Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Statins on Carotid Intima–Media Thickness and C–Reactive Protein in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta–Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Direct Cardiac Reprogramming in the Age of Computational Biology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCDD
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/jcdd11090274
jcdd-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Progression, Management, and Outcome of Aortic Valve Stenosis in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case Series

by
Andrea Vergara
1,*,†,
Antonio Orlando
1,†,
Eleonora Caiazza
1,
Serena Vettori
2,
Giovanna Cuomo
3,
Paola Argiento
1,
Emanuele Romeo
1,
Rosa Franzese
1,
Berardo Sarubbi
1 and
Michele D’Alto
1,*
1
Adult Congenital Heart Disease Unit, Department of Cardiology, Monaldi Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Monaldi Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11(9), 274; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11090274
Submission received: 5 August 2024 / Revised: 28 August 2024 / Accepted: 2 September 2024 / Published: 4 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aortic Pathology and Therapeutic Strategies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: In systemic sclerosis (SSc), cardiac involvement is frequent, heterogeneous, and related to a poor prognosis. Due to a longer life expectancy, the development of degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) is not uncommon. The aim of this article is to report the characteristics of AS in SSc, analyzing the rate of progression, the management, and the outcome. Methods: This is a case series conducted at the Department of Cardiology of Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy. Results: From January 2007 to December 2022, we analyzed 234 patients with SSc. Ten/234 patients (4.3%) showed severe AS and were included in the analysis (age 75.5 years [IQR 58–84], nine females). Nine had limited and one diffuse SSc. Two patients were in NHYA/WHO II and eight in NYHA/WHO III. All had degenerative three-leaflet AS. Two patients showed severe AS at the first evaluation, and eight developed severe AS during the follow-up, with a time progression from moderate to severe AS of 3.2 ± 1.1 years (progression rate −0.190 ± 0.012 cm2/year for aortic valve area, 8.6 ± 6.1 mmHg/year for mean aortic gradient, 16 ± 7 mmHg/year for peak aortic gradient, and 0.5 ± 0.3 m/s/year for aortic peak velocity). Seven out of 10 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), one underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), one was left untreated, and one was on a waiting list for TAVI. No major complications after TAVI or SAVR occurred. At a mean follow-up of 5.9 ± 3.9 years, eight patients are alive and two died. Conclusion: Severe AS is a relevant cardiac complication of SSc and must be considered in the screening and during the follow-up. Its rapid progression rate may tentatively be due to autoimmunity, degenerative burden, and chronic inflammation.

1. Introduction

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a multisystem autoimmune disease of unknown etiology; it is characterized by immune-system dysregulation, proliferative and obliterative microvascular changes, and aberrant extracellular matrix deposition ensuing in the fibrosis of multiple organs: skin, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, heart, muscle, joints, tendons, and kidneys [1].
SSc patients are divided into two clinical subsets, based on the extent of skin involvement: Limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), in which skin thickening is distal to knees and/or elbows; diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), in which skin thickening of the limbs is proximal to the trunk or involves the trunk. Face skin thickening can be present in both subsets. LcSSc patients usually show an indolent disease course and a better prognosis, whereas dcSSc patients show a more aggressive disease course with early fibrotic internal organ involvement. Some patients do not show any skin involvement at all. They are called “sine scleroderma”, and are included in the lcSSc subset, as they show the same indolent course [2]. SSc patients are also classified based on the autoantibody pattern, as the presence of anticentromere antibodies (ACA) is usually associated with a more favorable outcome, and antitopoisomerase antibodies (ATA) to a more rapidly progressive disease, independently of the extent of skin involvement [1].
The cardiac involvement is heterogeneous: ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, pericardial disease, valve diseases, and pulmonary hypertension (PH) (Figure 1) [3].
It is estimated that in more than 70% of patients with SSc, there is subclinical cardiac involvement due to the presence of microvascular disease and focal interstitial fibrosis with preserved ventricular systolic function and dimension. In these cases, the diagnosis is more insidious, and suspicion arises from increased troponin and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) [4].
The association between SSc and myocardial injury is common, ranging from 15 to 35%, and, more importantly, it is associated with a poor prognosis, with mortality as high as 70% at five years [5,6,7].
Most recently, attention has been paid to valve disease in SSc, which appears to be more frequent than expected [8].
Due to a longer life expectancy related to earlier diagnosis and better holistic management of the disease, the development of degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) has been reported in different case series [9,10].
The aim of this retrospective study was to report a case series of severe AS in SSc patients, analyzing the rate of progression, the management, and the outcome.

