ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Natural history observations in moderate aortic stenosis.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Moderate aortic stenosis: diagnostic pitfalls and the role of multimodality imaging in risk stratification and clinical management.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2026Review
- Noise in clinical data: insights from assessment of aortic stenosis by echocardiography.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2026Review
- Interplay between medical and interventional therapies in valvular heart disease and heart failure: an expert opinion paper.ESC heart failure · 2026Review
- The value of evaluating cardiac damage in patients with aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Echo research and practice · 2025Review
- Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Focal Disease in Older and Complex Patients-What Could Be the Best Time for an Appropriate Interventional Treatment?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Novel Circulating Biomarkers in Aortic Valve Stenosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Moderate Aortic Stenosis With Cardiac Damage: A New Type of Severe Aortic Stenosis.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2024Review
- Change of Tricuspid Regurgitation Velocity as a Biomarker for All-Cause Mortality.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Aortic valve replacement reduces mortality in moderate aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2023Article
- Evaluating Medical Therapy for Calcific Aortic Stenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Discordant severity criteria in patients with moderate aortic stenosis: prognostic implications.Open heart · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe natural history of patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) is poorly understood. We aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients with moderate AS.
methodsWe examined patients with moderate AS defined by echocardiography in our healthcare system, and performed survival analyses for occurrence of death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and progression of AS, with accounting for symptoms, left ventricular dysfunction, and comorbidities.
resultsWe examined 729 patients with moderate AS (median age, 76 years; 59.9 % men) with a median follow-up of 5.0 years (interquartile range: 2.0 to 8.1 years). The 5-year overall survival was 52.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 48.6 % to 56.0 %) and survival free of death or HF hospitalization was 43.2 % (95 % CI: 39.5 % to 46.9 %). Worse New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was associated with poor long-term survival, with mortality rates ranging from 7.9 % (95 % CI: 6.6-9.2 %) to 25.2 % (95 % CI: 20.2-30.3 %) per year. Among patients with minimal or no symptoms, no futility markers, and preserved left ventricular function, 5-year overall survival was 71.9 % (95 % CI: 66.4-77.4 %) and survival free of death or HF hospitalization was 61.4 % (95 % CI: 55.5-67.3 %). Risk factors associated with adverse events were age, NYHA class, low ejection fraction and high aortic valve velocity (all p < 0.05).
conclusionsPatients with moderate AS are at significant risk of death. Our findings highlight the need for more study into appropriate therapeutic interventions to improve the prognosis of these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.