Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease affecting the elderly. While most patients have a prolonged asymptomatic phase, the development of symptoms ushers in a phase clinical deterioration that often leads to sudden death without an intervention. Treatment of aortic stenosis with valve replacement often relieves the symptoms but still leaves behind a remodeled left ventricle which may not recover. Understanding the pathophysiology of aortic stenosis and realizing that the disease process may be a more active biological entity rather than a passive degenerative process will help us prevent it. This review serves to summarize the latest literature on the pathophysiology of aortic stenosis in the elderly.

Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)—all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is quite common and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that it is the cause of approximately 100,000 annual deaths in the United States. With great variability in presenting symptoms of PE, poor recognition of PE can be fatal. As such, many risk scores have been created to identify the sickest patients. Choosing the appropriate imaging modality is also critical. Invasive pulmonary angiography was once the gold standard to establish the diagnosis. With the advent of nuclear imaging, V/Q scans, invasive angiography has been phased out for diagnosing acute PE. At present, the standard for diagnosis of acute PE is computed tomography pulmonary angiography. In select patient cohorts, nuclear studies remain the modality of choice. Once the diagnosis of acute PE is established, there is a broad spectrum of severity in outcome which has led to substantial focus and development of risk stratification prediction models. We will discuss making the proper diagnosis with contemporary diagnostic tools and risk stratifying patients with PE to receive the correct treatment.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the familiarity with this disease, the best treatment remains undefined. Traditionally, treatment of PE has involved a choice of anticoagulation, thrombolysis, or surgery. However, the debate over pharmacologic versus mechanical treatment of acute PE reared up again with the advent of user-friendly mechanical and aspiration thrombectomy technologies. This is especially true for submassive PE, which is an area for potential growth both for understanding the pathophysiology of the disease process and management. Multiple devices are available for treatment of PE. Understanding the risks and benefits of each device is paramount in the complex management of PE.