2. Detailed Case Description

The whole SSc cohort was 234 patients with a mean age of 50 years (18–79). Ten patients showed severe AS and were included in the analysis (age 75.5 (58–84) years, nine females, one male, median disease duration 20 (6–27) years). Eight patients had lcSSC and two dcSSc. Seven patients had interstitial lung disease, and seven, gastrointestinal tract involvement; none had kidney disease or digital ulcers, as shown in Table 1.
Six patients had an active nailfold videocapillaroscopy pattern, three a late pattern; one patient had no capillaroscopy data.
Regarding the autoantibody subset, three patients were ACA positive, four were ATA positive, and three patients did not show any specific antinuclear antibody (ANA).
Two patients were in NHYA/WHO functional class II, and eight were in NYHA/WHO functional class III.
All patients presented with degenerative tri-leaflet aortic valve disease.
Two patients showed severe AS at the first echocardiographic evaluation, and eight developed severe AS during the follow-up, starting from a moderate disease. In these eight patients, the time of progression from moderate to severe AS was 3.2 ± 1.1 years. The progression rate was −0.190 ± 0.012 cm2/year for aortic valve area (AVA), 8.6 ± 6.1 mmHg/year for mean aortic gradient, 16 ± 7 mmHg/year for peak aortic gradient, and 0.5 ± 0.3 m/s/year for aortic peak velocity. One patient had paradoxical low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis, and the severity was confirmed by CT with a calcium score study (3400 Agatston Unit). The main echocardiographic data are summarized in Table 2.
Seven out of 10 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), one underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), one was left untreated (procedure excluded futility), and one is on the waiting list for TAVI.
No patient showed major complications or sequelae after TAVI or surgery.
At a mean follow-up of 5.9 ± 3.9 years, eight are alive, and two died (one left untreated and one 12 months after TAVI).

3. Materials and Methods

This is a single-center case series conducted at the Department of Cardiology of the Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy. From November 2007 to February 2021, 234 patients with SSc were visited in our hospital. The presence of SSc was diagnosed by experienced rheumatologists, and all patients met the 2013 EULAR/ACR criteria [11]. Furthermore, all patients underwent full clinical–serological and nailfold capillaroscopy assessment.
The transthoracic echocardiogram study was performed according to the international recommendations using Vivid E9 (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) with a 3.5 MHz sector probe [12]. All images in cine-loop format were analyzed offline. Severe AS is defined as follows: AVA < 1 cm2, indexed AVA < 0.6 cm2, DP > 40 mmHg, Vmax > 4 m/s, and DVI < 0.25 [13].

4. Discussion

The main findings of this case-series study are the following: (1) The prevalence of severe AS in SSc was 4.3%; (2) the progression rate was −0.190 ± 0.012 cm2/year for aortic valve area (AVA), 8.6 ± 6.1 mmHg/year for mean aortic gradient, 16 ± 7 mmHg/year for peak aortic gradient, and 0.5 ± 0.3 m/s/year for aortic peak velocity (faster than in the general population); and (3) the transcatheter and surgical approaches are valuable options with few complications.
Studies on valve disease in SSc are lacking, as primary SSc-related heart involvement has been mainly focused on the sequelae of small intra-myocardial artery vasculopathy and subsequent interstitial fibrosis, according to autopsy study findings [14]. However, valve involvement in SSc has been described since the 1980s, even though rarely reported [15]. Actually, there is no standardized definition of primary heart involvement in SSc because this largely depends on the investigating tools that have been applied in different studies [16]. Due to the prominent role acquired by advanced echocardiography methods and to the increased long-term survival of SSc patients, valve disease is increasingly being detected, with AS being the rarest occurrence [9,17,18].

