| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:308-315
© 2008 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease |
a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
b Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
c Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
Received for publication May 3, 2007; revisions received August 17, 2007; accepted for publication August 23, 2007. * Address for reprints: Hartzell Schaff, MD, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester MN 55905. (Email: schaff{at}mayo.edu).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Methods: We analyzed data of 622 patients, aged 72 ± 11 years, with isolated asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Patients were identified with a peak systolic velocity of greater than 4 m/s by transthoracic echocardiography and monitored for the development of symptoms and need for aortic valve replacement.
Results: After the initial diagnosis, 166 (27%) patients who were initially asymptomatic experienced the development of chest pain, shortness of breath, or syncope and had aortic valve replacement at Mayo Clinic. Another 97 (16%) patients had aortic valve replacement in the absence of symptoms. Symptomatic patients were more likely to undergo coronary bypass grafting (P < .01) and have diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and a lower ejection fraction (P < .05 for each). Operative mortality was 2% for symptomatic patients and 1% for asymptomatic patients (P = .43). The survival of the 263 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement was not significantly different from an age- and sex-matched population (P = .99); 10-year survival was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%–72%) for symptomatic patients and 64% (95% CI 54%–75%) for asymptomatic patients (P = .92). At 3 years after diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis, 52% (95% CI 48%–56%) of 622 patients had had symptoms develop, undergone aortic valve replacement, or died. Among the entire cohort, older age at diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.1 per year, P < .001), diabetes (HR 1.7, P < .001), decreased ejection fraction (HR 1.1 per 1%
, P = .01), symptoms (HR 2.13, P < .001), and absence of aortic valve replacement (HR 3.53, P < .001) were identified as independent risk factors for mortality.
Conclusion: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement, early and late outcomes were similarly good in patients who had symptoms before the operation compared with those who were asymptomatic. It is important to note that among patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, the omission of surgical treatment was the most important risk factor for late mortality.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
wrote about aortic valve replacement (AVR), "Low hospital mortality tends to justify a policy of accepting patients for operation earlier in the natural progression of their disability, because it is recognized that there is a definite risk of rapid deterioration or sudden death in the earlier policy of deferring operation." Forty years later, management of asymptomatic patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) remains a dilemma for cardiologists and surgeons. Traditionally, patients with asymptomatic severe AS are monitored expectantly until the development of symptoms because of the perceived low risk of sudden death.2 In these natural history studies, most patients were younger than those encountered by clinicians today and patients were more likely to have underlying bicuspid aortic valve disease. This approach also depends on satisfactory follow-up and prompt identification of the onset of symptoms.
Decreasing surgical mortality for AVR and technological advancements in aortic valve prostheses argue for earlier surgical referral for most patients with aortic valve disease. A previous study of asymptomatic severe AS from the Mayo Clinic concluded that symptoms will develop within 5 years in most patients and that sudden death occurs at a rate of approximately 1% per year.3 In the present investigation, we compared late survival in patients with asymptomatic severe AS who were followed up medically versus patients who underwent AVR. In addition, we compared late outcomes of patients who had AVR in the presence of symptoms with those who remained asymptomatic at the time of AVR.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
defined as a peak systolic velocity of 4 m/s or greater by Doppler echocardiography. We excluded patients with any symptoms, age 40 years or younger, and those with multivalvular disease or moderate-to-severe aortic valve regurgitation. Other exclusion criteria included previous aortic balloon valvuloplasty, history of myocardial infarction, and prior coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. All 622 patients were entered into the study between 1984 and 1995 at the time of echocardiographic diagnosis of severe AS. Echocardiographic data included peak aortic valve velocity, aortic valve area, and the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy. As well, inactive status (assisted care) or active status (independent living) was recorded. After the initial diagnosis of severe AS, patients were advised to return every 6 months to 1 year for re-evaluation. By reviewing of medical records, mailed questionnaires, and scripted telephone interviews, information regarding the development of cardiac symptoms, aortic valve surgery, and mortality were obtained for all patients. Death was confirmed by a death certificate or the Social Security Death Index.
Of the 622 patients initially identified, 297 had symptoms develop during follow-up (
Figure 1), and 207 of these symptomatic patients underwent AVR. An additional 145 patients had AVR in the absence of symptoms. Of these patients who underwent AVR, 166 symptomatic patients and 97 asymptomatic patients had surgery at Mayo Clinic. This group of 263 patients had preoperative and intraoperative variables collected including a history of smoking, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, renal failure (creatinine level > 2.0 mg/dL), hypertension, stroke, endocarditis, chronic lung disease, myocardial infarction, preoperative arrhythmia, preoperative ejection fraction, and cardiogenic shock. All preoperative and intraoperative characteristics were defined by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Database definitions.
|
All statistical analyses were performed with SAS software (version 9.1.3; SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Data are summarized as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages. Groups were compared by t tests and 
2 tests as appropriate. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method, and survival curves were compared by the log–rank test. Also, survival of patients after AVR was compared with that of the Minnesota population matched for age and sex and tested by the 1-sample log–rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify variables independently associated with survival end points. Multivariate Cox models were formed by stepwise selection techniques. Estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals from models are presented.
To determine survivorship of all patients, we used the date of diagnosis of severe AS as time zero. Development of symptoms and AVR were analyzed as time-dependent covariates in the Cox regression analysis. Figures showing survival for AVR and symptom groups were created by allowing patients to be in one or more of the curves. Patients were not allowed to be in multiple curves at the same time and could transfer into different curves on the basis of their AVR and symptom status at any time.
In the second analysis of only patients who had AVR, time zero was the date of surgery, and patients were censored if lost to follow-up. Cox models were used to predict late survival after the operation using patient characteristics at time of surgery.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Among these patients, 263 subsequently underwent AVR at Mayo, and the mean postoperative follow-up time was 9.1 years (±4.7 years). Comparing the asymptomatic and symptomatic patients who underwent AVR, there were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, and body surface area between the groups (
Table 1) at the time of surgery. The mean length of time from diagnosis of asymptomatic severe AS to AVR was longer in the symptomatic patients (2.38 ± 1.7 years vs 1.94 ±1.7 years; P = .04). Both aortic peak velocity and aortic valve area were similar in the two groups. Although most cardiovascular risk factors were not significantly different between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, there was a higher prevalence of diabetes and hypercholesterolemia in the symptomatic patients.
|
Survival of Patients Stratified on Symptom Status and AVR
After 3 years of follow-up, 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%–56%) of 622 patients had had symptoms, had undergone AVR, or had died (
Figure 2). Survival of all 622 patients who were originally given the diagnosis of asymptomatic severe AS is shown in
Figure 3. Patients were also stratified into those who did and did not have symptoms and those who did and did not undergo AVR. Patients who had symptoms but did not have AVR had a 10-year survival of 2% (95% CI 1%–6%). In patients who remained asymptomatic and did not have AVR, 10-year survival was only 33% (95% CI 24%–45%). In patient in whom symptoms developed and who had AVR, 10-year survival was 62% (95% CI 54%–72%), and in those who were asymptomatic but had AVR, survival was 70% (95% CI 61%–80%). This analysis included all AVR patients, both those who had operation at Mayo and those who had operation elsewhere. By univariate analysis, an AVR in an asymptomatic patient was protective of late death by a relative risk of 0.38 (95% CI 0.27–0.55; P < .001). Among all 622 patients with asymptomatic severe AS, univariate predictors of mortality were older age at diagnosis, female gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal failure, and symptom development (
Table 2).
|
|
|
Table 3).
|
Figure 4). When we stratified patients according to symptom status, there was no difference in late survival between patients who were symptomatic or asymptomatic at time of surgery (P = .929) (
Figure 5). Survival after AVR was compared with an age- and gender-matched Minnesota population, and there was no observed difference in late survival (P = .99) (
Figure 6). The last two figures include patients who had AVR at Mayo and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Studying an elderly population, Lindroos and associates5 reported a prevalence of 2.9% of severe AS. Thus, the decision about timing of operation in asymptomatic AS is likely to be encountered more frequently.
