A literature review found that aortic valve replacement is frequently denied to elderly patients with aortic stenosis based solely on chronological age, despite being a proven and effective therapy.
Is aortic valve replacement frequently denied to elderly patients with aortic stenosis based solely on chronological age?
The review highlights an ethical concern regarding age discrimination in the denial of cost-effective and beneficial aortic valve replacement to clinically suitable elderly patients.
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.
Katrina A. Bramstedt (Mon,) conducted a review in Aortic stenosis. Aortic valve replacement was evaluated. A literature review found that aortic valve replacement is frequently denied to elderly patients with aortic stenosis based solely on chronological age, despite being a proven and effective therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: