Baron, Suzanne J
Mayo Clinic
Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA USA.
Citations 2
Acute Valve Syndrome Before Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact on Clinical Outcomes, Health Care Costs, and Resource Use
Généreux, Philippe , Lindman, Brian R. , Pîbarot, Philippe , Baron, Suzanne J. , Asselin, Chantal , Dratch, Alissa , Murphy, Shannon , Chikermane, Soumya , Thourani, Vinod H. , Koulogiannis, Konstantinos , Schwartz, Allan , Leon, Martin B. , Gillam, Linda D. , Lindman, Brian R , Pibarot, Phillippe , Baron, Suzanne J , Asselin, Chantal , Dratch, Alissa , Murphy, Shannon M E , Chikermane, Soumya , Koulogiannis, Kostantinos P , Schwartz, Allan , Leon, Martin B. , Pellikka, Patricia A , Gillam, Linda D , Généreux, Philippe , Giustino, Gennaro , Pellikka, Patricia A.
Journal of the American Heart Association | September 30, 2025 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 19 | Pages: No page available
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.
Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank
Naidu, Srihari S. , Baron, Suzanne J. , Eng, Marvin H. , Sathanandam, Shyam , Zidar, David A., Feldman, Dmitriy N. , Ing, Frank F. , Latif, Faisal , Lim, Michael J. , Henry, Timothy D. , Dangas, George , Hermiller, James, Daggubati, Ramesh , Ang, Lawrence , Box, Lyndon C., Caputo, Ronald , Cohen, Mauricio G. , Coylewright, Megan , Duffy, Peter L. , Goldsweig, Andrew M. , Hagler, Donald J. , Hawkins, Beau M., Hijazi, Ziyad M. , Jayasuriya, Sasanka, Klein, Andrew , Kliger, Chad , Mahmud, Ehtisham , Messenger, John C. , Parikh, Sahil A. , Shishehbor, Mehdi H. , Yakubov, Steven J. , Alvarez‐Breckenridge, Jennifer, Baird, Colleen, Baker, David, Berry, Charles H., Bhattacharya, Manisha, Bilazarian, Seth, Bowen, Rosanne, Brounstein, Kevin, Cameron, Cole, Culbertson, Casey , Díaz, P, Emanuele, Susan, Evans, Erin, Fletcher, Rob, Fortune, Tina, Gaiha, Priya, Govender, Devi, Gutfinger, Dan , Haggstrom, Kurt, Herzog, Andrea, Hite, Denise, Kalich, Bethany , Kirkland, Ann, Kohler, Toni, Laurisden, Holly, Livolsi, Kevin, Lombardi, Lois, Marhenke, Kevin, Meikle, Joie, Moat, Neil, Popma, J.J., Rangwala, Novena , Simonton, Chuck, Stokes, J. W., Taber, Margaret , Tieché, Christopher, Venditto, John, Zinn, Laurie, Dangas, George , Daggubati, Ramesh , Shah, Binita , Ang, Lawrence , Cohen, Mauricio G , Goldsweig, Andrew M , Hagler, Donald J , Morray, Brian H , Parikh, Sahil A , Shishehbor, Mehdi H , Szerlip, Molly , Yakubov, Steven J , Grines, Cindy L , Baron, Suzanne J , Rao, Sunil V. , Shah, Binita , Aronow, Herbert D. , Banerjee, Subhash , Justino, Henri , Li, Jun , Morray, Brian H. , Parikh, Sahil A. , Reilly, John P. , Secemsky, Eric A. , Grines, Cindy L. , Baker, David, Berry, Charles, Cavalcante, Rafael , Diaz, Pedro, Kohler, Toni, Lowe, Sarah, Mueller, Megan, Patarca, Roberto , Stokes, Jerry, West, Nick E.J.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | August 16, 2021 | Volume: 98 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 904-913
AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high‐level field‐wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co‐moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.