Gillam, Linda D.

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 Atrial fibrillation (AF) impacts management decisions in valvular heart disease but its significance in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation (AR) is not well established. Objectives To evaluate the prevalence and prognostic role of AF in patients with chronic, haemodynamically significant AR. Methods Adults with chronic ≥moderate-to-severe AR, from March 2004 to April 2019, were retrospectively identified. Those with acute AR, moderate or worse other valve disease or prior valve surgery were excluded. Patients with AF were identified based on 12-lead ECGs, 1-lead ECGs (showing AF for ≥30 s), or episodes recorded by implanted cardiac devices. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression models were used to assess associations with mortality: model 1 adjusted for age, symptoms (New York Heart Association class II–IV), Charlson Comorbidity Index, left ventricle (LV) end-systolic volume index and AF; model 2 added left atrial volume index and model 3 further added systolic pulmonary artery pressure. Results Of the 1006 included patients (age 59±18 years; 822 (82%) men), 446 (46%) had hypertension and 364 (36%) had a bicuspid aortic valve. AF was present in 161 (16%) patients at the time of ≥moderate-to-severe AR diagnosis. During a median follow-up of 1.6 years (IQR 0.2–6.2), AF was associated with an increased mortality risk in univariate and in all three multivariable models (HR 1.61 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.43), HR 2.21 (95% CI 1.31 to 3.72) and HR 2.06 (95% CI 1.21 to 3.52), respectively), including after propensity matching (HR 1.58 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.48)). Conclusions AF is present in one in six patients with chronic≥moderate-to-severe AR and is associated with an increased risk of mortality even after adjusting for measures of LV systolic and diastolic function. There is a need for future prospective studies to validate these findings and evaluate AF as a potential trigger for early surgery.

Importance Historically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials. Objective To determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Design, Setting, Participants The Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024. Interventions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV. Main Outcomes and Measures The composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure–related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Results A total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference −2.3%; 95% CI −7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, −33.4%; 95% CI, −40.4 to −26.4; P &amp;lt; .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure. Conclusions and Relevance Among women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250

ImportanceInternal medicine residents’ professional development preferences were discordant with their perceptions of cardiology in a survey circulated a decade ago; no contemporary data exist. This information is important for effective recruitment and retention of a highly talented and diverse future cardiology workforce.ObjectiveTo identify residents’ professional development preferences and cardiology perceptions, in relation to specialty choice, and compare the findings with those from a decade prior.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe original survey from the 2010 study was updated and sent to US internal medicine programs. Respondents (ie, internal medicine residents) rated 38 professional development preferences and 20 cardiology perceptions. Data were collected in 2020 and compared with survey results from the prior 2010 study. Multivariable models were created for specialty choice using scaled independent variables dichotomized using the top 2 options; categorical variables were recoded into binary variables for analysis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMultivariable models were used to determine the association of demographic characterisitcs and survey responses with prospective career choice. Responses were examined by total group, by gender, by self-reported consideration of entering cardiology as a profession, and by comparison with a decade prior both as a group and by gender.ResultsA total of 840 residents (mean [SD] age, 29.24 [2.82] years; 49.8% male; 55.4% White) completed the survey. The survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) for some of the questions, with additional questions on demographic characteristics. The most important professional development preferences by descending Likert score were as follows: positive role models (4.56), stimulating career (3.81), and family friendly (3.78). The cardiology perception statements with the highest agreement were as follows: interferes with family life during training (3.93) and having met positive role models or having positive views of cardiovascular disease as a topic (3.85). Multivariable analysis yielded a 22-element model predicting cardiology as career choice. Compared with the 2010 survey, the findings of this survey indicated increased importance of work-life balance components for both male and female residents, with a greater change in male residents. Contemporary residents were more likely than their predecessors to agree with negative perceptions of cardiology.Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study found that both male and female residents place a high value on support for optimal work-life balance; these preferences have intensified over the past decade and factor into career choice. Negative perceptions of cardiology persist and, in some aspects, are worsening. Improving the culture of cardiology may make this specialty a more attractive career choice for all.

Background— The CoreValve US High-Risk Clinical Study compared clinical outcomes and serial echocardiographic findings in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods and Results— Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR (N=747). Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure and were analyzed at a central core laboratory. Compared with SAVR patients (N=357), TAVR patients (N=390) had a lower mean aortic valve gradient, larger valve area, and less patient–prosthesis mismatch (all P <0.001), but more paravalvular regurgitation at discharge, which decreased at 1 year. SAVR patients experienced significant right ventricular systolic dysfunction at discharge and 1 month with normal right ventricular function at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality was 14.2% for TAVR and 19.1% for SAVR patients. Preimplantation aortic regurgitation ≥mild was associated with reduced mortality hazard for both the TAVR (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.85; P =0.01) and the SAVR groups (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.32–0.87; P =0.01). Aortic regurgitation ≥mild after TAVR was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.08–3.53; P =0.03). Conclusions— In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk, TAVR was associated with better systolic valve performance, similar left ventricular remodeling, more paravalvular regurgitation, and less right ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with SAVR. Despite an overall mortality reduction for the TAVR group, ≥mild aortic valve regurgitation after TAVR was associated with an increased mortality hazard. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01240902.