Diastolic dysfunction and clinical outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with atypical aortic valve stenosis.

Abstract

Background: Diastolic dysfunction is a predictor of poor outcomes in many cardiovascular conditions. At present, it is unclear whether diastolic dysfunction predicts adverse outcomes in patients with atypical aortic stenosis who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods: Five hundred and twenty-three patients who underwent transcatheter AVR (TAVR) (n = 303) and surgical AVR (SAVR) (n = 220) at a single institution were included in our analysis. Baseline left and right heart invasive hemodynamics were assessed. Baseline transthoracic echocardiograms were reviewed to determine aortic stenosis subtype and parameters of diastolic dysfunction. Aortic stenosis subtype was categorized as typical (normal flow, high-gradient) aortic stenosis, classical, low-flow, low-gradient (cLFLG) aortic stenosis, and paradoxical, low-flow, low-gradient (pLFLG) aortic stenosis. Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to examine the relation between invasive hemodynamic or echocardiographic variables of diastolic dysfunction, aortic stenosis subtype, and all-cause mortality. Propensity-score analysis was performed to study the relation between aortic stenosis subtype and the composite outcome [death/cerebrovascular accident (CVA)].

Results: The median STS risk was 5.3 and 2.5% for TAVR and SAVR patients, respectively. Relative to patients with typical aortic stenosis, patients with atypical (cLFLG and pLFLG) aortic stenosis displayed a significantly higher prevalence of diastolic dysfunction (LVEDP ≥ 20mmHg, PCWP ≥ 20mmHg, echo grade II or III diastolic dysfunction, and echo-PCWP ≥ 20mmHg) and, independently of AVR treatment modality, had a significantly increased risk of death. In propensity-score analysis, patients with atypical aortic stenosis had higher rates of death/CVA than typical aortic stenosis patients, independently of diastolic dysfunction and AVR treatment modality.

Conclusion: We demonstrate the novel observation that compared with patients with typical aortic stenosis, patients with atypical aortic stenosis have a higher burden of diastolic dysfunction. We corroborate the worse outcomes previously reported in atypical versus typical aortic stenosis and demonstrate, for the first time, that this observation is independent of AVR treatment modality. Furthermore, the presence of diastolic dysfunction does not independently predict outcome in atypical aortic stenosis regardless of treatment type, suggesting that other factors are responsible for adverse clinical outcomes in this higher risk cohort.