Cited by 13Cardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesCongenital Heart Disease Studies

Discordant severity criteria in patients with moderate aortic stenosis: prognostic implications

Open access
Pio, Stephan M, Amanullah, Mohammed R, Butcher, Steele C, Sin, Kenny Y, Ajmone Marsan, Nina, Pibarot, Philippe, Van Mieghem, Nicolas M, Ding, Zee Pin +5 more·2021·Open Heart

Abstract

Background: The criteria to define the grade of aortic stenosis (AS)—aortic valve area (AVA) and mean gradient (MG) or peak jet velocity—do not always coincide into one grade. Although in severe AS, this discrepancy is well characterised, in moderate AS, the phenomenon of discordant grading has not been investigated and its prognostic implications are unknown. Objectives: To investigate the occurrence of discordant grading in patients with moderate AS (defined by an AVA between 1.0 cm² and 1.5 cm² but with an MG <20 mm Hg) and how these patients compare with those with concordant grading moderate AS (AVA between 1.0 cm² and 1.5 cm² and MG ≥20 mm Hg) in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods: From an ongoing registry of patients with AS, patients with moderate AS based on AVA were selected and classified into discordant or concordant grading (MG <20 mm Hg or ≥20 mm Hg, respectively). The clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: Of 790 patients with moderate AS, 150 (19.0%) had discordant grading, moderate AS. Patients with discordant grading were older, had higher prevalence of previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, larger LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index, higher LV filling pressure and lower LV ejection fraction and stroke volume index as compared with their counterparts. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years (IQR 3.0–8.2), patients with discordant grading had lower aortic valve replacement rates (26.7% vs 44.1%, p<0.001) and higher mortality rates (60.0% vs 43.1%, p<0.001) as compared with patients with concordant grading. Discordant grading moderate AS, combined with low LV ejection fraction, presented the higher risk of mortality (HR 2.78 (2.00–3.87), p<0.001). Conclusion: Discordant-grading moderate AS is not uncommon and, when combined with low LV ejection fraction, is associated with high risk of mortality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001639

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mild versus moderate discordant grading (moderate AVA 1.0-1.5 cm2 with mild gradient <20 mm Hg) occurs frequently in patients with moderate AS (20%-40%) and is associated with worse outcomes compared with concordant moderate AS.

    “Recently, it has been reported that mild versus moderate discordant grading (DG; ie, moderate AVA [1.0–1.5 cm2] with mild gradient [<20 mm Hg]) also occurs frequently in the subset of patients with moderate AS (20%–40% of patients) and is associated with worse outcomes compared with concordant moderate AS. 6 , 7”

    From Grading of Aortic Valve Calcification Severity and Risk Stratification in Aortic Stenosis (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results and Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) define discordant moderate AS as AVA 1.0–1.5 cm² with mean gradient <20 mm Hg and report higher mortality than in concordant moderate AS. They report a prevalence of 19.0% (150 of 790 patients), not the claimed 20%–40%. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies reported that 20% to 40% of patients with moderate aortic valve area had mild gradient.

    “These results are consistent with previous studies reporting that 20% to 40% of patients with moderate AVA had mild gradient. 6 , 7”

    From Grading of Aortic Valve Calcification Severity and Risk Stratification in Aortic Stenosis (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results (Study population; page unavailable) report that 19.0% of patients with a moderate aortic valve area had a mean gradient below 20 mm Hg, supporting the general point. But the Discussion (Discordant grading in moderate AS; page unavailable) reports 70.3% and 81% in the previous studies it discusses, not the claimed 20%–40% range. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 13

Authors
Pio, S. M., Amanullah, M. R., Butcher, S. C., Sin, K. Y., Ajmone Marsan, N., Pibarot, P., Van Mieghem, N. M., Ding, Z. P., Généreux, P., Leon, M. B., Ewe, S. H., Delgado, V., & Bax, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • National Heart Centre Singapore (SG)
  • Royal Perth Hospital (AU)
  • Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Québec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  • Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Morristown Medical Center (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bax, Jeroen J
Venue
Open Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-06
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e001639
ISSN
2053-3624 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3174485429
Cited by
13
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Open Heart (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Society of Cardiology (T-2018-17405)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Aortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
Keywords
aortic stenosis, moderate aortic stenosis, aortic valve area, mean gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, all-cause mortality, aortic valve replacement, prognosis, left ventricular hypertrophy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aortic Valve, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Echocardiography, Female, Humans, Male, Prognosis, Registries, Severity of Illness Index, Stroke Volume, Ventricular Function, Left, Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review