Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2026

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Clinical outcomes and impact of aortic valve replacement in concordant vs discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis
Hesham Sheashaa1, Juan M Farina1, Kamal Awad1
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ.
Insights
Survival outcomes in discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (DHG-AS) are similar to concordant cases after accounting for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aortic valve replacement significantly improves survival for DHG-AS patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Cardiac Surgery
- Clinical Outcomes Research
Background:
- Conflicting data exists on clinical outcomes for discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (DHG-AS).
- Limited information is available on the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in DHG-AS patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical outcomes between concordant (CHG-AS) and discordant (DHG-AS) high-gradient aortic stenosis.
- To evaluate the impact of AVR on mortality in DHG-AS patients.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 14,640 patients with high-gradient aortic stenosis, categorized as CHG-AS or DHG-AS based on aortic valve area indexed to body surface area.
- Propensity score matching (1:1) to adjust for demographics and comorbidities.
- Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models used to compare mortality and AVR rates; competing-risk methods and time-dependent covariates employed for AVR analysis.
Main Results:
- After propensity score matching, 958 patients were in each group (CHG-AS vs. DHG-AS).
- DHG-AS patients had lower AVR rates (SHR 0.56).
- Ten-year mortality was not significantly different between DHG-AS and CHG-AS after adjusting for AVR. In DHG-AS patients, AVR reduced 10-year mortality (HR 0.538).
Conclusions:
- Survival outcomes do not significantly differ between DHG-AS and CHG-AS when AVR is considered.
- Aortic valve replacement is associated with improved survival in DHG-AS patients.
- Timely AVR intervention is supported for DHG-AS.
Background:
Data on clinical outcomes in patients with discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (DHG-AS), defined by elevated gradients despite an aortic valve area (AVA) > 1 cm², remain conflicting. Limited information exists regarding the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in DHG-AS.
Methods:
We analyzed patients with high-gradient aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≥ 40 mm Hg), categorized as concordant (AVA indexed to body surface area [AVAi] ≤ 0.6 cm²/m²) or discordant (AVAi > 0.6 cm²/m²). Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models compared mortality and AVR rates between concordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (CHG-AS) and DHG-AS. For AVR, competing-risk methods used death as a competing event. In a subgroup of DHG-AS patients after PSM, Cox regression with AVR as a time-dependent covariate evaluated its association with mortality.
Results:
A total of 14,640 patients were included (13,678 CHG-AS; 962 DHG-AS). After PSM, 958 patients were in each group. DHG-AS had lower AVR rates (subdistribution HR [SHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.50-0.63; Gray P < .001). Ten-year mortality was higher in DHG-AS in univariable analysis (HR 1.24; 95% CI 1.07-1.44; P = .005), but not after adjusting for AVR (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.25). In DHG-AS patients after PSM (n = 360 per group), AVR reduced 10-year mortality (HR 0.538; 95% CI 0.418-0.692).
Conclusions:
After accounting for AVR, survival did not differ significantly between DHG-AS and CHG-AS. AVR was associated with improved survival in DHG-AS, supporting timely intervention.
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