4.1. Pathogenesis

Even though the exact pathogenesis of AS in SSc remains unclear, several potential pathogenic mechanisms might be involved, including endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, aberrant adaptive immune response and pathogenic autoantibody production, accelerated atherosclerosis, ectopic calcification deposits, and chronic hemodynamic stress associated with coexisting PH [1,19,20].
Endothelial dysfunction, due to different triggers, plays a major role in SSc. It is associated with an increased expression of adhesion molecules by endothelial cells, which induces migration of immuno-inflammatory cells in the injured tissue, vasoactive mediators’ imbalance, and acquisition of a prothrombotic phenotype, finally leading to extracellular matrix expansion and fibrosis [21]. These phenomena cause a cascade of events in which multiple players are involved, including adaptive immune system activation.
In fact, an aberrant antigen-driven immune response is observed in SSc, along with the endothelial cell modifications. This also occurs in other chronic inflammatory rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases, including atherosclerosis and AS [1,22,23].
Mazzone A. et al. reported activated inflammatory infiltrates, neovessels, and over-expression of adhesion molecules in calcium nodules of non-rheumatic stenotic aortic valves from 26 patients undergoing surgical valve replacement [24].
Interestingly, in 2003, a study by Poggianti E. et al. correlated systemic endothelial dysfunction as assessed by flow-mediated dilation with AS, thus suggesting that AS could be an expression of atherosclerotic disease and that endothelial valve modifications could be similar to those occurring in SSc vasculopathy [25].
Obviously, the activation of adaptive immune response driven by (unknown) antigen-stimulated T cells also induces B-cell activation and plasma-cell differentiation with autoantibody production. Modified endothelial cells may induce anti-endothelial antibody (AECA) generation. Interestingly, AECA has been described both in SSc patients and patients with a variety of valve defects secondary to rheumatic heart disease, including AS [20,26]. Lastly, as calcium deposits are the hallmark of degenerative AS, it is likely that this mechanism can be accelerated in SSc due to both accelerated atherosclerosis and the predisposition of a distinct subset of SSc patients (i.e., patients with limited skin sclerosis and indolent disease course, meaning longer survival) to accumulate calcium deposits in the interstitium of injured tissues [27].
In regard to acute systemic inflammation, this is rarely clinically detectable in SSc. However, around 25% of a large SSc cohort have been found with increased serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) [28], and CRP serum levels have been associated with unfavorable outcomes in SSc patients with cardiac involvement, including PH [29].
Data about the predictive role of CRP in AS or any valve disease in SSc have never been explored; nevertheless, data about the predictive role of CRP in calcific aortic valve disease or AS in the general population remain controversial [30,31].
In addition, in an open-label retrospective study, PH has been associated with AS in 21% of SSc cases, showing progression to severe AS in around one-third of them [32].
Along with apparent shared pathogenic mechanisms, the association of SSc and AS could also be favored by demographic factors and other SSc-related clinical features, like age, gender, and disease subset (limited or diffuse skin involvement). In fact, the majority of the AS–SSc cases described in the literature, including in our series, are 70-year-old or older females who have a limited cutaneous disease with a more indolent disease course and a longer survival [33].
It is well-known that AS occurs later in females than in males. It is, therefore, possible that, taken together, these factors contribute to increased observation of AS cases in SSc.
Despite the pathophysiological mechanism of AS in SSc remaining unknown, the age, the autoimmunity, the degenerative burden, and the chronic inflammatory status might accelerate the progression of AS in these patients [34,35].

