Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Utilization and outcomes of aortic valve replacements (from the United States readmissions database)
Shashank Shekhar1, Abhishek Ajay1, Toshiaki Isogai1
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Insights
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is underutilized in heart failure patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic regurgitation (AR). Most patients receive no AVR, despite worse outcomes, indicating a need for further research.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Heart failure patients with concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) and/or aortic regurgitation (AR) represent a significant clinical challenge.
- Optimal management strategies, including the utilization of aortic valve replacement (AVR), are not well-defined in this population.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the utilization patterns of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus no-AVR in patients with heart failure and AS (CHF+AS) or AS with AR (CHF+AS+AR).
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018).
- Inclusion of patients with CHF+AS and CHF+AS+AR cohorts.
- Comparison of AVR utilization (TAVI, SAVR, no-AVR) and short-term outcomes.
Main Results:
- The majority of CHF+AS patients (79.9%) and CHF+AS+AR patients (53.2%) did not undergo AVR.
- Among patients initially managed without AVR, only a small percentage (7.9% for CHF+AS, 11.8% for CHF+AS+AR) received AVR in the subsequent six months.
- Patients managed without AVR experienced worse short-term outcomes compared to those who received AVR.
Conclusions:
- Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is underutilized in heart failure patients with concomitant AS and/or AR.
- Further research is necessary to elucidate optimal timing, indications, and utilization of AVR in this patient group.
- Current management patterns suggest a potential gap in care, with non-intervention associated with poorer short-term outcomes.
Study Objective:
Assess the utilization of aortic valve replacements (AVR).
Design:
Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018).
Setting:
Nationwide.
Participants:
Heart failure patients with concomitant aortic stenosis (CHF + AS cohort) or aortic stenosis with aortic regurgitation (CHF + AS+AR cohort).
Interventions:
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), no-AVR.
Main Outcome Measures:
Utilization of treatment interventions.
Results:
In the CHF + AS cohort, TAVI, SAVR and no-AVR were done in 9.3 %, 10.8 % and 79.9 % of patients respectively. Similarly, majority of CHF + AS+AR patients were managed with no-AVR (53.2 %). Of patients managed with no-AVR in the first six months of each year, only 7.9 % of CHF + AS and 11.8 % of CHF + AS+AR patients underwent AVR in the subsequent six months of the year. No-AVR patients had worse short-term outcomes in comparison to AVR recipients.
Conclusion:
More studies are needed to understand the timing, indications and utilization of AVR in this population.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation IV: Nursing Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care

