ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Low-flow and normal-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Insights from the CURRENT AS Registry-2.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term “classical low-flow low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS)” is widely used, with the conventional assumption that reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) implies low flow (stroke volume index [SVi] < 35 ml/m2). This study included 285 patients with LG AS and LVEF < 50% from a prospective registry of 3369 patients with severe AS. The primary outcome was a composite of death or heart failure hospitalization. Among 285 patients, 133 (47%) had normal flow (SVi ≥ 35 ml/m2) despite reduced LVEF, while 152 (53%) had low flow. The low-flow group more often had non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, active malignancy, frailty, AS-related symptoms. With a median follow-up period of 624 days, cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome was significantly higher in the low-flow group than in the normal-flow group (74.8% versus 56.4%, P = 0.005). After adjustment for confounders, the excess risk of low flow relative to normal flow was no longer significant in the entire study population (hazard ration [HR]: 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97–2.09; P = 0.07). However, in the conservative management, low flow relative to normal flow remained significant (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.18–2.79; P = 0.01), but not in the initial aortic valve replacement stratum (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.74–3.26; P = 0.25). This study demonstrated that nearly half of the patients with LG AS and reduced LVEF had normal flow, and that flow status was associated with prognosis under the conservative management. The normal-flow LG AS with reduced LVEF group was highly heterogeneous, highlighting the importance of incorporating both flow status and precise AS severity in patient assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41408028What 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.