ArticleOpen heart2025
Long-term clinical outcomes in adult congenital aortic stenosis: results from a national study.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research on congenital aortic stenosis (AS) mainly focused on children, while data on long-term outcomes in adults is scarce. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate outcomes in adult patients with congenital AS and identify prognostic markers for aortic valve replacement (AVR).
methodsIn this multicentre study, patients aged 18-55 years with congenital AS (peak velocity ≥2.5 m/s) registered in the Dutch CONCOR (Congential Cor Vitia) registry from expert centres for congenital heart disease between 2001 and 2019 were included. Exclusion criteria were severe aortic regurgitation (AR) or prior AVR. Associations with the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and AVR were assessed with multivariable Cox regression.
resultsOf the 427 included patients (median age 26 years, 62.5% male) median aortic peak velocity was 3.1 (IQR 2.7-3.6) m/s, 35% had moderate AR and 29% showed signs of left ventricular (LV) remodelling. During a median follow-up period of 7.9 (IQR 4.1-12.6) years, 7 patients died (1.6%) and 177 patients underwent AVR (41.5%). LV systolic dysfunction was the primary indication for AVR in three patients (1.7%). Peak velocity at baseline (HR 3.17, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.39), non-sinus rhythm (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.62 to 6.02) and concentric LV geometry (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.58) were associated with the primary endpoint beside age. Significant male-female differences were observed in prognostic factors for the primary endpoint.
conclusionAVR was often indicated in adult patients with congenital AS, even if the stenosis at baseline was mild. Moreover, monitoring LV remodelling alongside severity of AS is more important than focusing on systolic LV dysfunction.
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.