despite their challenging presentation.",
author = "Joseph Malouf and {Le Tourneau}, Thierry and Patricia Pellikka and Sundt, {Thoralf M.} and Christopher Scott and Schaff, {Hartzell V} and Sarano, {Maurice E}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.09.075",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "1421--1427",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aortic valve stenosis in community medical practice

T2 - Determinants of outcome and implications for aortic valve replacement

AU - Malouf, Joseph

AU - Le Tourneau, Thierry

AU - Pellikka, Patricia

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

AU - Scott, Christopher

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

AU - Sarano, Maurice E

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Objective: To define the objective and subjective measures of aortic stenosis (AS) severity linked to survival after diagnosis in community practice. Methods: All 360 Olmsted County, Minnesota residents (74 ± 14 years; 44% men) with AS diagnosed from 1988 to 1997 by echocardiography and without life-threatening comorbid conditions were enrolled. The presentation at first diagnosis, outcomes (mortality, heart failure, cardiac surgery), and coherence of guideline-based criteria for severe AS were analyzed. Results: The presentation was challenging. Cardiac symptoms were frequent (59%) and unassociated with the AS severity (all P >.13). Of the patients with severe AS, as determined by a valve area less than 1.0 cm2, 67% had low gradient AS (≤40 mm Hg). An aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2 was the only objective measure independently determining survival (adjusted risk ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.70; P < .01) and heart failure (adjusted risk ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.0; P < .01), even in patients with low-gradient AS and/or an ejection fraction of 50% or greater. Excess mortality (vs expected mortality) occurred with an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 (risk ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.35; P < .001) even without symptoms (risk ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.05-2.47; P = .02). Aortic valve replacement, ultimately performed in only 45% of those with an aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2, reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94; P = .02) and heart failure (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.64; P < .01). Conclusions: In community practice, AS affects elderly patients, and its presentation is challenging owing to the high frequency of low-gradient severe AS despite a normal ejection fraction and because symptoms are frequently not specific to AS. Consequently, aortic valve replacement is seldom performed despite its considerable benefit. Physicians should be aware that an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 predicts for unfavorable outcomes, irrespective of symptoms or gradient. Thus, such patients should undergo a thorough evaluation to detect those who could benefit from aortic valve replacement, despite their challenging presentation.

AB - Objective: To define the objective and subjective measures of aortic stenosis (AS) severity linked to survival after diagnosis in community practice. Methods: All 360 Olmsted County, Minnesota residents (74 ± 14 years; 44% men) with AS diagnosed from 1988 to 1997 by echocardiography and without life-threatening comorbid conditions were enrolled. The presentation at first diagnosis, outcomes (mortality, heart failure, cardiac surgery), and coherence of guideline-based criteria for severe AS were analyzed. Results: The presentation was challenging. Cardiac symptoms were frequent (59%) and unassociated with the AS severity (all P >.13). Of the patients with severe AS, as determined by a valve area less than 1.0 cm2, 67% had low gradient AS (≤40 mm Hg). An aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2 was the only objective measure independently determining survival (adjusted risk ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.70; P < .01) and heart failure (adjusted risk ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.0; P < .01), even in patients with low-gradient AS and/or an ejection fraction of 50% or greater. Excess mortality (vs expected mortality) occurred with an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 (risk ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.35; P < .001) even without symptoms (risk ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.05-2.47; P = .02). Aortic valve replacement, ultimately performed in only 45% of those with an aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2, reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94; P = .02) and heart failure (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.64; P < .01). Conclusions: In community practice, AS affects elderly patients, and its presentation is challenging owing to the high frequency of low-gradient severe AS despite a normal ejection fraction and because symptoms are frequently not specific to AS. Consequently, aortic valve replacement is seldom performed despite its considerable benefit. Physicians should be aware that an aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 predicts for unfavorable outcomes, irrespective of symptoms or gradient. Thus, such patients should undergo a thorough evaluation to detect those who could benefit from aortic valve replacement, despite their challenging presentation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868210784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84868210784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.09.075

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.09.075

M3 - Article

VL - 144

SP - 1421

EP - 1427

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 6

ER -