Kristian Wachtell

Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND Hyperlipidemia has been suggested as a risk factor for stenosis of the aortic valve, but lipid-lowering studies have had conflicting results. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 1873 patients with mild-to-moderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. The patients received either 40 mg of simvastatin plus 10 mg of ezetimibe or placebo daily. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, aortic-valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary-artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes were events related to aortic-valve stenosis and ischemic cardiovascular events. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 52.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 333 patients (35.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 355 patients (38.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.12; P=0.59). Aortic-valve replacement was performed in 267 patients (28.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 278 patients (29.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P=0.97). Fewer patients had ischemic cardiovascular events in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (148 patients) than in the placebo group (187 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97; P=0.02), mainly because of the smaller number of patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting. Cancer occurred more frequently in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (105 vs. 70, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Simvastatin and ezetimibe did not reduce the composite outcome of combined aortic-valve events and ischemic events in patients with aortic stenosis. Such therapy reduced the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but not events related to aortic-valve stenosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677.)

Reduction in albuminuria translates to reduction in cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

Few data are available to clarify whether changes in albuminuria over time translate to changes in cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present study was to examine whether changes in albuminuria during 4.8 years of antihypertensive treatment were related to changes in risk in 8206 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was measured at baseline and annually. Time-varying albuminuria was closely related to risk for the primary composite end point (ie, when UACR decreased during treatment, risk was reduced accordingly). When the population was divided according to median baseline value (1.21 mg/mmol) and median year 1 UACR (0.67 mg/mmol), risk increased stepwise and significantly for the primary composite end point from those with low baseline/low year 1 (5.5%), to low baseline/high year 1 (8.6%), to high baseline/low year 1 (9.4%), and to high baseline/high year 1 (13.5%) values. Similar significant, stepwise increases in risk were seen for the components of the primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction). The observation that changes in UACR during antihypertensive treatment over time translated to changes in risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was not explained by in-treatment level of blood pressure. We propose that monitoring of albuminuria should be an integrated part of the management of hypertension. If albuminuria is not decreased by the patient’s current antihypertensive and other treatment, further intervention directed toward blood pressure control and other modifiable risks should be considered.

Albuminuria and Cardiovascular Risk in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The LIFE Study

