CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Drug-Drug Interactions of Common Cardiac Medications and Chemotherapeutic Agents Short-Term Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors in the United States: A Matched Cohort Study 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee High Coronary Shear Stress in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Predicts Myocardial Infarction Mathematical modelling of endovascular drug delivery: balloons versus stents Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results MITRA-FR vs. COAPT: Lessons from two trials with diametrically opposed results Treatment Effects of Pulmonary Artery Denervation for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Stratified by REVEAL Risk Score: Results from PADN-CFDA Trial Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Results From the CABANA Trial

Expert Opinion

JOURNAL:ACC Article Link

Randomized Comparison of Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Very Severe Aortic Stenosis - RECOVERY

Dharam J. Kumbhani

Pre-reading

CONTRIBUTION TO LITERATURE - The RECOVERY trial showed that early surgery among patients with asymptomatic but very severe aortic stenosis results in improved survival out to 8 years compared with watchful waiting.


DESCRIPTION - The goal of the trial was to assess the safety and benefit of surgery vs. watchful waiting among patients with asymptomatic very severe aortic stenosis.


STUDY DESIGN

Eligible patients with very severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis were randomized in a 1:1 open-label fashion to either early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 73) or watchful waiting (n = 72).

- Total screened: 273

- Total number of enrollees: 145

- Duration of follow-up: 6.2 years

- Mean patient age: 64.2 years

- Percentage female: 51%


INCLUSION CRITERIA:

- Age 20-80 years

- Very severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area [AVA] 0.75 cm2, peak velocity 4.5 m/sec, or mean gradient 50 mm Hg)

- Lack of symptoms


EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

- Exertional dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, or angina

- Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%

- Clinically significant aortic regurgitation or mitral valve disease

- Prior cardiac surgery

- Positive cardiac stress test

- Medical conditions such as cancer


OTHER SALIENT FEATURES/CHARACTERISTICS:

- Body mass index: 24.5 kg/m2

- Coronary artery disease: 4-5%

- Mean EuroSCORE II: 0.9%

- Cause of aortic stenosis: bicuspid valve: 60%, degenerative: 33%, rheumatic: 6%

- Peak velocity: 5.1 m/sec, mean gradient 64 mm Hg, AVA 0.64 cm2

- Mean LVEF: 65%


PRINCIPAL FINDINGS -

The primary outcome of operative mortality or cardiovascular mortality at 4 years, for early surgery vs. watchful waiting, was 1% vs. 6% (p < 0.05). At 8 years: 1% vs. 26% (p = 0.003).

- Cardiovascular mortality at 4 years: 1% vs. 15% (hazard ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.67, p < 0.05)

SECONDARY OUTCOMES FOR EARLY SURGERY VS. WATCHFUL WAITING:

- All-cause mortality at 8 years: 10% vs. 32% (p < 0.05)

- Heart failure hospitalization: 0% vs. 11% (p < 0.05)

- Any secondary endpoint or AVR in watchful waiting group: 62% at 4 years, 92% at 8 years


INTERPRETATION - The results of this trial indicate that early surgery among patients with asymptomatic but very severe aortic stenosis (AVA 0.75 cm2, mean gradient 50 mm Hg, peak velocity 4.5 m/sec) results in improved survival out to 8 years compared with watchful waiting. These are important findings, and will likely change guidelines on this topic. Currently, surgery for asymptomatic aortic stenosis has a Class IIb indication in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology valvular heart disease guideline. There are observational data that patients with peak velocity >5 m/sec may particularly benefit, especially if they are low-surgical risk candidates.

A few noteworthy points: Although the surgical risk of these patients was low, there were zero operative deaths, which is likely a reflection of experienced operators/institutions. The generalizability of these findings may thus be harder in a more heterogeneous landscape such as in the United States. Also, it is interesting to note that patients in the watchful waiting arm could go as long as 8 years without crossing over (only two cross-overs to surgery), despite having such severe aortic stenosis. Other studies have suggested this latentperiod (i.e., no symptoms despite severe aortic stenosis) to be about 1-2 years. This cohort had a very high proportion of bicuspid aortic stenosis patients, which may be a partial reason for this. Also, exercise testing was only selectively employed; thus, some patients could have hiddensymptomatic aortic stenosis, which would have been unmasked with a stress test. The EARLY-TAVR trial is looking to enroll a similar asymptomatic population all patients are required to undergo exercise testing for this reason. Finally, these results are not applicable to TAVR; EARLY-TAVR and other studies will help inform this question.