Gerke, Oke

Abstract Background GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes, overweight, and obesity. Whether these benefits extend to patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unknown. Thus, we investigated the association between GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment and cardiovascular outcomes after AVR. Methods Nationwide population-based cohort study including consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI or SAVR in Western Denmark between January, 2016 and April, 2022. Patients were followed until death, emigration, crossover, or end of follow up on May 12, 2026. Propensity score-matching was performed to balance confounding. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or aortic valve reoperation. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, aortic valve reoperation, with analyses accounting for the competing risk of death. Results Among 5259 eligible patients undergoing AVR, 292 propensity score-matched patients were included in the final analyses. During a mean follow up of 4.8±2.4 years, GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome compared with controls (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50-0.96, p=0.029). GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment was also associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.46-0.95, p=0.025). In competing risk analyses accounting for death, lower risks were observed for heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93, p=0.018), and aortic valve reoperation (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.98, p=0.037). Conclusion Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes including mortality following AVR among patients with severe AS.

Abstract Objectives The study aimed to compare long-term outcomes of the David and Yacoub valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) procedures in a nationwide, low-volume setting. Methods All patients undergoing elective VSARR in Denmark between January 2010 and April 2022 were identified using the Danish registries. The primary end-point was all-cause death. Secondary end-points included stroke, reoperation, a composite of death or reoperation, and long-term echocardiographic outcomes. Analyses were performed in both crude and propensity score-matched (PSM) populations and compared with outcomes from a control group comprised of all elective composite root replacement procedures performed at the contributing centres in the study period. Results A total of 160 patients underwent VSARR (median age; David vs Yacoub; 49.7 [SD 14.1] years vs 51.5 [SD 14.3] years; P = .42) with the David (n = 92, 57.5%; median follow-up 8.2 [SD 3.6] years) or Yacoub (n = 68, 42.5%; median follow-up 7.1 [SD 2.4] years) procedure. Ten-year all-cause death was similar (David 9.3% [95% CI: 2.3-15.2] vs Yacoub 8.8% [95% CI: 3.6-20.6]; log-rank P = .54). Reoperation rates (log-rank P = .12), stroke incidence (P = .41), and the composite end-point of death or reoperation (log-rank P = .63) were comparable, with consistent findings in the PSM cohort. Long-term echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated no difference in recurrent regurgitation, stenosis, or valve-related complications. Compared to elective composite root replacement (CRR) (n = 486), VSARR demonstrated lower rate of all-cause death (P = .027) and stroke (P = .026), while reoperation rate was higher (13.8% vs 4.3%; P < .001). However, the risk of reoperation was comparable between procedures when accounting for competing risk of death (log-rank P = .17). Conclusions Long-term outcomes following elective VSARR using the David and Yacoub procedure were comparable. VSARR was associated with lower risk of all-cause death and stroke compared to elective CRR, supporting the two VSARR procedures as durable options when performed in experienced centres with careful patient selection, even in low-volume settings.

Abstract Aims Aortic valve-sparing root replacement is recommended over composite root replacement for aortic root aneurysms, especially in younger patients, but long-term outcomes in low-volume nationwide settings remain unclear. The objectives are to compare long-term survival, stroke, and reoperation rates between the two procedures in a low-volume national setting. Methods and results Patients were identified from the Western Danish Heart Registry and the Danish Heart Registry. Cases were validated by review of operative descriptions. The primary outcome was long-term survival from all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included stroke, reoperation, recurrent aortic regurgitation, and aortic stenosis. Groups were balanced using propensity score matching. Echocardiographic data were provided for the matched cohort. We identified 760 patients treated with composite root replacement and 179 patients with aortic valve-sparing root replacement between January 2010 and April 2022. Mean follow-up was 6.5 years. Composite root replacement patients were younger [50.7 years (SD 14.1) vs. 55.2 (SD 13.5), P < 0.001], but more comorbid with a median EuroSCOREII of 5.5 [interquartile range (IQR): 3.3–11.7] vs. 3.4 (IQR: 2.6–5.0) (P < 0.001). After matching 157 patients per group, aortic valve-sparing root replacement showed improved 10-year survival [91.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 82.3–95.8 vs. 80.4%, 95% CI 70.0–87.5, log-rank P = 0.026], with lower 10-year stroke risk (4.9%, 95% CI 1.8–13.0 vs. 18.9%, 95% CI 11.7–29.9, log-rank P = 0.007). Risk of reoperation was nonsignificant (log-rank P = 0.12), which was consistent in the crude population when accounting for competing risk of death (log-rank P = 0.09). Conclusion In this nationwide study, aortic valve-sparing root replacement was associated with better long-term survival and lower stroke risk, supporting its role as a durable surgical option for selected patients.