Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Asymptomatic Very Severe Aortic Stenosis

Kang, Duk-Hyun, Park, Sung-Ji, Rim, Ji Hye, Yun, Sung-Cheol, Kim, Dae-Hee, Song, Jong-Min, Choo, Suk Jung, Park, Seung Woo, Song, Jae-Kwan, Lee, Jae-Won, Park, Pyo-Won·2010·Circulation

Abstract

Background— The optimal timing of surgical intervention remains controversial in asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis. We therefore compared the long-term results of early surgery and a conventional treatment strategy. Methods and Results— From 1996 to 2006, we prospectively included a total of 197 consecutive asymptomatic patients (99 men; age, 63±12 years) with very severe aortic stenosis. Patients were excluded if they had angina, syncope, exertional dyspnea, ejection fraction <0.50, significant mitral valve disease, or age >85 years. Very severe aortic stenosis was defined as a critical stenosis in the aortic valve area ≤0.75 cm 2 accompanied by a peak aortic jet velocity ≥4.5 m/s or a mean transaortic pressure gradient ≥50 mm Hg on Doppler echocardiography. The primary end point was defined as the composite of operative mortality and cardiac death during follow-up. Early surgery was performed on 102 patients, and a conventional treatment strategy was used for 95 patients. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score, or ejection fraction. During a median follow-up of 1501 days, the operated group had no operative mortalities, no cardiac deaths, and 3 noncardiac deaths; the conventional treatment group had 18 cardiac and 10 noncardiac deaths. The estimated actuarial 6-year cardiac and all-cause mortality rates were 0% and 2±1% in the operated group and 24±5% and 32±6% in the conventional treatment group, respectively ( P <0.001), and for 57 propensity score-matched pairs, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the operated group than in the conventional treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.135; 95% confidence interval, 0.030 to 0.597; P =0.008). Conclusions— Compared with the conventional treatment strategy, early surgery in patients with very severe aortic stenosis is associated with an improved long-term survival by decreasing cardiac mortality. Early surgery is therefore a therapeutic option to further improve clinical outcomes in asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis and low operative risk.

Overview

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.109.909903

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Kang, D.-H., Park, S.-J., Rim, J. H., Yun, S.-C., Kim, D.-H., Song, J.-M., Choo, S. J., Park, S. W., Song, J.-K., Lee, J.-W., & Park, P.-W.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2010-04-06
Volume
121
Issue
13
Pages
1502-1509
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2115359122
Cited by
298
References
3
FWCI
18.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Asymptomatic Very Severe Aortic Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.909903
The paper
Kang, D.-H., Park, S.-J., Rim, J. H., Yun, S.-C., Kim, D.-H., Song, J.-M., Choo, S. J., Park, S. W., Song, J.-K., Lee, J.-W., & Park, P.-W. (2010). Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Asymptomatic Very Severe Aortic Stenosis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.909903

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.