P195 CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH AORTIC STENOSIS AND HYPERTENSION UNDERGOING AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Karen Alexandra Dueñas Criado,Carlos Andres Ortiz,Oscar Mauricio Perez,Nicolas Alarcon,Jaime Camacho,Jaime Cabrales,Dario Echeverry,Ivone Pineda,Laura Garcia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0001063652.84889.bc
IF: 4.9
2024-09-01
Journal of Hypertension
Abstract:Background and Objective: Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is most common valvular heart disease and in its severe form requires aortic valve replacement (AVR). The prevalence of both AS and arterial hypertension (HTN) increases with age and the conditions therefore often co-exist. Co-existence of AS and HTN is associated with higher global left ventricular (LV) pressure overload, more abnormal LV geometry and function, and more adverse cardiovascular outcome. Management of HTN in AS has historically been associated with prudence and concerns, mainly related to drug-induced potential adverse consequences. We evaluated the cardiovascular outcomes of patients with AS and HTN undergoing to AVR Methods: A retrospective cohort study where all the patients who underwent AVR between 2019- 2024, in a 4-level center in Bogotá, Colombia. A descriptive analysis was performed. Continuous variables were expressed as mean or median with their respective measure of dispersion, standard deviation or interquartile range (ICR), the categorical variables were expressed in proportions and absolute numbers. Results: We analyzed 1043 Patients with moderate/severe AS undergoing AVR, 64.3% (671 with HTN), median age for all of 69.8 years ICR (61.7-77.4) Hypertensive patient being older (72 years p<0.0001). In the HTN group 57.8% were men, and more frequently they had diabetes and dyslipidemia comorbidities (p<0.001) as well as greater baseline renal involvement (p<0.001) comparatively with NO-HTN. In addition, hypertensive patient had better LVEF and were treated with ARA II/IECA (55,6% vs 19.4% p<0.001), beta blockers (60.4% vs 47.3% p< 0.001) and anti-calcium medication (13,1% vs 19,5% p<0.001).Table 1. Cardiovascular outcomes showed greater tendency towards worsening of renal function. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality. Conclusions: AVR is presented as a safe procedure in patients with AS and HTN in developing countries. The institutional results show a safe technique, associated with low mortality rates. Hypertensive patients had more acute kidney injury in the post-surgical period, which leads us to propose kidney protection strategies in this group.
peripheral vascular disease
What problem does this paper attempt to address?