Katrina A Bramstedt1. 1. Department of Community Medicine and General Practice, Monash University, East Bentleigh, Vic., Australia. bioethics@go.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of aortic stenosis is nearly 20% in octogenarians. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the optimal therapy choice, yet many symptomatic patients are denied this beneficent technology. Whether mechanical or bioprosthetic, aortic valves are not a scarce resource and their safety, effectiveness and longevity are proven. OBJECTIVE: Because the geriatric population is soaring, clinicians will be encountering more cases of aortic stenosis and the decision-making that leads to surgical referral or non-referral warrants exploration. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to explore the notion that physicians deny AVR to their patients based solely on their chronological age value. RESULTS: Using age as the sole exclusion criterion, medical literature documents the fact that AVR is frequently denied to the elderly. CONCLUSION: It appears that AVR is another beneficent cardiac technology that has been added to the age discrimination list, even though the devices are not scarce, they are cost-effective, and they can improve the life of a symptomatic elderly patient. There is no ethical justification for denying AVR to clinically suitable elderly candidates who request such therapy. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of aortic stenosis is nearly 20% in octogenarians. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the optimal therapy choice, yet many symptomatic patients are denied this beneficent technology. Whether mechanical or bioprosthetic, aortic valves are not a scarce resource and their safety, effectiveness and longevity are proven. OBJECTIVE: Because the geriatric population is soaring, clinicians will be encountering more cases of aortic stenosis and the decision-making that leads to surgical referral or non-referral warrants exploration. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to explore the notion that physicians deny AVR to their patients based solely on their chronological age value. RESULTS: Using age as the sole exclusion criterion, medical literature documents the fact that AVR is frequently denied to the elderly. CONCLUSION: It appears that AVR is another beneficent cardiac technology that has been added to the age discrimination list, even though the devices are not scarce, they are cost-effective, and they can improve the life of a symptomatic elderly patient. There is no ethical justification for denying AVR to clinically suitable elderly candidates who request such therapy. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health
Authors: Sujatha Kesavan; Aamer Iqbal; Yusra Khan; Jonathan Hutter; Katie Pike; Chris Rogers; Mark Turner; Mandie Townsend; Andreas Baumbach Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2011-11-26
Authors: S Boulben; A Monnier; M Le Breton; J Morales; P Cormier; R Bellé; O Mulner-Lorillon Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Martin B Leon; Nicolo Piazza; Eugenia Nikolsky; Eugene H Blackstone; Donald E Cutlip; Arie Pieter Kappetein; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael Mack; Roxana Mehran; Craig Miller; Marie-Angèle Morel; John Petersen; Jeffrey J Popma; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Alec Vahanian; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 29.983