Murphy, Shannon

Background A classification system describing clinical presentation before aortic valve replacement (AVR) has recently been proposed (stable valve syndrome [SVS]), mildly symptomatic (progressive valve syndrome), or with acute and severe signs and symptoms (acute valve syndrome [AVS]). We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact, health care costs, and resource use associated with the mode of clinical presentation at the time of AVR among patients presenting with aortic stenosis. Methods Using the Market Clarity database (2017–2023), patients >18 years old with aortic stenosis and undergoing AVR (transcatheter or surgical) were included. Patients were categorized as SVS, progressive valve syndrome, or AVS based on their clinical presentation during the 1 year before AVR. All‐cause death, heart failure hospitalization, total health care costs (index hospitalization plus 1‐year follow‐up), and resource use were compared across clinical presentation groups using adjusted regression models. Results Of the 24 075 patients undergoing AVR for aortic stenosis, 270 (1.1%) had SVS, 10 195 (42.3%) progressive valve syndrome, and 13 610 (56.5%) AVS. Compared with SVS, AVS presentation was associated with increased risk of 1‐year death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.93 [95% CI, 1.1–7.8]; P =0.03) and heart failure hospitalization (aHR, 4.15 [95% CI, 1.6–11.1]; P <0.01) after AVR. The total costs of AVR and 1‐year follow‐up were significantly higher in both the progressive valve syndrome (difference $27 410 [$13 507–$41 314]) and AVS groups (difference $36 267 [$22 302–$50 232]) compared with patients with SVS. Conclusions AVS was frequent among patients undergoing AVR and was associated with increase in death, heart failure hospitalization, health care costs, and resource use 1 year after AVR, and SVS presentation was associated with the best clinical and economic outcomes.

Background Many patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite clinical guidelines. This study analyzed the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality for patients with newly diagnosed severe aortic stenosis (sAS). Methods and Results We identified adults with newly diagnosed sAS per echocardiography performed between January 2017 and March 2019 using Optum electronic health record data. We then selected from those meeting all eligibility criteria patients managed by a primary care provider (n=1707 [25%]) or cardiac specialist (n=5039 [75%]). We evaluated the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality, as well as the independent association of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR with mortality, within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS. A subgroup analysis was limited to patients with symptomatic sAS. Patient characteristics and comorbidities at baseline were used for covariate‐adjusted cause‐specific and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models assessing group differences in outcomes by managing provider type. An adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with additional time‐dependent covariates for follow‐up and AVR was used to assess these practices' association with mortality. Within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS, data revealed that primary care provider management was associated with lower rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43–0.50], P <0.0001) and AVR (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53–0.64], P <0.0001) and with higher 1‐year mortality (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.26–1.66], P <0.0001). Cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR were independently associated with lower mortality (follow‐up: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48–0.63], P <0.0001; AVR: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83], P <0.0001). Results were similar for patients with symptomatic sAS. All analyses were adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities. Conclusions For patients newly diagnosed with sAS, we observed differences in rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR and risk of mortality between primary care provider‐ versus cardiologist‐managed patients with sAS. In addition, a lower likelihood of receiving follow‐up and AVR was independently associated with higher mortality.

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (ssAS) do not receive treatment with aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite current ACC/AHA guidelines. Delayed care leads to increased hospitalizations, worsening heart failure and death. Timely referral to a cardiac specialist is a critical step in the treatment pathway. We sought to identify the impact of managing provider type on follow-up care for newly diagnosed patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS). We analyzed Optum® electronic medical records to identify adults with a new outpatient sAS echo diagnosis in the pre-COVID era (1/2017 - 3/2019). We identified integrated delivery network patients alive 1d post echo excluding those with missing data or AVR within 3d of echo, then selected those managed by a primary care provider (PCP) or a cardiologist (n=5,683). Baseline characteristics were used for covariate-adjusted Cumulative Incidence Function and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. We estimated the impact of managing provider type on the specialist follow-up visit rate (cardiologist, interventional cardiologist and/or cardiothoracic surgeon) for all sAS patients and of surgical or transcatheter AVR for ssAS patients within 1 year of diagnosis. Within 90d of sAS diagnosis, 47% of PCP- vs. 73% of cardiologist-managed patients had a follow-up visit (1-year rates: PCP, 69% vs. cardiologist, 90%; Hazard ratio [HR]=0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59, p<0.0001). Within 1 year of diagnosis, 36% of PCP- vs. 51% of cardiologist-managed ssAS patients underwent AVR (HR=0.72, CI: 0.63-0.82, p<0.0001) (Figure). Analysis suggests lower referral rates for PCP- than cardiologist-managed patients. In ssAS, 1-year AVR rates were low, particularly for PCPs. These data underscore the importance of timely follow up of all severe AS patients for symptom assessment and appropriate treatment, presenting an opportunity for initiatives to drive behavior change.