Patient survival in severe low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis after aortic valve replacement or conservative management.
aortic stenosis
aortic valve replacement
ventricular function
Journal
Journal of cardiac surgery
ISSN: 1540-8191
Titre abrégé: J Card Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
17
06
2020
revised:
21
09
2020
accepted:
25
10
2020
pubmed:
19
12
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
18
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Classical and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) are the most challenging subtypes of AS. The current therapeutic options are aortic valve replacement (AVR) and conservative management: AVR promotes long-term survival but is invasive, while conservative management yields a poor prognosis but is noninvasive since it uses no aortic valve replacement (noAVR). The present meta-analysis investigated the rate of survival of patients with LFLG AS undergoing either AVR or noAVR interventions. The meta-analysis compared the outcomes of AVR with those of noAVR in terms of patient survival. In both groups, a meta-regression was conducted to investigate the impact on patient survival of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), either preserved (paradoxical LFLG AS) or reduced (classical LFLG AS). The relative risk of survival between the AVR and noAVR groups was 1.99 [1.40, 2.82] (p = .0001), suggesting that survival tends to be better in AVR patients than in noAVR patients. The meta-regression revealed that a reduced LVEF may be related to a higher survival in AVR patients when compared to a preserved LVEF (p = .04). Finally, the analysis indicated that LVEF seems not to be prognostic of survival in noAVR patients (p = .18). Patients with LFLG AS have better survival if they undergo AVR. In AVR patients, reduced LVEF rather than preserved LVEF is related to better survival, whereas there seems to be no difference in prognostic value between reduced and preserved LVEF in noAVR patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
Classical and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) are the most challenging subtypes of AS. The current therapeutic options are aortic valve replacement (AVR) and conservative management: AVR promotes long-term survival but is invasive, while conservative management yields a poor prognosis but is noninvasive since it uses no aortic valve replacement (noAVR). The present meta-analysis investigated the rate of survival of patients with LFLG AS undergoing either AVR or noAVR interventions.
METHODS
METHODS
The meta-analysis compared the outcomes of AVR with those of noAVR in terms of patient survival. In both groups, a meta-regression was conducted to investigate the impact on patient survival of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), either preserved (paradoxical LFLG AS) or reduced (classical LFLG AS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The relative risk of survival between the AVR and noAVR groups was 1.99 [1.40, 2.82] (p = .0001), suggesting that survival tends to be better in AVR patients than in noAVR patients. The meta-regression revealed that a reduced LVEF may be related to a higher survival in AVR patients when compared to a preserved LVEF (p = .04). Finally, the analysis indicated that LVEF seems not to be prognostic of survival in noAVR patients (p = .18).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with LFLG AS have better survival if they undergo AVR. In AVR patients, reduced LVEF rather than preserved LVEF is related to better survival, whereas there seems to be no difference in prognostic value between reduced and preserved LVEF in noAVR patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33336497
doi: 10.1111/jocs.15209
pmc: PMC7898507
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1030-1039Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Renal Care published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jan 6;65(1):55-66
pubmed: 25572511
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Apr 15;51(15):1466-72
pubmed: 18402902
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 2;60(14):1259-67
pubmed: 22657269
Indian Heart J. 2014 Nov-Dec;66(6):672-7
pubmed: 25634403
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2013 Apr;66(4):261-8
pubmed: 24775615
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 6;60(19):1845-53
pubmed: 23062546
J Card Surg. 2021 Mar;36(3):1030-1039
pubmed: 33336497
Circulation. 2008 Sep 30;118(14 Suppl):S234-42
pubmed: 18824760
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May;10(5):
pubmed: 28500139
Circulation. 2013 Sep 10;128(11 Suppl 1):S235-42
pubmed: 24030412
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Jan;5(1):27-35
pubmed: 22109983
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Nov 15;26(6):1522-8
pubmed: 7594080
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Circulation. 1991 Dec;84(6):2383-97
pubmed: 1959194
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 May 19;53(20):1865-73
pubmed: 19442886
Circulation. 2013 Aug 6;128(6):622-31
pubmed: 23812184
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Jun;52(6):377-84
pubmed: 9764259
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Dec;148(6):2823-7
pubmed: 24787695
Mayo Clin Proc. 1990 Feb;65(2):198-220
pubmed: 2406521
Circulation. 2000 Apr 25;101(16):1940-6
pubmed: 10779460
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017 Mar;32(2):147-151
pubmed: 28005568
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Dec;86(6):1781-9
pubmed: 19021976
Circulation. 2011 Dec 6;124(23):e739-41
pubmed: 22144636
Eur Heart J. 2003 Jul;24(13):1231-43
pubmed: 12831818
Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128(16):1781-9
pubmed: 24048203
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 07;37(34):2645-57
pubmed: 27190103
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Mar 21;47(6):1214-23
pubmed: 16545654
Am J Cardiol. 1988 Aug 1;62(4):270-5
pubmed: 3400605
Clin Cardiol. 2017 Sep;40(9):654-659
pubmed: 28543102
Am Heart J. 1991 Jul;122(1 Pt 1):55-60
pubmed: 2063763
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Mar 19;8(6):e011168
pubmed: 30879370
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 15;66(23):2594-2603
pubmed: 26670058
Circulation. 2013 Jun 11;127(23):2316-26
pubmed: 23661722
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Apr 17;39(8):1356-63
pubmed: 11955855
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jun;91(6):1808-15
pubmed: 21619977
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May;10(5):
pubmed: 28500140