Search

BACKGROUND: Although the prognosis and management of severe aortic stenosis has been extensively studied, the risk stratification and outcomes of patients with moderate aortic stenosis remain elusive. METHODS: This study included 674 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System with moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area, 1–1.5 cm2; mean gradient, 20–40 mm Hg; and peak velocity <4 m/s) and an NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) level within 3 months of index diagnosis. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as the composite outcome of progression to severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement, heart failure hospitalization, or death) was extracted from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The mean age was 75.3±12 years, and 57% were men. During a median follow-up of 316 days, the composite end point occurred in 305 patients. There were 132 (19.6%) deaths, 144 (21.4%) heart failure hospitalizations, and 114 (16.9%) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Elevated NT-proBNP (1.41 [95% CI, 1.01–1.95]; P =0.048), diabetes (1.46 [95% CI, 1.08–1.96]; P =0.01), elevated averaged mitral valve E/e′ ratio (hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.18–2.10]; P <0.01), and presence atrial fibrillation at the time of index echocardiogram (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.15–2.91]; P =0.01) were each independently associated with an increased hazard for the composite outcome and when taken collectively, each of these factors incrementally increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results further elucidate the relatively poor short-medium term outcomes and risk stratification of patients with moderate aortic stenosis, supporting randomized trials assessing the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) models may improve information accuracy and more effectively educate patients about hypertension. Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines Keywords: artificial intelligence; hypertension; patient; physician; treatment EN artificial intelligence hypertension patient physician treatment e125 e127 3 06/14/23 20230701 NES 230701 Despite available treatment options, hypertension control remains poor in many regions worldwide. [Extracted from the article]

Cardiovascular 3-dimensional printing refers to the fabrication of patients' specific cardiac anatomic replicas based on volumetric imaging data sets obtained by echocardiography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging. It enables advanced visualization and enhanced anatomic and sometimes hemodynamic understanding and also improves procedural planning and allows interventional simulation. Also, it is helpful in communication with patients and trainees. These key advantages have led to its broad use in the field of cardiology ranging from congenital to vascular and valvular disease, particularly in structural heart interventions, where many emerging technologies are being developed and tested. This review summarizes the process of 3-dimensional printing and the workflow from imaging acquisition to model generation and discusses the cardiac applications of 3-dimensional printing focusing on its use in percutaneous structural interventions, where procedural planning now commonly relies on 3-dimensional printed models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the randomized phase 3 VALOR-HCM study (A Study to Evaluate Mavacamten in Adults With Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Who Are Eligible for Septal Reduction Therapy) of patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, mavacamten reduced the need for septal reduction therapy. Because mavacamten improves ventricular compliance, this sub-study examined the effects of treatment with this cardiac myosin inhibitor on diastolic function. Methods: Symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients on maximally tolerated medical therapy referred for septal reduction therapy were randomized 1:1 to mavacamten or placebo. At baseline and week 16, a resting and stress echocardiogram was performed with interpretation by a core laboratory. In this exploratory substudy, the principal end point was the change in parameters used to define the grade of diastolic function in patients treated with mavacamten and placebo. A related objective was to assess the proportion of patients with an improvement in diastolic function grade. A secondary aim was to assess for correlation between diastolic function parameters and the secondary end points from VALOR-HCM: New York Heart Association class, quality of life, and cardiac biomarkers. Results: Diastolic dysfunction grade was evaluable in 98 patients at baseline and week 16. Among patients treated with mavacamten, 29.4% (15 of 51) demonstrated improvement in diastolic function grade compared with 12.8% (6 of 47) patients with placebo (P =0.05). Average E/e' ratio decreased significantly in patients treated with mavacamten (−3.4±5.3) compared with placebo (0.57±3.5; P <0.001). Indexed left atrial volumes (mL/m2) also decreased significantly in patients who received mavacamten (−5.2±7.8) compared with placebo (−0.51±8.1; P =0.005). After adjustment for change in left ventricular outflow tract gradient and mitral regurgitation, mavacamten was significantly associated with a decrease in average E/e' ratio and indexed left atrial volumes. Change in average E/e' ratio was significantly correlated with the secondary end points from VALOR-HCM. Conclusions: In this exploratory substudy, after 16 weeks of therapy, mavacamten improved diastolic function, and this change correlated with improvement in clinical and biomarker end points. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04349072. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi-modality imaging plays critical roles during and after procedures associated with atrial fibrillation. Transesophageal echocardiography is an invaluable tool for left atrial appendage occlusion during the procedure and at follow-up. Both cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance contribute to postprocedural evaluation of pulmonary vein isolation ablation. The present review is the second of a 2-part series where we discuss the roles of cardiac imaging in the evaluation and management of patients with atrial fibrillation, focusing on intraprocedural and postprocedural assessment, including the clinical evidence and outcomes data supporting this future applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide and is associated with increased risk of heart failure, stroke, and death. In current medical practice, multimodality imaging is routinely used in the management of AF. Twenty-one years ago, the ACUTE trial (Assessment of Cardioversion Using Transesophageal Echocardiography) results were published, and the management of AF changed forever by incorporating transesophageal echocardiography guided cardioversion of patients in AF for the first time. Current applications of multimodality imaging in AF in 2022 include the use of transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography before cardioversion to exclude left atrial thrombus and in left atrial appendage occlusion device implantation. Transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance are clinically used for AF ablation planning. The decision to use a particular imaging modality in AF is based on patient's characteristics, guideline recommendation, institutional preferences, expertise, and cost. In this first of 2-part review series, we discuss the preprocedural role of echocardiography, computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance in the AF, with regard to their clinical applications, relevant outcomes data and unmet needs, and highlights future directions in this rapidly evolving field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: To risk stratify patients undergoing single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) in accordance with appropriate use criteria for referral to coronary angiography, we developed a risk classification algorithm incorporating appropriate use criteria–defined risk features. We evaluated the association between this algorithm with downstream angiography, revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Methods: We studied consecutive patients who underwent SPECT-MPI from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, and assigned a scan risk of low, intermediate, high, or indeterminate. With this stratification, we assessed referral for angiography and revascularization within 3 months of SPECT-MPI and intermediate-term mortality. Results: Among 12 799 patients, the mean age was 66 years, and a majority were men (56.8%). Most patients were low risk (83.6%) followed by intermediate (9.9%) and high risk (5.2%). Compared with low-risk patients, intermediate- and high-risk patients were more frequently referred for angiography (14.8% and 13.6% versus 2.0%; P <0.001) and revascularization (7.7% and 6.8% versus 0.7%; P <0.001). In 1008 propensity-matched patients, scan risk was independently associated with angiography after adjustment for ischemia, scar, or stress ejection fraction. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, mortality was higher with increased scan risk (high, 10.4%; intermediate, 7.1%; low, 4.1%; P <0.001). Compared with low scan risk, intermediate (hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.09–1.72]; P =0.008) and high scan risk (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.53–2.56]; P <0.001) were associated with mortality in multivariable analysis. Similar findings were observed for those undergoing pharmacological and exercise SPECT-MPI with comparatively worse prognosis among pharmacological patients. Conclusions: This appropriate use criteria–derived risk classification algorithm for SPECT-MPI guided referral for coronary angiography and revascularization and was significantly associated with mortality. This algorithm may serve as an important tool to reaffirm appropriate use criteria and direct management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing stress testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Assessment of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is among the important components of a comprehensive echocardiographic report. Previous studies noted wide limits of agreement using 2009 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Echocardiography guidelines, but reproducibility of 2016 guidelines update in estimating LV filling pressure is unknown. Methods: Echocardiographic and hemodynamic data were obtained from 50 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for clinical indications. Clinical and echocardiographic findings but not invasive hemodynamics were provided to 4 groups of observers, including experienced echocardiographers and cardiology fellows. Invasively acquired LV filling pressure was the gold standard. Results: In group I of 8 experienced echocardiographers from the guidelines writing committee, sensitivity for elevated LV filling pressure was 92% for all observers, and specificity was 93±6%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group I was 0.80. In group II of 4 fellows in training, sensitivity was 91±2%, and specificity was 95±2%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group II was 0.94. In group III of 9 experienced echocardiographers who had not participated in drafting the guidelines, sensitivity was 88±5%, and specificity was 91±7%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group III was 0.76. In group IV of 7 other fellows, sensitivity was 91±3%, and specificity was 92±5%. Fleiss κ-value for the agreement in group IV was 0.89. Conclusions: There is a good level of agreement and accuracy in the estimation of LV filling pressure using the American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging 2016 recommendations update, irrespective of the experience level of the observer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]