Alongside other established clinical risk factors, procedural complexity is an important parameter to take into account in tailoring upfront duration of DAPT.

AimsIn patients with aortic stenosis (AS), risk stratification for aortic valve replacement (AVR) relies mainly on valve-related factors, symptoms and co-morbidities. We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of a newly-defined staging classification characterizing the extent of extravalvular (extra-aortic valve) cardiac damage among patients with severe AS undergoing AVR.Methods and resultsPatients with severe AS from the PARTNER 2 trials were pooled and classified according to the presence or absence of cardiac damage as detected by echocardiography prior to AVR: no extravalvular cardiac damage (Stage 0), left ventricular damage (Stage 1), left atrial or mitral valve damage (Stage 2), pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage (Stage 3), or right ventricular damage (Stage 4). One-year outcomes were compared using Kaplan–Meier techniques and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify 1-year predictors of mortality. In 1661 patients with sufficient echocardiographic data to allow staging, 47 (2.8%) patients were classified as Stage 0, 212 (12.8%) as Stage 1, 844 (50.8%) as Stage 2, 413 (24.9%) as Stage 3, and 145 (8.7%) as Stage 4. One-year mortality was 4.4% in Stage 0, 9.2% in Stage 1, 14.4% in Stage 2, 21.3% in Stage 3, and 24.5% in Stage 4 (Ptrend < 0.0001). The extent of cardiac damage was independently associated with increased mortality after AVR (HR 1.46 per each increment in stage, 95% confidence interval 1.27–1.67, P < 0.0001).ConclusionThis newly described staging classification objectively characterizes the extent of cardiac damage associated with AS and has important prognostic implications for clinical outcomes after AVR.

No abstract

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases encountered in clinical practice. Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is severely stenotic and the patient is symptomatic; however, a substantial proportion of patients with severe AS are asymptomatic at the time of first diagnosis. Although specific morphological valve features, exercise testing, stress imaging, and biomarkers can help to identify patients with asymptomatic severe AS who may benefit from early AVR, the optimal management of these patients remains uncertain and controversial. The current report presents a comprehensive review of the natural history and the diagnostic evaluation of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, and is followed by a meta-analysis from reported studies comparing an early AVR strategy to active surveillance, with an emphasis on the level of evidence substantiating the current guideline recommendations. Finally, perspectives on directions for future investigation are discussed.