4.2. Aortic Stenosis Prevalence and Progression

The prevalence of AS varies with age and comorbidities. From a study of 164 patients, prevalence values were 0.2% in the 50–59-year group, 1.3% in the 60–69-year group, 3.9% in the 70–79-year group, and 9.8% in the 80–89-year group [36].
Similar results emerge from a meta-analysis of 9723 patients aged > 75 years: the prevalence of AS was 12.4%, while the prevalence of severe AS was 3.4% [37].
In our SSc population, although limited in number, the prevalence is 4.3%, with a mean age of about 50 years and a wide age range. These findings suggest a higher prevalence and an earlier onset of AS in SSc patients. There is still little data in the literature, and further larger multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Several studies have evaluated the progression of AS in the general population. A previous echocardiographic investigation has shown an annual increase of the mean trans-aortic pressure gradient by 6.3 to 8.3 mmHg and an annual decrease of the aortic valve opening area by 0.14 cm2 [35].
Piper, in a series of 257 patients with AS, observed that the aortic valve obstruction progression increases not linearly but exponentially, according to the degree of valve calcification [38].
These authors conclude that if the aortic valve area and the degree of calcification are known, the hemodynamic progression of the lesion may be predictable. Nevertheless, the intervals of confidence are wide, indicating large inter-individual differences and the impossibility of forecasting the progression rate in an individual patient.
Kebed et al. analyzed 916 patients with mild to severe AS and followed with echocardiographic examination. In this study, the rate of progression of AS was faster in males and white patients than in blacks and other ethnicities. The overall rate of AS progression by change in AVA was −0.070 ± 0.003 cm2/year. There was no difference in the progression of the valve area according to age. Furthermore, there was an inverse relationship between the initial degree of severity of AS and progression, probably because mild forms of AS rarely progress to forms beyond mild. Left ventricular systolic function does not influence the rate of AS progression [39].
In a meta-analysis of 24 studies that included 5450 patients, Willner observed that the progression of AS is faster when severity at baseline is greater: 0.07 cm2/y in mild AS, 0.08 cm2/y in moderate AS, 0.09 cm2/y in severe AS; therefore, there is a strong correlation between the severity of AS at baseline and the rate of anatomic and hemodynamic valve disease progression [40].
In our small case series, the progression rate was about three times faster than in Kebed’s series (−0.190 ± 0.012 cm2/year vs. −0.070 ± 0.003 cm2/year), suggesting an important role for the underlined autoimmune disease as a possible accelerating factor of AS progression.
Early identification of severe AS is mandatory. In fact, if left untreated, AS might increase the side effects of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, commonly used in SSc, or preclude the use of the standard therapies for pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH).

4.3. Treatment and Outcomes

Frailty, common in SSc, is also an important factor that can significantly affect aortic valve treatment outcomes. Multiple comorbidities presenting in SSc patients make the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and logistic EuroSCORE suboptimal models for an adequate risk stratification [41].
SSc patients with severe AS are likely frail, elderly women. The frailty and the possible multiple medical comorbidities must be taken into account to depict the futility of TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), defined as the combination of death and/or the absence of clinical improvement at follow-up [34,42,43,44].
TAVI shows potential advantages over SAVR in SSc patients: The avoidance of general anesthesia, sternotomy on a difficult chest anatomy, a shorter in-hospital stay, and an easier periprocedural management. On the other hand, patients with SSc may develop intraprocedural vascular complications due to vascular fragility and small-caliber vessels. Previous observations confirm that TAVI is a successful procedure with favorable long-term clinical outcomes in SSc patients [45].
Nevertheless, operators should consider possible challenges due to the smaller vessel size caliber, the vessel tortuosity, the endothelial disease inducing high rates of macro-microvascular involvement, the possible kidney damage, the age, and the small body size (often the patients are old women). The contrast-related acute kidney injury should be prevented with appropriate hydration protocols. Finally, because conduction disturbances are very common in SSc patients, the increased risk of high atrioventricular block must be carefully evaluated in the immediate post-procedural period. However, multidisciplinary evaluation is necessary to decide the best strategy case-by-case [35].

