Recognition and management of aortic stenosis in the elderly

Angina pectoris, syncope or near-syncope, and congestive heart failure (CHF) are the 3 cardinal manifestations of aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. Prolonged duration and late peaking of the aortic systolic ejection murmur best differentiate severe from mild AS. The agreement in quantitation of AS severity between Doppler echocardiography and cardiac catheterization is approximately 95%. The average survival is 3 years after the onset of angina pectoris or syncope and 1.5 to 2 years after the onset of CHF in patients with severe AS who does not undergo surgery. Indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR), for use of warfarin after AVR in patients with mechanical prostheses, and for use of aspirin or warfarin after AVR in patients with bioprostheses are listed in the article.     

Asymptomatic aortic stenosis: management revisited

Aortic stenosis (AS) is common and is the commonest reason for valve surgery in the Western hemisphere. Calcific or a degenerative process is the most common cause of this pathological process and increases with aging population. The current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) only for symptoms or LV dysfunction unless a concomitant cardiac surgery is planned There are no randomized studies to guide therapy. AVR is forbidden by guidelines in severe AS patients with no symptoms. The guidelines are based on an analysis of natural history studies of AS and risk and durability of AVR. We will analyze the basis of current recommendations, unreliability of symptoms for such an important decision and more contemporary data on the natural and unnatural history of asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Based on these data, we recommend that asymptomatic AS should not be a class III recommendation for AVR and surgical options should be considered in most of severe AS patients with high risk profiles.     

Management of mild to moderate aortic stenosis at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting

An increasing number of patients are referred for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) with the presence of mild to moderate aortic stenosis (AS). It is well accepted that patients with severe AS and coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) and CABG, which carries an operative mortality of approximately 5-7%. For patients with CAD and mild AS, controversy persists regarding concomitant AVR during CABG. It has been shown that AS progresses at a rate of 5-10 mmHg per year, and the valve area decreases by about 0.1 cm2 per year. The progression of AS is more rapid in elderly patients, in the presence of CAD, and in patients with a calcific degenerative etiology. In contrast, patients with congenital bicuspid valves or rheumatic pathology demonstrate slower progression of disease. Despite these observations, it is difficult to predict reliably the progression of disease for an individual. Thus, an attempt should be made to identify patients who are likely to progress rapidly from mild to severe AS and who would therefore benefit from AVR/CABG. Our approach regarding the decision to perform an AVR/CABG is based on aortic valve gradient and area. If the gradient is >25 mmHg, AVR should be considered. If the gradient is <10 mmHg, then only CABG is performed. Severities of leaflet calcification and leaflet mobility are factors that should be taken into account when deciding to perform concomitant AVR/CABG for intermediate gradient (10-25 mmHg). Additional important variables include the etiology of aortic valve disease, the rate of progression of AS, the patient's life expectancy, and general condition. For patients with mild AS who are undergoing CABG, a tailored approach involving intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography and valve inspection is the most appropriate surgical option.     

Workup and Management of Patients With Paradoxical Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

About 60% of patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (PLF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) have a severe disease that justifies aortic valve replacement (AVR). The first step in patients with symptomatic PLF AS should be to rule out measurement errors and treat hypertension. The second step is to distinguish pseudo-severe from true severe AS (TSAS). The third step is to select the optimal treatment modality at the right time. Regarding the second step, projected aortic valve area calculated using stress echocardiography is superior to traditional severity criteria (AVA <?1.0 cm² and mean gradient ≥?40 mmHg) to unmask TSAS and predict outcomes. Aortic valve calcification score quantitated by computed tomography is helpful to identify TSAS by applying thresholds of 2000 and 1200 AU, respectively, for men and women. This modality should be considered, particularly if stress echocardiography is either not feasible or inconclusive. Once AS severity is confirmed, a risk stratification based on symptomatic status and the importance of left ventricular (LV) systolic impairment will guide therapeutic decision. Symptomatic assessment should not solely rely on patient-reported symptom status, but rather include an objective exercise test. The presence of symptomatic PLF-LG TSAS is a class IIa indication for AVR in the guidelines. In asymptomatic patients, a markedly reduced stroke volume, the presence of myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, a poor longitudinal LV function as assessed by speckle tracking echocardiography, and/or a moderate to severe LV diastolic dysfunction are predictors of poor outcome in PLF-LG patients and may indicate the need of early AVR. The type of AVR should be discussed within a multidisciplinary team, bearing in mind that transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is superior to medical treatment in inoperable patients. Furthermore, TAVR may be a useful alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of TAVR, including the lower risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, should be weighed against the risk of paravalvular regurgitation, which is likely poorly tolerated by patients with PLF-LG who often harbor a small and non-compliant LV cavity.     

