Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.

Valve surgery in active infective endocarditis: a simple score to predict in-hospital prognosis

Aims Surgery for infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with high mortality. Our objectives were to describe the experience with surgical treatment for IE in Spain, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Methods Prospective cohort of 1000 consecutive patients with IE. Data were collected in 26 Spanish hospitals. Results Surgery was performed in 437 patients (43.7%). Patients treated with surgery were younger and predominantly male. They presented fewer comorbid conditions and more often had negative blood cultures and heart failure. In-hospital mortality after surgery was lower than in the medical therapy group (24.3 vs 30.7%, p = 0.02). In patients treated with surgery, endocarditis involved a native valve in 267 patients (61.1%), a prosthetic valve in 122 (27.9%), and a pacemaker lead with no clear further valve involvement in 48 (11.0%). The most common aetiologies were Staphylococcus (186, 42.6%), Streptococcus (97, 22.2%), and Enterococcus (49, 11.2%). The main indications for surgery were heart failure and severe valve regurgitation. A risk score for in-hospital mortality was developed using 7 prognostic variables with a similar predictive value (OR between 1.7 and 2.3): PALSUSE: prosthetic valve, age ≥ 70, large intracardiac destruction, Staphylococcus spp, urgent surgery, sex [female], EuroSCORE ≥ 10. In-hospital mortality ranged from 0% in patients with a PALSUSE score of 0 to 45.4% in patients with PALSUSE score > 3. Conclusions The prognosis of IE surgery is highly variable. The PALSUSE score could help to identify patients with higher in-hospital mortality.