5. Conclusions

Aortic valve stenosis is one of the possible manifestations of cardiac involvement in patients with SSc; therefore, a careful echocardiographic evaluation of the aortic valve is required during follow-up. The rate of progression of AS is more rapid in patients with SSc compared to the general population. Nevertheless, there are no models yet to predict the rate of progression of AS, probably because multiple mechanisms contribute to it: autoimmunity, degenerative burden, and chronic inflammation. The therapeutic approach to AS in SSc patients can be percutaneous or with traditional surgery. The choice of approach is multifactorial and depends mainly on the patient’s frailty, anatomical features, and comorbidities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D. and A.V.; methodology, M.D.; validation, M.D., P.A. and E.R.; formal analysis, M.D.; investigation, M.D.; resources, G.C. and S.V.; data curation, M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V., S.V., R.F., A.O. and E.C.; writing—review and editing, M.D. and A.V.; supervision, M.D. and B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Monaldi Hospital of Naples (protocol code 15/74,435).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Truchetet, M.E.; Brembilla, N.C.; Chizzolini, C. Current Concepts on the Pathogenesis of Systemic Sclerosis. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2023, 64, 262–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sobanski, V.; Giovannelli, J.; Allanore, Y.; Riemekasten, G.; Airò, P.; Vettori, S.; Cozzi, F.; Distler, O.; Matucci-Cerinic, M.; Denton, C.; et al. Phenotypes Determined by Cluster Analysis and Their Survival in the Prospective European Scleroderma Trials and Research Cohort of Patients with Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019, 71, 1553–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bissell, L.-A.; Anderson, M.; Burgess, M.; Chakravarty, K.; Coghlan, G.; Dumitru, R.B.; Graham, L.; Ong, V.; Pauling, J.D.; Plein, S.; et al. Consensus best practice pathway of the UK Systemic Sclerosis Study group: Management of cardiac disease in systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology 2017, 56, 912–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dumitru, R.B.; Bissell, L.-A.; Erhayiem, B.; Fent, G.; Kidambi, A.; Swoboda, P.; Abignano, G.; Donica, H.; Burska, A.; Greenwood, J.P.; et al. Predictors of subclinical systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement characterised by microvasculopathy and myocardial fibrosis. Rheumatology 2021, 60, 2934–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tyndall, A.J.; Bannert, B.; Vonk, M.; Airò, P.; Cozzi, F.; Carreira, P.E.; Bancel, D.F.; Allanore, Y.; Müller-Ladner, U.; Distler, O.; et al. Causes and risk factors for death in systemic sclerosis: A study from the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) database. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2010, 69, 1809–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parks, J.L.; Taylor, M.H.; Parks, L.P.; Silver, R.M. Systemic Sclerosis and the Heart. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 40, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Desai, C.S.; Lee, D.C.; Shah, S.J. Systemic sclerosis and the heart: Current diagnosis and management. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 2011, 23, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Colaci, M.; Schinocca, C.; Dal Bosco, Y.; Ronsivalle, G.; Guggino, G.; de Andres, I.; Russo, A.; Sambataro, D.; Sambataro, G.; Malatino, L. Heart Valve Abnormalities in Systemic Sclerosis Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study and Review of the Literature. J. Clin. Rheumatol. 2022, 28, e95–e101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kurmann, R.D.; El-Am, E.A.; Radwan, Y.A.; Sandhu, A.S.; Crowson, C.S.; Matteson, E.L.; Warrington, K.J.; Mankad, R.; Makol, A. Increased risk of valvular heart disease in systemic sclerosis: An underrecognized cardiac complication. J. Rheumatol. 2021, 48, 1047–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Machida, A.; Funaki, T.; Nishida, K.; Imai, R.-I.; Nakaoka, Y.; Seki, S.-I.; Baba, Y.