Recovery of Long‐Axis Left Ventricular Function after Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background: Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) should undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) before irreversible LV dysfunction has developed. Assessment of long‐axis left ventricular (LV) function may assist in proper timing of AVR. Objectives: To assess serial changes in long‐axis LV function before and after AVR in patients with severe AS and preserved LV ejection fraction. Methods: The study comprised 27 consecutive patients (mean age 64.9 ± 11.7 years, 15 males) with symptomatic severe AS, scheduled for AVR. Seventeen subjects without known cardiac disease, matched for age, gender, LV ejection fraction and cardiovascular risk factors, served as a control group. Long‐axis LV function assessment was done with tissue Doppler imaging at 3 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after AVR. Results: Mean aortic valve area in the AS group was 0.70 ± 0.24 cm². Pre‐AVR peak systolic mitral annular velocities were significantly lower compared to controls (6.7 ± 1.5 vs. 8.9 ± 2.0 cm/s, P < 0.05). Post‐AVR peak systolic mitral annular velocities improved to 9.1 ± 2.9 at 3 weeks, 8.6 ± 2.7 at 6 months, and 8.1 ± 1.7 cm/s at 12 months (P < 0.05). Improvements were seen over the whole range of pre‐AVR peak systolic mitral annular velocities. Patients with improved Sm after AVR (defined as ≥10% compared to baseline values) did not differ in baseline characteristics as compared to those who did not improve. Conclusions: In patients with severe AS and preserved LV ejection fraction, abnormal systolic mitral annular velocities improve after AVR, independent of the pre‐AVR value. (Echocardiography 2010;27:1177‐1181)     

Prevalence of atherosclerosis of the coronary and extracranial cerebral arteries in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for calcified stenosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aim was to investigate the coexistence of various atherosclerotic changes in patients with non-rheumatic calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS), since calcific AS shares various clinical risk factors with atherosclerosis. METHODS: In 282 consecutive patients with severe calcific stenosis of a tricuspid aortic valve scheduled for aortic valve replacement, the prevalence of atherosclerotic changes of the coronary and extracranial cerebral arteries were assessed using coronary angiography and Doppler sonography, respectively. RESULTS: The severities of coronary and extracranial cerebral artery atherosclerosis were significantly associated (p = 0.005). The prevalence and severity of both coronary and extracranial cerebral artery atherosclerosis were age-dependent. Coronary or extracranial cerebral artery stenosis was present in 59% and 16% of patients, respectively, while 91% of the study population and all patients aged > 80 years showed atherosclerosis of the coronary and/or extracranial cerebral arteries. CONCLUSION: The data obtained indicated a very high prevalence of atherosclerotic changes in patients with calcific AS, suggesting pathogenetic similarities of both disorders. Routine screening of the extracranial cerebral arteries is warranted in all patients with calcific AS and scheduled for valve replacement.     

Aortic valve replacement in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be done safely in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and depressed ventricular function (ejection fraction < or =35%). Dobutamine echocardiography is useful to identify AS patients with contractile reserve who will benefit from AVR and can be used for risk stratification of these patients. AVR can also be undertaken in patients with severe aortic regurgitation and depressed ventricular function with an acceptable operative mortality. AVR in both groups results in a 5-year survival of approximately 70%, which is similar to that of orthotopic heart transplantation. Due to the comorbidities of immunosuppression and limited donor organ supply, AVR should be attempted prior to transplantation in both these high-risk groups.     

Bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflet disruption with high energy electrocautery to prevent coronary artery obstruction during valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is well‐established for the treatment of bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis (AS) in high surgical risk patients. Coronary artery obstruction from displacement of the bioprosthetic valve leaflets during valve‐in‐valve (VIV) TAVR is a rare, but potentially fatal, complication. Recently, the bioprosthetic aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) procedure was developed as a method for disrupting bioprosthetic leaflets in patients undergoing VIV TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction. This case describes a successful VIV TAVR utilizing a simplified concept of the BASILICA technique in a patient where the full procedure could not be completed.     

