Fabre, Katarina L.

Introduction: Rate of aortic stenosis (AS) progression in patients with concurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been previously described. Objectives: To describe changes over time in aortic valve area (AVA) and associated hemodynamics during AS progression in patients in AF versus sinus rhythm (SR). Methods: Patients with AVA ≤ 1 cm 2 and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% were identified from the Mayo Clinic Echocardiographic Laboratory Database. Serial echocardiograms prior to the development of AVA ≤ 1 cm 2 (Time 0) were examined. Inverse probability weighting was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 166 patients were included (SR=79 and AF=87), mean age 78.1 ± 7.8 years, females 31%. The rates of AVA reduction (-0.14±0.01 vs -0.12±0.01 cm2/year, p=0.31) and increase in trans-aortic peak velocity (+0.23 ± 0.02 vs +0.22 ± 0.02 m/sec, p=0.55) and mean gradient (MG) (3.9 ± 0.3 vs 3.8 ± 0.4 mmHg, p=0.83) did not differ between AF and SR (Figure 1). However, AF was associated with systematically lower forward stroke volume index (SVi), peak velocity and MG for the same AVA compared to SR (p<0.04 for all) throughout AS progression. When AVA reached 1 cm 2 , SVi (38.8±6.6 vs 45.7 ±8.9, p=0.02), peak velocity (3.9 ± 0.6 vs 4.1 ± 0.6 m/sec, p=0.04) and MG (36.6±10.9 vs 41±12.8 mmHg, p=0.03) were lower in AF compared to SR. Conclusions: The rate of AS progression was not different in AF versus SR. However, forward flow was systematically lower in AF resulting in discordant AS during AS progression and when AVA reached 1 cm 2 . Doppler velocity and MG criteria for severe AS appear to be lower in AF versus SR which has implications for timely diagnosis of severe AS and patient management.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) in severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with worse outcomes compared to sinus rhythm (SR). The prevalence of AF and its impact on outcomes in very severe AS (vsAS) is unknown. Objectives: To determine the prevalence and prognostic significance of AF in vsAS. Methods: A total of 563 patients with vsAS (transaortic valve peak velocity ≥5 m/sec) were identified retrospectively out of 3139 with aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm 2 or ≤0.6 cm 2 /m 2 and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%. Patients were divided by rhythm (AF vs SR) at the time of index transthoracic echocardiogram. Outcomes in AF versus SR were compared in propensity-matched analyses (2 SR:1 AF). Results: AF was present in 50/563 patients (9%) and SR in 513/563 (91%). In propensity-matched analyses (100 SR:50 AF), the mean age was 83.2±7.3 years, 54% were female. There was no difference in comorbidity index (p=0.84). There was no difference in AF compared to SR in aortic valve area (0.7±0.1 vs 0.7±0.1 cm 2 , p=0.94), peak velocity (5.3±0.3 vs 5.3±0.3 m/sec, p=0.32), LVEF (63±7 vs 65±7%, p=0.14) or E/e’ (23±13 vs 21±12, p=0.48), but patients with AF had larger left atrial volume index (60±16 vs 48±15 mL/m 2 , p<0.001), higher right ventricular systolic pressure (52±15 vs 41±16 mmHg, p<0.001), and higher prevalence of moderate or more tricuspid regurgitation (33% vs 5%, p<0.001) and right ventricular systolic dysfunction (23% vs 6%, p=0.003). Age-, sex-, comorbidity index-adjusted all-cause mortality was higher in AF vs SR (HR 2.33 [1.40, 3.87], p=0.001) ( Figure: Observed overall survival ). Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was associated with improved survival (HR 0.44 [0.25, 0.76], p=0.004) with no evidence of interaction of AVR and rhythm (p=0.15). Conclusion: AF was not uncommon among patients with vsAS and identified a subset of patients with vsAS at much higher risk of mortality. Whether AVR should be considered earlier in vsAS when associated with AF needs to be investigated.