-I.; Kubo, T.; Yamasaki, N.; Kitaoka, H.; et al. Premature onset aortic stenosis in systemic sclerosis: A report of a series of cases. Intern. Med. 2020, 59, 3177–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Van Den Hoogen, F.; Khanna, D.; Fransen, J.; Johnson, S.R.; Baron, M.; Tyndall, A.; Matucci-Cerinic, M.; Naden, R.P.; Medsger, T.A., Jr.; Carreira, P.E.; et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: An american college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2013, 65, 2737–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mitchell, C.; Rahko, P.S.; Blauwet, L.A.; Canaday, B.; Finstuen, J.A.; Foster, M.C.; Horton, K.; Ogunyankin, K.O.; Palma, R.A.; Velazquez, E.J. Guidelines for Performing a Comprehensive Transthoracic Echocardiographic Examination in Adults: Recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2019, 32, 1–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vahanian, A.; Beyersdorf, F.; Praz, F.; Milojevic, M.; Baldus, S.; Bauersachs, J.; Capodanno, D.; Conradi, L.; De Bonis, M.; De Paulis, R.; et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: Developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2022, 75, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bulkley, B.H.; Ridolfi, R.L.; Salyer, W.R.; Hutchins, G.M. Myocardial lesions of progressive systemic sclerosis. A cause of cardiac dysfunction. Circulation 1976, 53, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Botstein, G.R.; LeRoy, E.C. Primary heart disease in systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): Advances in clinical and pathologic features, pathogenesis, and new therapeutic approaches. Am. Heart J. 1981, 102, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ross, L.; Prior, D.; Proudman, S.; Vacca, A.; Baron, M.; Nikpour, M. Defining primary systemic sclerosis heart involvement: A scoping literature review. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2019, 48, 874–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Elhai, M.; Meune, C.; Boubaya, M.; Avouac, J.; Hachulla, E.; Balbir-Gurman, A.; Riemekasten, G.; Airò, P.; Joven, B.; Vettori, S.; et al. Mapping and predicting mortality from systemic sclerosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2017, 76, 1897–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Narváez, J.; LLuch, J.; Ruiz-Majoral, A.; Sánchez-Corral, M.A.; Claver, E.; Nolla, J.M. Increased prevalence of moderate to severe mitral and aortic valve dysfunction in systemic sclerosis: A case-control study. J. Rheumatol. 2021, 48, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Grygiel-Górniak, B.; Oduah, M.T.; Olagunju, A.; Klokner, M. Disorders of the Aorta and Aortic Valve in Connective Tissue Diseases. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 2020, 22, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mihai, C.; Tervaert, J.W.C. Anti-endothelial cell antibodies in systemic sclerosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2010, 69, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Patnaik, E.; Lyons, M.; Tran, K.; Pattanaik, D. Endothelial Dysfunction in Systemic Sclerosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 14385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Badii, M.; Gaal, O.; Popp, R.A.; Crișan, T.O.; Joosten, L.A.B. Trained immunity and inflammation in rheumatic diseases. Jt. Bone Spine 2022, 89, 105364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ross, R. Atherosclerosis—An inflammatory disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mazzone, A.; Epistolato, M.C.; De Caterina, R.; Storti, S.; Vittorini, S.; Sbrana, S.; Gianetti, J.; Bevilacqua, S.; Glauber, M.; Biagini, A.; et al. Neoangiogenesis, T-lymphocyte infiltration, and heat shock protein-60 are biological hallmarks of an immunomediated inflammatory process in end-stage calcified aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004, 43, 1670–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Poggianti, E.; Venneri, L.; Chubuchny, V.; Jambrik, Z.; Baroncini, L.A.; Picano, E. Aortic valve sclerosis is associated with systemic endothelial dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003, 41, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Scalzi, V.; Abu Hadi, H.; Alessandri, C.; Croia, C.; Conti, V.; Agati, L.; Angelici, A.; Riccieri, V.; Meschini, C.; Al-Motarreb, A.; et al. Anti-endothelial cell antibodies in rheumatic heart disease. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2010, 161, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Valenzuela, A.; Song, P.; Chung, L. Calcinosis in scleroderma. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 2018, 30, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Muangchan, C.; Harding, S.; Khimdas, S.; Bonner, A.; Baron, M.; Pope, J. Association of C-reactive protein with high disease activity in systemic sclerosis: Results from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Arthritis Care Res. 2012, 64, 1405–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jha, M.; Wang, M.; Steele, R.; Baron, M.; Fritzler, M.J.; Hudson, M. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and CRP predict the risk of cardiopulmonary outcomes in systemic sclerosis: Findings from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. J. Scleroderma Relat. Disord. 