Valvular & structural heart diseaseResearch article

Clinical outcomes and impact of aortic valve replacement in concordant vs discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis

Am Heart JPublished

  • Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) analysis of patients with high-gradient aortic stenosis
  • Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models
  • competing-risk methods with death as a competing event
  • Aortic valve replacement (AVR) as a time-dependent covariate

Authors' conclusion

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.

Study context

Population
Patients with high-gradient aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≥ 40 mm Hg), categorized as concordant or discordant by AVAipatients included, after PSM, 958 patients were in each group · concordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (CHG-AS) 13,678 · discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis (DHG-AS) 962
Participants
14,640 patients
Comparison
concordant high-gradient aortic stenosis and DHG-AS
  • CHG-ASn = 13,678reference
  • DHG-ASn = 962

Main finding

AVR rates

Subdistribution hazard ratio

0.56

95% CI 0.50–0.63

Gray P < .001

DHG-AS vs CHG-AS
SHR 0.56 (95% CI 0.50–0.63); Gray P < .001

As reported in the abstract

Further findings

OutcomeHR (95% CI)P value
Mortality · Ten-year — DHG-AS vs CHG-AS · univariable analysis; higher in DHG-AS1.24 (1.07–1.44)P = 0.005
Mortality · Ten-year — DHG-AS vs CHG-AS · after adjusting for AVR1.07 (0.92–1.25)
Mortality with AVR in DHG-AS patients after PSM (subgroup) · 10-year · AVR reduced 10-year mortality; n = 360 per group · AVR as a time-dependent covariate0.538 (0.418–0.692)

Original publication

Clinical outcomes and impact of aortic valve replacement in concordant vs discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis. Am Heart J. Published 6 June 2026. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107507

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it