CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention during on- versus off-hours (a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI] trial substudy) 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infa Impact of treatment delay on mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting with and without haemodynamic instability: results from the German prospective, multicentre FITT-STEMI trial National assessment of early β-blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction in China, 2001-2011: The China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective AMI Study Trends and Impact of Door-to-Balloon Time on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Aged <75, 75 to 84, and ≥85 Years With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Fate of post-procedural malapposition of everolimus-eluting polymeric bioresorbable scaffold and everolimus-eluting cobalt chromium metallic stent in human coronary arteries: sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography in ABSORB Japan trial Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study Clinical value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve value: A systematic review and meta-analysis Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps) Coronary Artery Plaque Characteristics Associated With Adverse Outcomes in the SCOT-HEART Study

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.