2022, 7, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Novaro, G.M.; Katz, R.; Aviles, R.J.; Gottdiener, J.S.; Cushman, M.; Psaty, B.M.; Otto, C.M.; Griffin, B.P. Clinical Factors, But Not C-Reactive Protein, Predict Progression of Calcific Aortic-Valve Disease. The Cardiovascular Health Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2007, 50, 1992–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sanchez, P.L.; Mazzone, A.M. C-reactive protein in degenerative aortic valve stenosis. Cardiovasc. Ultrasound 2006, 4, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Alman, K.; Sadd, C.J.; Ravel, A.; Raza, F.; Chybowski, A.; Runo, J.R. Prevalence of aortic stenosis and TAVR outcomes in patients with systemic sclerosis-associated pulmonary hypertension. Pulm. Circ. 2022, 12, e12118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. LeRoy, E.C.; Black, C.M.; Fleischmajer, R.; Jablonska, S.; Krieg, T.; Medsger, T.A., Jr.; Rowell, N.; Wollheim, F. Scleroderma (systemic sclerosis): Classification, subsets and pathogenesis. J. Rheumatol. 1988, 15, 202–205. [Google Scholar]
  34. Shimura, T.; Yamamoto, M.; Kano, S.; Kagase, A.; Kodama, A.; Koyama, Y.; Tsuchikane, E.; Suzuki, T.; Otsuka, T.; Kohsaka, S.; et al. Impact of the clinical frailty scale on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2017, 135, 2013–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Arsenault, B.J.; Loganath, K.; Girard, A.; Botezatu, S.; Zheng, K.H.; Tzolos, E.; Abdoun, K.; Tastet, L.; Capoulade, R.; Côté, N.; et al. Lipoprotein(a) and Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis Progression. JAMA Cardiol. 2024, e241882. Available online: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2820718 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
  36. Eveborn, G.W.; Schirmer, H.; Heggelund, G.; Lunde, P.; Rasmussen, K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. the Tromsø study. Heart 2013, 99, 396–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Osnabrugge, R.L.; Mylotte, D.; Head, S.J.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Nkomo, V.T.; LeReun, C.M.; Bogers, A.J.; Piazza, N.; Kappetein, A.P. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: Disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis and modeling study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 62, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bernelli, C.; Chieffo, A.; Giustino, G.; Montorfano, M.; Latib, A.; Panoulas, V.F.; Covello, R.D.; Agricola, E.; Spagnolo, P.; Alfieri, O.; et al. Preliminary outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with systemic sclerosis. EuroIntervention 2015, 10, 1464–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ferrari, G.; Pratali, S.; Pucci, A.; Bortolotti, U. Aortic valve replacement in systemic sclerosis. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2015, 16, S60–S61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Willner, N.; Prosperi-Porta, G.; Lau, L.; Nam Fu, A.Y.; Boczar, K.; Poulin, A.; Di Santo, P.; Unni, R.R.; Visintini, S.; Ronksley, P.E.; et al. Aortic Stenosis Progression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2023, 16, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brener, S.J.; Duffy, C.I.; Thomas, J.D.; Stewart, W.J. Progression of aortic stenosis in 394 patients: Relation to changes in myocardial and mitral valve dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1995, 25, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kappetein, A.P.; Head, S.J.; Généreux, P.; Piazza, N.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Blackstone, E.H.; Brott, T.G.; Cohen, D.J.; Cutlip, D.E.; van Es, G.-A.; et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur. Heart J. 2012, 60, 1438–1454. [Google Scholar]
  43. Puls, M.; Sobisiak, B.; Bleckmann, A.; Jacobshagen, C.; Danner, B.C.; Huenlich, M.; Beißbarth, T.; Schöndube, F.; Hasenfuß, G.; Seipelt, R.; et al. Impact of frailty on short- and long-term morbidity and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Risk assessment by Katz Index of activities of daily living. EuroIntervention 2014, 10, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Green, P.; Arnold, S.V.; Cohen, D.J.; Kirtane, A.J.; Kodali, S.K.; Brown, D.L.; Rihal, C.S.; Xu, K.; Lei, Y.; Hawkey, M.C.; et al. Relation of Frailty to Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (from the PARTNER Trial). Am. J. Cardiol. 2015, 116, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Puri, R.; Iung, B.; Cohen, D.J.; Rodés-Cabau, J. TAVI or No TAVI: Identifying patients unlikely to benefit from transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2217–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcdd 11 00274 g001
Figure 1. Cardiac involvement in systemic sclerosis.
Figure 1. Cardiac involvement in systemic sclerosis.
Jcdd 11 00274 g001
