Literature DB >> 28061996

Comparative Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Nonagenarians.

Chad J Zack1, Fahad Al-Qahtani2, Akram Kawsara2, Mohammed Al-Hijji1, Ali Hama Amin2, Mohamad Alkhouli3.   

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) emerged as a promising alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in extreme-aged patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Data on the outcomes of TAVR or SAVR in nonagenarians are limited. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients aged 90 years or older who underwent TAVR or SAVR from 2004 to 2013. In-hospital morbidity and mortality were assessed. From 2004 to 2013, 9,066 (national estimate) nonagenarians underwent aortic valve replacement. After the introduction of TAVR, most nonagenarians were treated with TAVR (76%) compared with SAVR (24%). A total of 1,847 nonagenarians who underwent SAVR (n = 1,152) or TAVR (n = 695) were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was similar between patients who underwent SAVR (6.4%) compared with TAVR (6.5%; p = 0.29). Vascular complications were more common after TAVR (11.9% vs 6.3%, p <0.001), whereas blood transfusion (46.2% vs 33.7%, p <0.001), and acute kidney injury (25.8% vs 20.4%, p = 0.009) were more common after SAVR. Pacemaker implantation and stroke rates were similar between the 2 groups. In a propensity-matched analysis of 630 patients who underwent isolated TAVR (n = 315) or SAVR (n = 315), in-hospital mortality was similar for (6.0% for SAVR vs 7.9% for TAVR, p = 0.35). SAVR was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury (24.1% vs 16.8%, p = 0.02) and blood transfusion (46.0% vs 35.2%, p = 0.001), whereas TAVR was associated with increased rates of vascular complications (10.2% vs 6.0%, p = 0.07). Stroke (4.1% vs 4.1%, p = 0.99) and pacemaker implantation rates were also similar (13.0% vs 9.2%, p = 0.12) between the TAVR and SAVR groups, respectively. In conclusion, in nonagenarians, both SAVR and TAVR can be performed with acceptable in-hospital outcomes. Referral for aortic valve replacement in these patients should not be precluded based on age alone.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28061996     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians: selectively feasible or extravagantly futile?

Authors:  Antonis S Manolis; Antonis A Manolis
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-09

2.  Ethnic and Gender Disparities in the Uptake of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States.

Authors:  Ayman Elbadawi; Syed Yaseen Naqvi; Islam Y Elgendy; Mohamed F Almahmoud; Mohamed Hamed; Hesham Abowali; Gbolahan O Ogunbayo; Hani Jneid; Khaled M Ziada
Journal:  Cardiol Ther       Date:  2019-06-25

Review 3.  Outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians- a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Azka Latif; Muhammad Junaid Ahsan; Noman Lateef; Vikas Kapoor; Mohsin Mansoor Mirza; Faiz Anwer; Michael Del Core; Arun Kanmantha Reddy
Journal:  J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect       Date:  2021-01-26

4.  Modern Cardiac Surgical Outcomes in Nonagenarians: A Multicentre Retrospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Laurence Weinberg; Dominic Walpole; Dong Kyu Lee; Michael D'Silva; Jian Wen Chan; Lachlan Fraser Miles; Bradly Carp; Adam Wells; Tuck Seng Ngun; Siven Seevanayagam; George Matalanis; Ziauddin Ansari; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael Yii
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.