Context Microalbuminuria is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Contribution In this large prospective study of hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, increasing microalbuminuria was associated with increasing risks for cardiovascular disease. Risks continuously increased without evidence of a threshold or plateau level. Implications Microalbuminuria assessment in hypertensive patients may improve cardiovascular risk stratification. Cautions The study was based on data collected during a randomized, controlled trial of antihypertensive therapy. Albuminuria was measured as the albumincreatinine ratio in a single spot urine collection. Other than for the study drug received, the authors did not adjust for treatments received during the trial. The Editors Microalbuminuria was first associated with essential hypertension in nondiabetic individuals by Parving and colleagues (1), and subsequent studies (2, 3) confirmed the association. Albuminuria is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and increased all-cause mortality in relatively unselected (4, 5) or general (6-8) populations, postmenopausal women (9), older people (10, 11), diabetic patients (12, 13), hypertensive patients with or without concomitant diabetes (8, 14, 15), and people with known high risk for cardiovascular disease (16). Left ventricular hypertrophy is an independent predictor of adverse prognosis (17-19) and is related to albumin excretion independent of age, blood pressure, diabetes, race, serum creatinine level, or smoking; these associations suggest parallel cardiac damage and increased renal albumin excretion rate (20). Other studies suggest that albuminuria at levels well below traditional partition values is a risk factor for coronary vascular disease in patients with and without diabetes (16, 21), indicating that the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk from other populations cannot be directly applied to nondiabetic hypertensive patients. More precise information about the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk would not only help clinicians better estimate the patients absolute risk but also strengthen the decision to initiate antihypertensive treatment, since current guidelines consider not only blood pressure but also target organ damage (for example, albuminuria) (22). We conducted a prospective study to determine the albuminuria level at which cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are increased in a large group of hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. In a predefined protocol, we hypothesized that no unique albuminuria threshold predicts increased cardiovascular risk but rather that increasing albuminuria is associated with a graded increase in risk. We anticipated that in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, any threshold identified would be much lower than the threshold traditionally defined in diabetic populations. Methods Patients Participants in our study were outpatients between 55 and 80 years of age. They were recruited from a mix of general and hospital practices and had previously untreated or treated stage II or III hypertension with electrocardiographically confirmed left ventricular hypertrophy (measured according to the product of QRS duration multiplied by Cornell voltage or according to SokolowLyon voltage). The patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind therapy with losartan or atenolol in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study (23, 24). Study Design The hypotheses of the current study were prespecified as part of the LIFE protocol. Inclusion criteria were a mean trough sitting systolic blood pressure of 160 to 200 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 115 mm Hg after 1 and 2 weeks of single-blind placebo treatment and no other antihypertensive medication at the time of randomization. Exclusion criteria were myocardial infarction or stroke within 6 months, current congestive heart failure or previously known left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.40, and renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level >160 mmol/L [>1.8 mg/dL]). We excluded patients who had a condition that the treating physician believed required treatment with losartan or another angiotensin II-receptor blocker, atenolol or another -blocker, hydrochlorothiazide, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Patients gave informed consent under protocols approved by the ethics committees of the participating institutions. End Points and Adjudication This study of the 8206 LIFE participants who had baseline albuminuria determinations (>90% of the entire sample) is based on analysis of a primary composite end point (n = 971): the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Additional end points were all-cause mortality (n = 703) and the first occurrence of each component of the composite end point, regardless of whether it was preceded by another component of the primary end point: 383 cardiovascular deaths, 479 strokes, and 344 myocardial infarctions. In the nondiabetic subgroup there were 755 composite end points, including 292 cardiovascular deaths, 379 fatal and nonfatal strokes, 261 fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and 554 all-cause deaths. Investigators reported all end points; source data were verified by independent monitors and were adjudicated by an independent committee on the basis of definitions provided in a predefined end point manual (24). Patients and the investigators reported the prevalences of coronary, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease and smoking habits. Diabetes was defined according to investigator report and plasma glucose level. The Framingham risk score (25) was estimated from baseline blood pressure, total cholesterol level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, smoking status, glucose level, and level of left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography (ECG). Renal Evaluation On the same day, a spot urine sample was collected as the first morning voiding and the serum creatinine level was measured. Urine albumin concentration was determined by standard methods (26) using a turbidometric method (Hitachi 717 analyzer, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland) (27) on a single urine specimen. Both serum and urine levels of creatinine were analyzed by using the Jaff reaction without deproteinizing and then quantified by a photometric method using the same analyzer. The ratio of urine albumin (in mg/L) to creatinine concentration (UACR) (in mmol/L) provided a composite measure (in mg/mmol) of renal glomerular capillary permeability that adjusted for urine dilution (28). To derive U.S. measures of UACR (mg/g), UACR in mg/mmoL is multiplied by 8.84. Statistical Analysis We used SPSS software, version 11.0.1 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois), for statistical analyses. The study sample as a whole and the nondiabetic patients were divided into UACR deciles; diabetic patients were divided into UACR quintiles. We used Cox proportional-hazards models to compare hazard ratios among groups and to evaluate the contributions of differences in the degree of left ventricular hypertrophy (both Cornell voltage duration product and SokolowLyon voltage as continuous variables), the Framingham risk score (25), and treatment allocation (losartan or atenolol) as covariates. To express the increase in risk per increase in UACR as a continuous variable, we log-transformed UACR. We used a Cox model in the test for trend and used the decile group as a continuous variable. Hazard ratios from the decile groups were then used to estimate the best-fitting curve (SPSS curve estimation function). Two-tailed P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Role of the Funding Source The funding source had no role in the design, analysis, and reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Results Patient Characteristics Descriptive data for the LIFE study sample (23) and relations of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria to cardiovascular risk factors have been reported elsewhere (20). Of the 9193 patients participating in the LIFE study, 8206 had the baseline UACR measurements necessary for inclusion in the present study. The mean age (SD) was 66 7 years; 54% of patients were women, and 92% were white. Thirteen percent had diabetes, 13.5% had coronary heart disease, and 7.7% had had a stroke. The mean arterial blood pressure (SD) was 174 14/98 9 mm Hg, the mean serum creatinine level (SD) was 87 20 mmol/L, and the median UACR was 1.28 mg/mmol. Additional baseline characteristics of patients with albuminuria are described elsewhere (20). To stratify risk in hypertensive patients with albuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy, patients were divided into UACR deciles, with 814 to 821 patients in each group. Patients were followed for a median of 4.8 years and a total of 39 122 patient-years. End point rates were 24.8 per 1000 patient-years of follow-up for the composite endpoint, 9.4 for cardiovascular mortality, 17.6 for all-cause mortality, 11.9 for stroke, and 8.5 for myocardial infarction. Age; sex; race; body mass index; blood pressure; level of left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG; Framingham risk score; prevalence of known diabetes, coronary heart disease, or peripheral vascular disease; and smoking habits did not differ between the patients who provided a urine sample and the 987 patients who did not. The prevalence of history of cerebral vascular disease (13.2% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.029) and mean serum creatinine level (90.0 vs. 86.7 mmol/L; P = 0.001) were higher in patients who did not provide a urine sample than in those who did. When we considered differences in left ventricular mass on ECG, Framingham risk score, and study treatment, patients without a urine sample had a 52% higher all-cause mortality rate (95% CI, 23% to 87%); the rates of t

Regression of Hypertensive Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Losartan Compared With Atenolol The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Trial

Background—An echocardiographic substudy of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) trial was designed to test the ability of losartan to reduce left ventricular (LV) mass more than atenolol. Methods and Results—A total of 960 patients with essential hypertension and LV hypertrophy (LVH) on screening ECG were enrolled at centers in 7 countries and studied by echocardiography at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years’ randomized therapy. Clinical examination and blinded readings of echocardiograms in 457 losartan-treated and 459 atenolol-treated participants with ≥1 follow-up measurement of LV mass index (LVMI) were used in an intention-to-treat analysis. Losartan-based therapy induced greater reduction in LVMI from baseline to the last available study than atenolol with adjustment for baseline LVMI and blood pressure and in-treatment pressure (−21.7±21.8 versus −17.7±19.6 g/m2; P=0.021). Greater LVMI reduction with losartan was observed in women and men, participants >65 or <65 years of age, and with mild or more severe baseline hypertrophy. The difference between treatment arms in LVH regression was due mainly to reduced concentricity of LV geometry in both groups and lesser increase in LV internal diameter in losartan-treated patients. Conclusions—Antihypertensive treatment with losartan, plus hydrochlorothiazide and other medications when needed for pressure control, resulted in greater LVH regression in patients with ECG LVH than conventional atenolol-based treatment. Thus, angiotensin receptor antagonism by losartan has superior efficacy for reversing LVH, a cardinal manifestation of hypertensive target organ damage.

Risk of new-onset diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study

Background There has been uncertainty about the risk of new-onset diabetes in hypertensive individuals treated with different blood pressure-decreasing drugs. Objectives To study this risk in hypertensive individuals who were at risk of developing diabetes mellitus in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Methods In the LIFE study, with a double-masked, randomized, parallel-group design, 9193 patients (46% men) with hypertension (mean age 67 years, average pressure 174/98 mmHg after placebo run-in) and electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy were randomly assigned to once-daily losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment and followed for at least 4 years (mean 4.8 years). At baseline, 7998 patients did not have diabetes mellitus and were thus at risk of developing this condition during the study. To demonstrate ability to predict new-onset diabetes, we developed a prediction score using the significant variables from multivariate analyses (serum glucose, body mass index, serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and history of prior use of antihypertensive drugs). Results There was a steadily increasing risk of diabetes with increasing level-of-risk score; patients in the highest quartile were at considerably greater risk than those in the three lower ones. Treatment with losartan was associated with lower risk of development of diabetes within each of the four quartiles of the risk score. As previously reported, new-onset diabetes mellitus occurred in 242 patients receiving losartan (13.0 per 1000 person-years) and 320 receiving atenolol (17.5 per 1000 person-years); relative risk 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.88;P < 0.001). Conclusions New-onset diabetes could be strongly predicted by a newly developed risk score using baseline serum glucose concentration (non-fasting), body mass index, serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, systolic blood pressure and history of prior use of antihypertensive drugs. Independently of these risk factors, fewer hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy developed diabetes mellitus if they were treated with losartan than if they were treated with atenolol.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation by Renin-Angiotensin system inhibition a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES The authors reviewed published clinical trial data on the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF), aiming to define when RAS inhibition is most effective. BACKGROUND Individual studies examining the effects of RAS inhibition on AF prevention have reported controversial results. METHODS All published randomized controlled trials reporting the effects of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in the primary or secondary prevention of AF were included. RESULTS A total of 23 randomized controlled trials with 87,048 patients were analyzed. In primary prevention, 6 trials in hypertension, 2 trials in myocardial infarction, and 3 trials in heart failure were included (some being post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials). In secondary prevention, 8 trials after cardioversion and 4 trials assessing the medical prevention of recurrence were included. Overall, RAS inhibition reduced the odds ratio for AF by 33% (p < 0.00001), but there was substantial heterogeneity among trials. In primary prevention, RAS inhibition was effective in patients with heart failure and those with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy but not in post-myocardial infarction patients overall. In secondary prevention, RAS inhibition was often administered in addition to antiarrhythmic drugs, including amiodarone, further reducing the odds for AF recurrence after cardioversion by 45% (p = 0.01) and in patients on medical therapy by 63% (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS This analysis supports the concept of RAS inhibition as an emerging treatment for the primary and secondary prevention of AF but acknowledges the fact that some of the primary prevention trials were post-hoc analyses. Further areas of uncertainty include potential differences among specific RAS inhibitors and possible interactions or synergistic effects with antiarrhythmic drugs.