Some clinicians have suggested that earlier operation in asymptomatic patients with severe AS might improve late outcomes. Recently Pai and colleagues6 reported that survival benefit of AVR was independent of clinical, pharmacologic, and echocardiographic predictors. These authors recommended that the threshold for AVR in patients with severe AS should be lowered to include asymptomatic patients.6
In our study, all patients who underwent AVR had a survival advantage compared with that of patients who remained asymptomatic and did not undergo valve replacement. This suggests that all patients who have severe AS, symptomatic or not, would benefit from AVR. It is possible that some patients who were asymptomatic may have had symptoms develop and not told their physicians. Such patients may have been misclassified as asymptomatic, although it should be noted this is a potential hazard of "watchful waiting" and this cannot be assessed retrospectively.
We examined the last contact (survey, telephone, or in-person visit) in patients who eventually died while still asymptomatic; the average time from last contact to death was 1.7 ± 2.1 years (median 0.8 years), 37% had contact within 6 months of death, and 56% had contact within 1 year of death. Although it is possible that closer follow-up may be beneficial, more than 50% of patients had been contacted within 1 year of their death. Thus, patients who are willing and have a reasonably low risk of operation should be offered early surgery.
It is unclear in this retrospective study as to why patients did not have an AVR in the presence of symptoms. Although some may have not been referred, many others were elderly and frail or had serious comorbidities such as cancer or dementia and refused surgery.
It would be advantageous to identify a "window" of time in which AVR can be safely postponed. However, when we examined the analysis of freedom from symptoms, surgery, or death in all 622 patients and censored patients at the time symptoms developed or surgery occurred, we could see no obvious "cut point" in our data. Instead, we found that at 3 years, approximately 50% of patients will have had symptoms develop, had AVR, or died.
Although patients who had AVR had clear survival benefit compared with that of patients not treated surgically, there was no apparent penalty for patients whose symptoms developed before surgery. In our study group, patients whose symptoms developed before AVR had similar long-term survival compared with patients who had surgery during their asymptomatic period. There was a trend toward a higher operative mortality in symptomatic patients (2% vs 1%; P = .43) but this did not reach statistical significance. The trend may be explained by higher prevalence of coronary artery disease reflected by the increased frequency of revascularization in this group (46% vs 27%; P = .002).
Some clinicians believe that patients who wait until the development of symptoms may have an increased operative and late mortality owing to a later stage of disease. In this series, patients were followed up regularly and were instructed to return if any symptoms developed. It should be noted that we had only 1 patient present for AVR in cardiogenic shock. If there had been a greater number of patients requiring emergency AVR in the symptomatic group, we may have seen an advantage to intervention when patients were still asymptomatic.7 Further, it is possible that benefits of earlier operation may be more apparent in patients with longstanding AS who have complications such as severe left ventricular hypertrophy.
Previously, some cardiologists advised "cat-like observation" for asymptomatic patients with severe AS because of the anticipated 2% to 3% yearly risk of prosthesis- and anticoagulant-related complications and the 1% yearly incidence of death after AVR.8,9 However, when patients who had received an AVR in our series were compared with an age- and gender-matched Minnesota population, there was no difference in late survival, suggesting that the risk of aortic valve prostheses–related complications and death may be overestimated with the use of modern mechanical valves that require lower anticoagulation levels and bioprosthetic valves that have greater durability.
In this study, the unadjusted surgical mortality for AVR in asymptomatic patients was 1%, and although asymptomatic patients with severe AS may constitute a relatively low-risk surgical group, some caution must be exercised when generalizing our results. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database reports an unadjusted mortality for isolated AVR of 3.5% and 5.6% for combined AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting.10 The survival benefit of AVR in patients with asymptomatic severe AS may apply only to centers that have sufficient volume of valve surgery so as to maintain very low operative mortality.11
Otto12 and others13 suggest risk stratification of patients with AS who do not have obvious symptoms using exercise testing and measurement of brain natriuretic peptide. Other identified risk factors for poor outcomes in patients with asymptomatic AS include velocity of jet, rate of change of jet velocity, functional status, and extent of aortic valve calcification.14,15 Unfortunately, there was no attempt to systematically risk-stratify patients in our study cohort. Sensitive and objective measures of symptom development may be beneficial to identify those patients who would gain the most from early surgical intervention.
