Abstract
Background A staging system for aortic stenosis (AS) based upon the extent of cardiac damage has been proposed to better stratify risk and evaluate the benefit of aortic valve intervention (AVI), especially in those with moderate AS. We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of this staging system.
Methods Data from initial clinically indicated echocardiograms performed between 2010 and 2018 in patients >18 years of age were extracted and linked to national outcome data. The combined primary outcome was mortality or hospitalization with heart failure.
Results Amongst 24,699 patients, 513 and 920 had moderate and mild AS, respectively. In moderate AS, Stage 0 cardiac damage was present in 9.4%, Stage 1 in 53.7%, Stage 2 in 31.1%, Stage 3 in 3.2%, and Stage 4 in 2.6%. In mild AS, rates were 11.5%, 57.8%, 25.0%, 2.6%, and 3.0% for each consecutive stage. Increasing stage was associated with increased risk of the primary outcome in both moderate (HR 1.62/stage) and mild AS (HR 1.93/stage). After censoring at the time of AVI, increasing stage was also associated with mortality in moderate (HR 1.97/stage) and mild AS (HR 2.06/stage).
Conclusion Stage of cardiac damage predicts prognosis in both moderate and mild AS to a similar extent. Outcomes may therefore not be fully related to the haemodynamic consequences of valve disease, and hence may not be entirely reversible after valve intervention. Revised management algorithms focusing on earlier intervention and novel treatment strategies targeting cardiac damage are needed to improve clinical outcomes in patients with AS.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by a grant from the Otago Medical School Research Student Support Committee. MKM was supported by the New Zealand Heart Foundation and the E & W White Parsons Charitable Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Consultation with Māori was undertaken with the Ngāi Tahu Research Consultation Committee. The study received ethical approval from the New Zealand Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee (ref: 21/CEN/15) and locality approval from Te Whatu Ora, Southern.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly on account of the ethics approval conditions of this study.