Impact of Different Partition Values on Prevalences of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Concentric Geometry in a Large Hypertensive Population: The LIFE Study

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and concentric remodeling have been defined by using a variety of indexation methods and partition values (PVs) for LV mass and relative wall thickness (RWT). The effects of these methods on the distribution of LV geometric patterns in hypertensive subjects remain unclear. Echocardiograms were obtained in 941 patients with stage I to III hypertension and LV hypertrophy by ECG. LV mass was calculated by using different methods of indexation for body size and different PVs to identify hypertrophy: LV mass/body surface area (g/m(2)) PV for men/women 116/104, 125/110, or 125/125; LV mass/height (g/m) PV 143/102 or 126/105; and LV mass/height(2.7) (g/m(2.7)) PV 51/51 or 49.2/46.7. RWT was calculated by either 2xend-diastolic posterior wall thickness (PWT)/end-diastolic LV internal dimension (LVID) or end-diastolic interventricular septum dimension+end-diastolic PWT/end-diastolic LVID. LV hypertrophy or remodeling was present in 63% to 86% of subjects, and LV hypertrophy was present in 42% to 77%. By any index, eccentric hypertrophy was the common LV geometric pattern. Use of interventricular septum dimension+PWT/LVID to calculate RWT slightly increased the prevalence of normal geometry and eccentric hypertrophy compared with the use of 2xPWT/LVID. Subjects with LV hypertrophy identified by only LV mass/height(2.7) PV 49.2/46.7 were more obese, whereas those identified by only LV mass/body surface area PV 116/104 were taller and thinner than those in the 2 concordant groups with or without LV hypertrophy by both criteria. By either criterion, there were no significant differences between different LV geometric patterns in clinical cardiovascular disease. Hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy by ECG have a high prevalence of geometric abnormalities, especially eccentric hypertrophy, irrespective of method of indexation or PV. LV mass indexation by body surface area or height(2.7) identifies lean and obese subjects, respectively. We found no difference in prevalent cardiovascular disease in subjects identified by either criterion, suggesting a similar high risk.

Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient “Severe” Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background— Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” stenosis (defined as aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and mean gradient ⩽40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Methods and Results— Outcome in patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm2; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67±10 years; ejection fraction, ≥55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182±64 versus 212±68 g; P<0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P=0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P=0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P=0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (⩽35 mL/m2; n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P=0.53). Conclusions— Patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Outcome of Patients With Low-Gradient “Severe” Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction The Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) Study

Background— Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” stenosis (defined as aortic valve area <1.0 cm2 and mean gradient ⩽40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Methods and Results— Outcome in patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm2; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67±10 years; ejection fraction, ≥55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182±64 versus 212±68 g; P<0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P=0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P=0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P=0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (⩽35 mL/m2; n=223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P=0.53). Conclusions— Patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Low-Flow Aortic Stenosis in Asymptomatic Patients: Valvular–Arterial Impedance and Systolic Function From the SEAS Substudy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess the impact of valvuloarterial impedance on left ventricular (LV) myocardial systolic function in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS). BACKGROUND In atherosclerotic AS, LV global load consists of combined valvular and arterial resistance to LV ejection. Global load significantly impacts LV ejection fraction (EF) in symptomatic AS, but less is known about its effect on LV myocardial function in asymptomatic AS. METHODS Echocardiograms in 1,591 patients with asymptomatic AS (67 +/- 10 years, 51% hypertensive) at baseline in the SEAS (Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) study evaluating placebo-controlled combined simvastatin and ezetimibe treatment in AS were used to assess LV global load as valvuloarterial impedance and LV myocardial function as stress-corrected midwall shortening. The study population was divided into tertiles of global load. Stress-corrected midwall shortening was considered low if <87% in men and <90% in women. Low-flow AS was defined as stroke volume index <22 ml/m(2.04). RESULTS Energy loss index decreased (0.85 cm(2)/m(2) vs. 0.77 and 0.75 cm(2)/m(2)) and the prevalence of low stress-corrected midwall shortening increased (10% vs. 26% and 63%) with increasing LV global load (all p < 0.001). The EF was low in only 2% of patients. Patients with low-flow AS had higher LV global load and more often low midwall shortening than those with normal-flow AS (9.66 +/- 2.23 mm Hg/ml.m(2.04) and 77%, vs. 6.38 +/- 2.04 mm Hg/ml.m(2.04) and 30%, respectively, p < 0.001). In logistic regression analysis, LV global load was a main predictor of low stress-corrected midwall shortening independent of male sex, concentric LV geometry, LV hypertrophy (all p < 0.001), concomitant hypertension, and aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS LV global load impacts LV myocardial function in asymptomatic AS independent of other main covariates of LV systolic function. LV myocardial systolic dysfunction is common in asymptomatic AS in particular in patients with low-flow AS and increased valvuloarterial afterload, whereas EF is generally preserved. (An Investigational Drug on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Aortic Stenosis [Narrowing of the Major Blood Vessel of the Heart]; NCT00092677).