Objective Many patients with aortic stenosis (AS) have coexisting aortic regurgitation (AR). However, few data exist regarding its clinical significance and prognostic value. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of concomitant significant AR on clinical outcomes in patients with non-surgically treated severe AS.
Design A single centre, retrospective cohort study.
Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed 306 consecutive patients (age, 72±11 years) with severe AS in whom non-surgical management was primarily planned at our institution between January 1999 and December 2011. There were 74 patients with moderate or severe AR (ASR) and 232 patients without significant AR (isolated AS). Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.
Main outcome measures All-cause mortality and valve-related events, were defined by a composite of cardiac death and hospitalisation because of heart failure.
Results The mean follow-up period was 4.5±3.3 years. Although the overall survival was comparable between the groups (p=0.07), the event-free survival, defined as survival without cardiac death or hospitalisation because of heart failure, was significantly worse in ASR than in isolated AS (p=0.02). Concomitant AR was an independent predictor of adverse events in patients with severe AS (HR, 2.10; p=0.003). Among patients who did not eventually undergo aortic valve replacement, ASR was associated with significantly worse survival and event-free survival than isolated AS (p=0.002 and p=0.03, respectively).
Conclusions Concomitant AR might worsen the prognosis of severe AS. Greater consideration of surgery might be beneficial in patients with ASR.
- Valvular disease
- coronary artery disease
- great vessels and trauma
- cardiac surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
SH and TK contributed equally to this study.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Review Board of Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.