Clinical Implications of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Strain and Hypertrophy in Asymptomatic Patients With Aortic Stenosis The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis Study

Background-The prognostic impact of ECG left ventricular strain and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in asymptomatic aortic stenosis is not well described. Methods and Results-Data were obtained in asymptomatic patients randomized to simvastatin/ezetimibe combination versus placebo in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Primary end point was the first of myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, heart failure, aortic valve replacement, or cardiovascular death. The predictive value of ECG left ventricular strain (defined as T-wave inversion in leads V(4) through V(6)) and LVH, assessed by Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria (R(V5-6) +/- S(V1) >= 35 mV) and Cornell voltage-duration criteria {[RaVL + S(V3) + (6 mV in women)] x QRS duration >= 2440 mV.ms}, was evaluated by adjustment for other prognostic covariates. A total of 1533 patients were followed for 4.3 +/- 0.8 years (6592 patient-years of follow-up), and 627 cardiovascular events occurred. ECG strain was present in 340 patients (23.6%), with LVH by Sokolow-Lyon voltage in 260 (17.1%) and by Cornell voltage-duration product in 220 (14.6%). In multivariable analyses, ECG left ventricular strain was associated with 3.1-fold higher risk of in-study myocardial infarction (95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.8; P = 0.004). Similarly, ECG LVH by both criteria predicted, compared with no ECG LVH, 5.8-fold higher risk of heart failure (95% confidence interval, 2.0 -16.8), 2.0-fold higher risk of aortic valve replacement (95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.1; both P = 0.001), and 2.5-fold higher risk of a combined end point of myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death (95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.9; P = 0.008). Conclusions-ECG left ventricular strain and LVH were independently predictive of poor prognosis in patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis

Velocity ratio predicts outcomes in patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved EF.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of velocity ratio (VR) in patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis (LGSAS) and preserved EF. BACKGROUND: LGSAS despite preserved EF represents a clinically challenging entity. Reliance on mean pressure gradient (MPG) may underestimate stenosis severity as has been reported in the context of paradoxical low flow, LGSAS. On the other hand, grading of stenosis severity by aortic valve area (AVA) may overrate stenosis severity due to erroneous underestimation of LV outflow tract (LVOT) diameter, small body size or inconsistencies in cut-off values for severe stenosis. We hypothesised that VR may have conceptual advantages over MPG and AVA, predict clinical outcomes and thereby be useful in the management of patients with LGSAS. METHODS: Patients from the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study with an AVA /=55% and asymptomatic at baseline were stratified according to VR with a cut-off value of 0.25. Outcomes were evaluated according to aortic valve-related events and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Of 435 patients with LGSAS, 197 (45%) had VR /=0.25 suggesting non-severe stenosis. Aortic valve-related events (mean follow-up 42+/-14 months) were more frequent in patients with VR>0.25 (57% vs 41%; p>0.001) as was cardiovascular death within the first 24 months (p>0.05). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, MPG was the strongest independent predictor of aortic valve events (p>0.001) followed by VR (p>0.02). Adjusting AVA by VR increased predictive accuracy for aortic valve events (area under the receiver operating curve 0.62 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.67) vs 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.61) for AVA, p=0.02) with net reclassification improvement calculated at 0.36 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.54, p>0.001). VR did not improve the prediction of clinical events by MPG. CONCLUSIONS: In the difficult setting of LGSAS, VR shows a strong association with valve-related events and-although not outperforming MPG-may be particularly useful in guiding clinical management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00092677

Design and baseline characteristics of the simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis (SEAS) study

Aortic valve stenosis and, atherosclerotic disease have several risk factors in common, in particular, hypercholesterolemia. Histologically, the diseased valves appear to have areas of inflammation much like atherosclerotic plaques. The effect of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of aortic stenosis (AS) is unclear, and there are no randomized treatment trials evaluating cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in such patients. The Sinivastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of a minimum 4 years' duration investigating the effect of lipid lowering with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day in patients with asymptomatic AS with peak transvalvular jet velocity 2.5 to 4.0 m/s. Primary efficacy variables include aortic valve surgery and ischemic vascular events, including cardiovascular mortality, and second, the effect on echocardiographically evaluated progression of AS. The SEAS Study randomly assigned 1,873 patients (age 68 +/- 10 years, 39% women, mean transaortic maximum velocity 3.1 +/- 0.5 m/s) from 173 sites. Other baseline characteristics were mean blood pressure of 145 +/- 20/82 +/- 10 mm Hg (51% hypertensive); 55% were current or previous smokers; and most were overweight (mean body mass index 26.9 kg/m(2)). At baseline, mean total cholesterol was 5.7 +/- 1.0 mmol/L (222 mg/dl), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 3.6 +/- 0.9 mmol/L (139 mg/dl), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.5 +/- 0.4 mmol/L (58 mg/dl), and triglycerides were 1.4 +/- 0.7 mmol/L (126 mg/dl). The SEAS Study is the largest randomized trial to date in patients with AS and will allow determination of the prognostic value of aggressive lipid lowering in such patients. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Indexing aortic valve area by body surface area increases the prevalence of severe aortic stenosis

Background To account for differences in body size in patients with aortic stenosis, aortic valve area (AVA) is divided by body surface area (BSA) to calculate indexed AVA (AVA(index)). Cut-off values for severe stenosis are 2.5m/s) and from 1525 patients prospectively followed in the simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis (SEAS) trial were analysed. Results The prevalence of severe stenosis increased with the AVA(index) criterion compared to AVA from 71% to 80% in the retrospective cohort, and from 29% to 44% in SEAS (both p<0.001). Overall, the predictive accuracy for aortic valve events was virtually identical for AVA and AVA(index) in the SEAS population (mean follow-up of 46months; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.67 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.70) vs 0.68 (CI 0.65 to 0.71) (NS). However, 213 patients additionally categorised as severe by AVA(index) experienced significantly less valve related events than those fulfilling only the AVA criterion (p<0.001). Conclusions Indexing AVA by BSA (AVA(index)) significantly increases the prevalence of patients with criteria for severe stenosis by including patients with a milder degree of the disease without improving the predictive accuracy for aortic valve related events