Aortic valve replacement for patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not normally recommended in asymptomatic patients, even if aortic stenosis is severe. However, as the population ages, an increasing number of patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis will require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In these cases, risk of "prophylactic" AVR needs to be weighed against risks of subsequent worsening of the mildly or moderately diseased aortic valve. If unoperated, aortic stenosis will worsen at an average of 6-8 mmHg per year (-0.1 cm2/year valve area), and one-quarter of such patients will require late AVR with a high operative mortality (14-24%). If AVR is performed at the time of CABG, operative risk is increased only slightly (from 1-3% to 2-6%), as are late mortality (1-2% per year) and morbidity (1-2% per year), mainly from hemorrhagic complications. Intrinsic gradients of most prosthetic valves are sufficiently low that even patients with low aortic valve gradients are likely to derive hemodynamic benefit from AVR. Thus, if there is a measurable (>20-25 mmHg) gradient across the aortic valve in a patient who requires CABG, the patient is at considerable risk for developing symptomatic aortic stenosis prior to reaching the end of expected benefit from CABG; in this case AVR should be considered. It may be reasonable in patients with very mild gradients (<25 mmHg) to defer aortic valve surgery; however, it should be noted that aortic stenosis progression is generally more rapid when the initial gradient is small.     

Contemporary balloon aortic valvuloplasty: Changing indications and refined technique

Even if un to improve long-term prognosis, balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) may be useful in selected patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis either as a bridge to surgical or transcatheter valve replacement (aortic valve replacement [AVR] or transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) or as a triage strategy for patients with uncertain indications. International guidelines recommend BAV as: a “bridge” to AVR/TAVI, a “trial” in patients with undetermined symptoms, or a “bridge-to-decision” in case of comorbidities. However, in clinical practice, BAV is also used as a palliative measure to improve hemodynamics and quality of life in many patients who are excluded from AVR/TAVI. Finally, BAV is often performed during TAVI to facilitate prosthesis delivery, optimize frame expansion, or for bioprosthetic valve fracture in selected valve-in-valve procedures. Technical innovations, which allow for a mini-invasive approach via transradial access and pacing delivered through the wire, have led to a decrease in complications over time. This review focuses on contemporary BAV with a specific emphasis on new indications, innovative techniques, and specific complex patient subgroups.     

Aortic valve stenosis due to alkaptonuria

Cardiovascular disease is a less-well appreciated aspect of alkaptonuria. A 69-year-old man presented with shortness of breath and exertional chest pain. He had a previous diagnosis of alkaptonuria (endogenous ochronosis), confirmed on the basis of urine coloration, skin pigmentation and ochronotic arthropathy in the knees. Echocardiography and coronary angiography revealed severe aortic valve stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. The patient underwent biological aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Operative findings included ochronosis of a severely calcified aortic valve and the aortic intima, and bioprosthetic AVR and CABG were successfully performed.     

Severe pulmonary hypertension in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: clinical profile and prognostic implications

OBJECTIVES: We analyzed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 47 patients with severe pulmonary hypertension (PHT) and severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) from 1987 to 1999. BACKGROUND: The prognostic implications of severe pulmonary hypertension in patients with severe AS are poorly understood. METHODS: The mean age of patients was 78 years (range 47 to 91 years), and 37 patients (79%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 37 patients (79%) and 10 patients (21%) were treated conservatively. RESULTS: In the group that had AVR, there were six perioperative deaths (16%) and nine late deaths, resulting in a total mortality of 32%. In the conservatively treated group, there were eight deaths (80%) on follow-up. Severe PHT was an independent predictor of perioperative mortality. However, perioperative mortality was independent of the severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction or concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Aortic valve replacement was associated with significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, the severity of PHT and NYHA functional class. The difference between long-term survival of the operative survivors and the expected survival from life tables was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for patients with AS and severe PHT treated conservatively without AVR is dismal. Although AVR is associated with higher than usual mortality, the potential benefits outweigh the risk of surgery.     

Aortic valve stenosis

Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent reason for prosthetic valve replacement in adults. Its incidence increases with age. Development of the most frequent form, degenerative-calcific aortic stenosis, is related to atherosclerotic risk factors. The narrowing of the aortic valve orifice leads to creation of a systolic pressure drop, the gradient, between left ventricle and ascending aorta. The pressure overload from aortic stenosis causes concentric left ventricular hypertrophy and later heart failure. Typical symptoms of severe aortic stenosis include dyspnea, angina, and dizziness or syncope. On auscultation, a loud systolic murmur over the base of the heart is apparent, which is transmitted to the carotids. The ECG often shows left ventricular hypertrophy. The most important diagnostic technique is echocardiography, which allows to measure the gradient and to calculate the orifice area, which determine the degree of severity. The development of symptoms or impaired left ventricular function in severe aortic stenosis should prompt surgical treatment by valve replacement. Truly asymptomatic patients with preserved left ventricular function should be followed conservatively.     

