BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed safely in selected elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the survival benefits of AVR over conservative treatment have not been convincingly demonstrated in AS patients aged above 80. AIM: To investigate the outcomes of patients aged 80 and over with symptomatic, severe AS and by analyzing the effects of patient's choice in either agreeing or refusing to undergo AVR, determine the survival benefits afforded by AVR. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: Subjects aged 80 and over with severe symptomatic AS, diagnosed between 2001 and 2006 were segregated into three groups: subjects who underwent AVR (Group A); patients who were fit for AVR but declined surgery due to personal choice (Group B) and those who were not fit for surgery and were managed conservatively (Group C). Follow-up was conducted by out-patient attendances, review of medical records and telephone interviews. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (86.0 +/- 4.2 years, 41% male) were identified and no patient was lost during follow-up. In Group A (n = 17), all 15 patients who underwent AVR were alive after 3.6 +/- 1.4 years follow-up and 2 died whilst awaiting AVR. Seventy-four percent of Group B (n = 24) and 76% of Group C (n = 62) died during follow-up. Group A had significantly better survival than B and C. (P < 0.01) Amongst patients fit for AVR with similar operative risks (Groups A and B), refusal to undergo surgery (hazard ratio 12.61, P = 0.001) was the only predictor of mortality in a multivariate model. CONCLUSION: For elderly AS patients fit for surgery, the patient's decision to refuse AVR is associated with a >12-fold increase in mortality risk. These findings have significant implications for informed decision-making when managing the fit, elderly patient with AS.
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed safely in selected elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the survival benefits of AVR over conservative treatment have not been convincingly demonstrated in AS patients aged above 80. AIM: To investigate the outcomes of patients aged 80 and over with symptomatic, severe AS and by analyzing the effects of patient's choice in either agreeing or refusing to undergo AVR, determine the survival benefits afforded by AVR. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: Subjects aged 80 and over with severe symptomatic AS, diagnosed between 2001 and 2006 were segregated into three groups: subjects who underwent AVR (Group A); patients who were fit for AVR but declined surgery due to personal choice (Group B) and those who were not fit for surgery and were managed conservatively (Group C). Follow-up was conducted by out-patient attendances, review of medical records and telephone interviews. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (86.0 +/- 4.2 years, 41% male) were identified and no patient was lost during follow-up. In Group A (n = 17), all 15 patients who underwent AVR were alive after 3.6 +/- 1.4 years follow-up and 2 died whilst awaiting AVR. Seventy-four percent of Group B (n = 24) and 76% of Group C (n = 62) died during follow-up. Group A had significantly better survival than B and C. (P < 0.01) Amongst patients fit for AVR with similar operative risks (Groups A and B), refusal to undergo surgery (hazard ratio 12.61, P = 0.001) was the only predictor of mortality in a multivariate model. CONCLUSION: For elderly AS patients fit for surgery, the patient's decision to refuse AVR is associated with a >12-fold increase in mortality risk. These findings have significant implications for informed decision-making when managing the fit, elderly patient with AS.
Authors: Giovanni Pulignano; Michele Massimo Gulizia; Samuele Baldasseroni; Francesco Bedogni; Giovanni Cioffi; Ciro Indolfi; Francesco Romeo; Adriano Murrone; Francesco Musumeci; Alessandro Parolari; Leonardo Patanè; Paolo Giuseppe Pino; Annalisa Mongiardo; Carmen Spaccarotella; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Giuseppe Musumeci Journal: Eur Heart J Suppl Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Morten Sengeløv; Susan Cheng; Tor Biering-Sørensen; Kunihiro Matsushita; Suma Konety; Scott D Solomon; Aaron R Folsom; Amil M Shah Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Paula Rogers; Sayed Al-Aidrous; Winston Banya; Shelley Rahman Haley; Tarun Mittal; Tito Kabir; Vasileois Panoulas; Shahzad Raja; Sunil Bhudia; Heather Probert; Claire Prendergast; Mark S Spence; Simon Davies; Neil Moat; Rod S Taylor; Miles Dalby Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-12-13