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, serological, and capillaroscopy features of the 10 enrolled systemic sclerosis patients. SSc = systemic sclerosis; Ab = autoantibody subset; DD = disease duration in years (y); ILD = interstitial lung disease; GIT = gastrointestinal tract involvement; DU = digital ulcers; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP = C-reactive protein; NVC = nailfold videocapillaroscopy; F = female; lcSSc = limited cutaneous SSc; ANA = antinuclear antibodies (e.g., patients negative for SSc marker autoantibodies other than ACA and ATA at baseline); ATA = anti-topoisomerase antibodies; lcSSc° = sine scleroderma, included in the lcSSc subset; M = male; dcSSc = diffuse cutaneous SSc; ACA = anticentromere antibodies; “−” = negative; “+” = positive.
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, serological, and capillaroscopy features of the 10 enrolled systemic sclerosis patients. SSc = systemic sclerosis; Ab = autoantibody subset; DD = disease duration in years (y); ILD = interstitial lung disease; GIT = gastrointestinal tract involvement; DU = digital ulcers; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP = C-reactive protein; NVC = nailfold videocapillaroscopy; F = female; lcSSc = limited cutaneous SSc; ANA = antinuclear antibodies (e.g., patients negative for SSc marker autoantibodies other than ACA and ATA at baseline); ATA = anti-topoisomerase antibodies; lcSSc° = sine scleroderma, included in the lcSSc subset; M = male; dcSSc = diffuse cutaneous SSc; ACA = anticentromere antibodies; “−” = negative; “+” = positive.
PatientsAgeSexSubsetAbDD (y)ILDGITKidneyDUCalcinosisESR/CRPNVC
184FlcSScANA22−+−−−−late
276FlcSScATA6++−−−−active
375FlcSSc°ATA14−−−−−+−
482MdcSScANA23++−−−−late
570FlcSScATA20++−−−−active
680FlcSScACA27++−−++late
758FlcSSc°ACA20−+−−−−active
871FlcSScATA20+−−−−−active
977FlcSScACA19++−−−−active
1071FdcSScANA18+−−−−−active
Table 2. Echocardiographic features of patients with severe aortic stenosis and systemic sclerosis. AVA = aortic valve area; DVI = Doppler velocity index; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; IVC = inferior vena cava; IVSd = interventricular septum diameter; LAVi = left atrial volume index; LVEDd = left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVESd = left ventricular end-systolic diameter; LVOT VTI = left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion.
Table 2. Echocardiographic features of patients with severe aortic stenosis and systemic sclerosis. AVA = aortic valve area; DVI = Doppler velocity index; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; IVC = inferior vena cava; IVSd = interventricular septum diameter; LAVi = left atrial volume index; LVEDd = left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVESd = left ventricular end-systolic diameter; LVOT VTI = left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion.
Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Systemic Sclerosis
N12345678910
LVEDd (mm)49405751634648515151
LVESd (mm)32224442512925424041
IVSd (mm)12121415121113121312
LVEF (%)57605550405560555560
E/e’4.712111599911920
LAVi (mL/m2)31363750373738394235
VTI LVOT (cm)1012121071012101110
Aortic Vmax (m/s)44.14.24.144.14.14.44.93.7
Mean aortic gradient (mmHg)40485045404241486035
AVA (cm2)0.50.70.80.40.50.50.70.60.40.5
DVI 0.230.180.180.200.220.210.210.190.150.23
RVD1 (mm)54553334403634353840
TAPSE (mm)17191719221821192318
S’ wave (cm/s)910915121011101310
Pulmonary acceleration time (ms)1041008386981061159589143
IVC (mm)14161820161313151218
IVC inspiratory collapse (%)55606050607065605560
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vergara, A.; Orlando, A.; Caiazza, E.; Vettori, S.; Cuomo, G.; Argiento, P.; Romeo, E.; Franzese, R.; Sarubbi, B.; D’Alto, M. Progression, Management, and Outcome of Aortic Valve Stenosis in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case Series. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11090274

AMA Style

Vergara A, Orlando A, Caiazza E, Vettori S, Cuomo G, Argiento P, Romeo E, Franzese R, Sarubbi B, D’Alto M. Progression, Management, and Outcome of Aortic Valve Stenosis in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case Series. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2024; 11(9):274. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11090274

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vergara, Andrea, Antonio Orlando, Eleonora Caiazza, Serena Vettori, Giovanna Cuomo, Paola Argiento, Emanuele Romeo, Rosa Franzese, Berardo Sarubbi, and Michele D’Alto. 2024. "Progression, Management, and Outcome of Aortic Valve Stenosis in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case Series" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 11, no. 9: 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11090274

APA Style

Vergara, A., Orlando, A., Caiazza, E., Vettori, S., Cuomo, G., Argiento, P., Romeo, E., Franzese, R., Sarubbi, B., & D’Alto, M. (2024). Progression, Management, and Outcome of Aortic Valve Stenosis in Systemic Sclerosis: A Case Series. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 11(9), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11090274

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop