Glycoprotein and Lipoprotein Profiles Assessed by 1H-NMR and Its Relation to Ascending Aortic Dilatation in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

Introduction: The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) confers a high risk of ascending aorta dilatation (AAoD), although its progression seems highly variable. Furthermore, the implication of lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation in the mechanisms that underlie AAoD is not fully established. The aim of this study consisted of evaluating the impact of the lipoprotein and glycoprotein profiles in AAOD as well as its progression in BAV aortopathy. Methods: Using 1H-nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR), we analyzed and compared the lipoprotein and glycoprotein profiles of plasma samples from 152 BAV patients with dilated and nondilated ascending aorta. Additionally, these profiles were also compared for 119 of these patients who were prospectively followed-up clinically and by echocardiography in the long-term (5 years). Ascending aorta dilation velocity (mm/year) was calculated for this analysis. Results: Several parameters related to the lipoprotein profile including remnant cholesterol, small LDL and IDL-cholesterol were found to be significantly increased in the dilated group compared to those in the nondilated group. The glycoprotein A-nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) signal, a novel inflammation biomarker, was also observed to be increased in the dilated group. After performing multivariate analysis, remnant cholesterol remained an independent variable related to AAoD. In the long-term follow-up, proatherogenic lipoprotein parameters were related to ascending aorta dilatation velocity ascending. After a lineal regression analysis, non-HDL particles remained as an independent predictor of ascending aorta dilation velocity. Conclusions: Patients with BAV and AAoD presented a more pro-atherogenic profile assessed by 1H-NMR, especially related to triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. This pro-atherogenic profile seems to contribute to the higher growth rate of ascending aorta diameter

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