Aortenstenose

Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent reason for prosthetic valve replacement in adults. Its incidence increases with age. Development of the most frequent form, degenerative-calcific aortic stenosis, is related to atherosclerotic risk factors. The narrowing of the aortic valve orifice leads to creation of a systolic pressure drop, the gradient, between left ventricle and ascending aorta. The pressure overload from aortic stenosis causes concentric left ventricular hypertrophy and later heart failure. Typical symptoms of severe aortic stenosis include dyspnea, angina, and dizziness or syncope. On auscultation, a loud systolic murmur over the base of the heart is apparent, which is transmitted to the carotids. The ECG often shows left ventricular hypertrophy. The most important diagnostic technique is echocardiography, which allows to measure the gradient and to calculate the orifice area, which determine the degree of severity. The development of symptoms or impaired left ventricular function in severe aortic stenosis should prompt surgical treatment by valve replacement. Truly asymptomatic patients with preserved left ventricular function should be followed conservatively.     

The Syndrome of Degenerative Calcific Aortic Stenosis: Prevalence of Multiple Pathophysiologic Disorders in Association with Valvular Stenosis and Their Implications

Background: We hypothesized that degenerative calcific aortic stenosis (DCAS) is a syndrome influenced by factors beyond aortic valve stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to assess how frequently DCAS is complicated by increased vascular load, systolic and/or diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, and comorbid disorders. Methods: In 215 consecutive patients > 60 years of age with severe and moderate AS, we analyzed systemic arterial compliance, global hemodynamic load, LV ejection fraction (EF), the presence of diastolic dysfunction, and other valvular or systemic disorders. Results: A total of 164 patients had severe AS and 51 had moderate AS. In patients with severe AS, the prevalence of increased vascular load was 42%; LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction was present in 27% and 42%; other valve diseases in 23%; and comorbid disorders in 82%. In the moderate AS group, abnormal vascular load was found in 52%; LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction was prevalent in 26% and 31%; other valve diseases in 17%; and comorbid disorders in 78% patients. More than half the patients in both groups had symptoms. In both severe and moderate AS groups, the prevalence of increased vascular load and systolic dysfunction was higher in the symptomatic group. Conclusion: Considerable number of patients with DCAS have abnormal vascular load, abnormal LV function, and significant coexisting disorders. These could influence the total pathophysiologic burden on the heart and symptom expression. Thus, DCAS should not be considered just as valvular stenosis, but a syndrome of DCAS because of the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications of various factors associated with it.     

Considerations in antithrombotic therapy among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aortic stenosis (AS) accounts for the majority of valvular abnormalities requiring surgical intervention. Platelet dysfunction has been demonstrated among patients with severe aortic stenosis which may predispose patients to bleeding or ischemic events. Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the standard therapy for severe symptomatic AS; however, a number of patients have very high or prohibitive surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been shown to be superior to medical therapy among inoperable patients and non-inferior to AVR in patients with high surgical risk. In comparison to AVR, TAVI has been associated with a higher incidence of ischemic cerebrovascular events, conduction abnormalities necessitating permanent pacemaker placement, and vascular complications. Current practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following TAVI using a combination of low dose aspirin and clopidogrel for 3–6 months. This regimen may be adjusted in patients with clinical bleeding events or indications for concomitant systemic anticoagulation. Recent and ongoing trials aim to clarify the optimum antithrombotic regimen and duration of therapy following TAVI. Collectively, early studies have not revealed additional benefit of adding clopidogrel to aspirin therapy in regards to reducing ischemic events, but have shown a trend towards increase in major bleeding. TAVI has proven successful, and as its breadth of utility is expanded, further studies are needed to define optimum antithrombotic therapy following TAVI. This article will review the current data for antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy following TAVI.     

Safety of percutaneous coronary intervention alone in symptomatic patients with moderate and severe valvular aortic stenosis and coexisting coronary artery disease: analysis of results in 56 patients

Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone is safe in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coexisting coronary artery disease (CAD), and whether aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be deferred in patients with moderate AS by undergoing PCI alone is not known. We conducted a retrospective study of surgically inoperable patients with AS who underwent PCI (moderate AS, n = 28; and severe AS, n = 28) and compared to those with AVR (n = 55). The clinical characteristics, procedural complications, in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes of PCI were compared. Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar except that lower age, hypertension, and renal impairment were seen in the AVR group. In-hospital complications were comparable among the 3 groups. Six-month and 1-year rates of myocardial infarction (MI), non-Q-wave MI, death and out-of-hospital death were similar between AVR and moderate AS patients (p = NS) and significantly high (p < 0.04) in patients with severe AS. On multivariate analysis, severe AS was the only significant predictor of 6-month and 1-year mortality. Our study suggests that PCI is safe in patients with moderate AS and coexisting CAD but is associated with poor outcomes in patients with severe AS.     

