Aortic valve replacement and mortality with left ventricular hypertrophy in setting of normal LVEF
Authors: Wasfy J , Zhao Y , Berman A , Fraccaro C , Karam N , Wasfy M , Etiwy M , Gustus S , Picard M 
Published: October 2024

Background

Without symptoms, indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in severe aortic stenosis (AS) differ for individuals with normal vs. low/decreasing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Conceptually, the development of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) could also indicate ventricular injury and potential benefit with earlier AVR. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of AVR in individuals with LVH. As such, unlike low or dropping LVEF, development of LVH is not in itself an indication for AVR in clinical guidelines.

Methods

Initially, 1,232,492 echocardiography reports from 12 hospitals were identified from 1 January 2000 to 22 November 2022, and previously validated natural language processing modules were then applied to identify aortic gradients, LVEF, and presence of LVH. These reports were linked to mortality data, key comorbidities with a 2-year lookback covariate window, and date of any AVR. We then isolated echocardiograms demonstrating normal flow severe AS, LVEF ≥ 55% and LVH. Chart reviews were conducted to reduce missing data and outcomes were censored on the date of the chart review (October 4, 2023). To assess the association between AVR and mortality, Cox proportional hazards models considering treatment status (ie, AVR or not) were used with the index echocardiogram as time zero. Covariates used in risk-adjustment were chosen a priori based on conditions and laboratory values used in cardiac surgery mortality risk-adjustment, since those variables could plausibly confound the treatment decision. To address immortal time bias, AVR was considered a time-varying covariate. Multiple additional approaches with propensity scores were performed as sensitivity analyses.

Results

After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4856 unique patients remained for analysis. Of those, 2043 (42.1%) received AVR with 841/2043 (41.2%) receiving surgical AVR and 1202/2043 (58.8%) receiving transcatheter AVR. Patients who received AVR had lower unadjusted mortality than those who did not receive AVR (33.6% vs. 47.1%, p &lt; 0.001). After adjustment, and accounting for time-dependence of AVR, AVR was associated with reduced mortality (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.89, p &lt; 0.0001). The sensitivity analyses were all consistent with the primary analysis.

Conclusions

AVR was associated with reduced mortality for patients with severe AS, preserved LVEF, and LVH. This association persisted even after accounting for time-dependence, which tends to reduce the observed effectiveness of procedures in observational data. With over a million echocardiograms over more than 20 years, this is the largest known analysis of AVR outcomes in individuals with severe AS and LVH. Our findings suggest LVH may be a high-risk phenotype of individuals with AS, similar to dropping LVEF. As such, these results raise the potential of more proactive AVR clinical guidelines in individuals with LVH, even when LVEF is normal.Survival in AVR Vs No AVR