Previous generations of cardiologists have advocated medical management of severe AS until symptoms are well established. It was stated in a recent editorial, "We, like most cardiologists, no longer believe that surgery is the most common cause of sudden death in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis."16 Results of the present study support the idea of early intervention in patients with a diagnosis of severe asymptomatic AS when there is a low institutional perioperative mortality. It is possible that future studies that include risk stratification will improve patient selection for AVR.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Read at the Eighty-seventh Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Washington, DC, May 5–9, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Conradi, M. Seiffert, H. Treede, M. Silaschi, S. Baldus, J. Schirmer, J.-F. Kersten, T. Meinertz, and H. Reichenspurner Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: A propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2012; 143(1): 64 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Kitai, S. Honda, Y. Okada, T. Tani, K. Kim, S. Kaji, N. Ehara, M. Kinoshita, A. Kobori, A. Yamamuro, et al. Clinical outcomes in non-surgically managed patients with very severe versus severe aortic stenosis Heart, December 15, 2011; 97(24): 2029 - 2032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Arnaoutakis, T. J. George, D. E. Alejo, C. A. Merlo, W. A. Baumgartner, D. E. Cameron, and A. S. Shah Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score predicts hospital charges and resource use after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2011; 142(3): 650 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Dahl, L. Videbaek, M. K. Poulsen, P. A. Pellikka, K. Veien, L. I. Andersen, T. Haghfelt, and J. E. Moller Noninvasive assessment of filling pressure and left atrial pressure overload in severe aortic valve stenosis: Relation to ventricular remodeling and clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2011; 142(3): e77 - e83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. R. Lindman, S. V. Arnold, J. A. Madrazo, A. Zajarias, S. N. Johnson, J. E. Perez, and D. L. Mann The Adverse Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Left Ventricular Remodeling and Function in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Circ Heart Fail, May 1, 2011; 4(3): 286 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. P. Morise Exercise Testing in Nonatherosclerotic Heart Disease: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Valvular Heart Disease, and Arrhythmias Circulation, January 18, 2011; 123(2): 216 - 225. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.-A. Chang, P.-W. Park, K. Sung, S.-C. Lee, S. W. Park, Y. T. Lee, and J. K. Oh Noninvasive estimate of left ventricular filling pressure correlated with early and midterm postoperative cardiovascular events after isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2010; 140(6): 1361 - 1366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Kang, S. J. Park, J. H. Rim, S. C. Yun, D. H. Kim, J. M. Song, S. J. Choo, S. W. Park, J. K. Song, J. W. Lee, et al. Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Asymptomatic Very Severe Aortic Stenosis Circulation, April 6, 2010; 121(13): 1502 - 1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. G. Bakaeen, D. Chu, M. Ratcliffe, R. R. Gopaldas, A. S. Blaustein, R. Venkat, J. Huh, S. A. LeMaire, J. S. Coselli, and B. A. Carabello Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Veteran Population: Treatment Considerations and Survival Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2010; 89(2): 453 - 458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Z. Hachicha, J. G. Dumesnil, and P. Pibarot Usefulness of the Valvuloarterial Impedance to Predict Adverse Outcome in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 8, 2009; 54(11): 1003 - 1011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. L. Hannan, Z. Samadashvili, S. J. Lahey, C. R. Smith, A. T. Culliford, R. S.D. Higgins, J. P. Gold, and R. H. Jones Aortic Valve Replacement for Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Risk Factors and Their Impact on 30-Month Mortality Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2009; 87(6): 1741 - 1749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P V Ennezat, S Marechaux, B Iung, C Chauvel, T H LeJemtel, and P Pibarot Exercise testing and exercise stress echocardiography in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis Heart, June 1, 2009; 95(11): 877 - 884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Rahimtoola The Year in Valvular Heart Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1894 - 1908. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. R. Osswald, V. Gegouskov, D. Badowski-Zyla, U. Tochtermann, G. Thomas, S. Hagl, and E. H. Blackstone Overestimation of aortic valve replacement risk by EuroSCORE: implications for percutaneous valve replacement Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2009; 30(1): 74 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