Managing Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis

Current guidelines recommend that clinical surveillance for patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) may be considered if there is an indication for coronary revascularization. Recent observational studies, however, have shown that moderate AS is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Whether the increased risk of adverse events is caused by associated comorbidities, or to the underlying moderate AS itself, is incompletely understood. Similarly, which patients with moderate AS need close follow-up or could potentially benefit from early AVR is also unknown. In this review, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the current published reports on moderate AS. They first provide an algorithm that helps to diagnose moderate AS correctly, especially when discordant grading is observed. Although the traditional focus of AS assessment has been on the valve, it is increasingly acknowledged that AS is not only a disease of the aortic valve but also of the ventricle. The authors therefore discuss how multimodality imaging can help to evaluate the left ventricular remodeling response and improve risk stratification in patients with moderate AS. Finally, they summarize current evidence on the management of moderate AS and highlight ongoing trials on AVR in moderate AS.     

Relation of aortic arch complex plaques to risk of cerebral infarction in patients with aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) and systemic atherosclerosis have been shown to be closely related. We evaluated the prevalence of aortic arch plaques and their possible association with the risk of cerebral infarction in patients with severe AS. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed in 116 patients with severe AS (55 men, mean age 71 ± 7 years, mean aortic valve area 0.68 ± 0.15 cm(2)) who were scheduled for aortic valve replacement. The presence, thickness, and morphology of the aortic arch plaques were evaluated using transesophageal echocardiography. Cerebral infarcts (chronic cerebral infarction and cerebral infarction after cardiac catheterization and aortic valve replacement) were assessed in all patients. Compared to age- and gender-matched control subjects, the patients with severe AS had a significantly greater prevalence of aortic arch plaques (74% vs 41%; p <0.0001) and complex arch plaques such as large plaques (≥4 mm), ulcerated plaques, or mobile plaques (30% vs 10%; p = 0.004). Multivariate logistic analyses showed that the presence of complex arch plaques was independently associated with cerebral infarction in patients with AS after adjusting for traditional atherosclerotic risk factors and coronary artery disease (odds ratio 8.46, 95% confidence interval 2.38 to 30.12; p = 0.001). In conclusion, the results from the present study showed that there is a greater prevalence of aortic arch plaques in patients with AS and that the presence of complex plaques is independently associated with cerebral infarction in these patients. Therefore, the identification of complex arch plaques using transesophageal echocardiography is important for risk stratification of cerebrovascular events in patients with severe AS.     

Comparison of cardiovascular risk and lipid profiles in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery versus those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Hyperlipidemia is a risk factor for the progression of coronary artery disease, and possibly also valvular aortic stenosis. Thus, patients with aortic stenosis, coronary disease (or both) might be expected to have more abnormal lipid profiles than those without these two conditions. METHODS: The lipid profiles of patient subsets undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), as well as those undergoing isolated CABG, between 1987 and 1997 were analyzed retrospectively. Four surgical groups were identified: AVR for aortic regurgitation (n = 370); AVR for predominant aortic stenosis (n = 1,072); AVR for aortic stenosis (AS) with CABG (n = 914); and isolated CABG (n = 11,156). The complete fasting lipid profiles of patients were collected, analyzed by group, and compared. RESULTS: Analysis by Spearman's correlation showed that total cholesterol levels, triglycerides and low-density lipoproteins (LDL-C) were modestly, yet significantly, increased in each successive group, while high-density lipoproteins were decreased. AS patients undergoing isolated AVR had significantly higher total cholesterol (215 versus 201 mg/dl; p <0.0001), triglycerides (125 versus 104 mg/dl; p <0.0001) and LDL-C (139 versus 132 mg/dl; p = 0.003) than those undergoing AVR for aortic regurgitation. Total cholesterol >200 mg/dl was significantly associated with AS, even after adjusting for differences in age, sex, diabetes mellitus and hypertension, with an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Progressively abnormal lipid profiles are associated with AS and coronary disease in patients undergoing AVR. This evidence helps to extend the link between dyslipidemia and AS in a large consecutive series of patients.