Comparison of Early Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Management in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting: Results From the TOPAS Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

Background No randomized comparison of early (ie, ≤3 months) aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus conservative management or of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) versus surgical AVR has been conducted in patients with low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS). Methods and Results A total of 481 consecutive patients (75±10 years; 71% men) with LFLG AS (aortic valve area ≤0.6 cm/m and mean gradient <40 mm Hg), 72% with classic LFLG and 28% with paradoxical LFLG, were prospectively recruited in the multicenter TOPAS (True or Pseudo Severe Aortic Stenosis) study.

Publisher Correction: Re-estimation improved the performance of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Re-estimation improved the performance of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis.

Equations predicting the risk of occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are used in primary care to identify high-risk individuals among the general population. To improve the predictive performance of such equations, we updated the Framingham general CVD 1991 and 2008 equations and the Pooled Cohort equations for atherosclerotic CVD within five years in a contemporary cohort of individuals who participated in the Austrian health-screening program from 2009-2014. The cohort comprised 1.

External validation of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis.

Background: Cardiovascular prevention guidelines advocate the use of statistical risk equations to predict individual cardiovascular risk. However, predictive accuracy and clinical value of existing equations may differ in populations other than the one used for their development. Using baseline and follow-up data of the Austrian health-screening program, we assessed discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of three widely recommended equations-the Framingham 1991 and 2008 general cardiovascular disease (CVD) equations, and the Pooled Cohort equations predicting atherosclerotic CVD.