TY - JOUR
T1 - Prognostic Impact of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis
AU - on behalf of the CURRENT AS Registry Investigators
AU - Taniguchi, Tomohiko
AU - Morimoto, Takeshi
AU - Shiomi, Hiroki
AU - Ando, Kenji
AU - Kanamori, Norio
AU - Murata, Koichiro
AU - Kitai, Takeshi
AU - Kadota, Kazushige
AU - Izumi, Chisato
AU - Nakatsuma, Kenji
AU - Sasa, Tomoki
AU - Watanabe, Hirotoshi
AU - Kuwabara, Yasuhide
AU - Makiyama, Takeru
AU - Ono, Koh
AU - Shizuta, Satoshi
AU - Kato, Takao
AU - Saito, Naritatsu
AU - Minatoya, Kenji
AU - Kimura, Takeshi
AU - Kimura, Takeshi
AU - Taniguchi, Tomohiko
AU - Shiomi, Hiroki
AU - Saito, Naritatsu
AU - Imai, Masao
AU - Tazaki, Junichi
AU - Toyota, Toshiaki
AU - Higami, Hirooki
AU - Kawaji, Tetsuma
AU - Ando, Kenji
AU - Shirai, Shinichi
AU - Kourai, Kengo
AU - Arita, Takeshi
AU - Miura, Shiro
AU - Yamaji, Kyohei
AU - Aoyama, Takeshi
AU - Kanamori, Norio
AU - Onodera, Tomoya
AU - Murata, Koichiro
AU - Furukawa, Yutaka
AU - Kitai, Takeshi
AU - Kim, Kitae
AU - Kadota, Kazushige
AU - Kawase, Yuichi
AU - Iwasaki, Keiichiro
AU - Miyawaki, Hiroshi
AU - Misao, Ayumi
AU - Kuwayama, Akimune
AU - Ohya, Masanobu
AU - Shimada, Takenobu
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2018/1/22
Y1 - 2018/1/22
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Background: The prognostic impact of LVEF in severe AS remains controversial. Methods: Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study population consisted of 3,794 patients after excluding 21 patients without LVEF data. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to LVEF at index echocardiography (<50%, 50% to 59%, 60% to 69%, and ≥70%; conservative strategy: n = 388, n = 390, n = 1,025, and n = 800; initial aortic valve replacement strategy: n = 206, n = 170, n = 375, and n = 440). Echocardiographic data were site reported, and there was no echocardiography core laboratory. Results: In the conservative group, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was significantly higher in patients with LVEFs <50% and 50% to 59% than in those with LVEFs 60% to 69% and ≥70% (72.3%, 58.4%, 38.7%, and 35.0%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas in the initial aortic valve replacement group, the negative effect of low LVEF was markedly attenuated (20.2%, 20.3%, 17.7%, and 12.4%, respectively, p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounders, LVEF <50% (hazard ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 2.28; p < 0.001) and 50% to 59% (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 2.20; p < 0.001) but not 60% to 69% (hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.94 to 1.39; p = 0.17) were independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with LVEF ≥70% (reference) in the conservative group. In the initial aortic valve replacement group, the adjusted risk for the primary outcome measure was not significantly different across the 4 LVEF groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that survival in patients with severe AS is impaired when LVEF is <60%, and these findings have implications for decision making with regard to the timing of surgical intervention.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Background: The prognostic impact of LVEF in severe AS remains controversial. Methods: Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study population consisted of 3,794 patients after excluding 21 patients without LVEF data. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to LVEF at index echocardiography (<50%, 50% to 59%, 60% to 69%, and ≥70%; conservative strategy: n = 388, n = 390, n = 1,025, and n = 800; initial aortic valve replacement strategy: n = 206, n = 170, n = 375, and n = 440). Echocardiographic data were site reported, and there was no echocardiography core laboratory. Results: In the conservative group, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was significantly higher in patients with LVEFs <50% and 50% to 59% than in those with LVEFs 60% to 69% and ≥70% (72.3%, 58.4%, 38.7%, and 35.0%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas in the initial aortic valve replacement group, the negative effect of low LVEF was markedly attenuated (20.2%, 20.3%, 17.7%, and 12.4%, respectively, p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounders, LVEF <50% (hazard ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 2.28; p < 0.001) and 50% to 59% (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 2.20; p < 0.001) but not 60% to 69% (hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.94 to 1.39; p = 0.17) were independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with LVEF ≥70% (reference) in the conservative group. In the initial aortic valve replacement group, the adjusted risk for the primary outcome measure was not significantly different across the 4 LVEF groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that survival in patients with severe AS is impaired when LVEF is <60%, and these findings have implications for decision making with regard to the timing of surgical intervention.
KW - aortic stenosis
KW - aortic valve replacement
KW - left ventricular ejection fraction
KW - prognosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040563223&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040563223&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.036
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.036
M3 - Article
C2 - 29289632
AN - SCOPUS:85040563223
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 11
SP - 145
EP - 157
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 2
ER -