Key result
SAVR with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures is linked to ~52% higher mortality than isolated SAVR.
Why the study?
Advanced age and concomitant procedures may increase perioperative complications during SAVR, prompting evaluation of the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures in elderly patients.
Does combined-SAVR with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures increase mortality and complications compared to isolated-SAVR in elderly intermediate-risk patients?
Cohort (n=464)
No
Does combined-SAVR with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures increase mortality and complications compared to isolated-SAVR in elderly intermediate-risk patients?
Combining surgical aortic valve replacement with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures in elderly patients significantly increases 30-day, 1-year, and overall mortality compared to isolated SAVR.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Warrants caution in combined SAVR decisions; leaves open randomized confirmation in intermediate-risk elderly.
INTRODUCTION: advanced age and concomitant procedures could increase the risk of perioperative complications during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate results of elderly patients undergoing SAVR and evaluate the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures on the outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study, evaluating 464 elderly patients (mean age = 75.6 ± 4 years) undergoing either isolated-SAVR (I-SAVR = 211) or combined-SAVR (C-SAVR = 253) between 01/2007 and 12/2017. Combined-SAVR involved non-valvular, non-coronary procedures. Study endpoints are postoperative results concerning the VARC-II criteria, valve dysfunction, long-term freedom from redo-AVR and survival. RESULTS: males were 52.8%. Patients had an intermediate risk profile (mean EuroSCORE-II (%) 5.2 ± 5). Postoperative results reported no significant differences in incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (6.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.0), stroke (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.59), dialysis (6.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.23) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.79) between I-SAVR and C-SAVR groups. Thirty-day (2.4% vs. 7.1% p = 0.03), one-year (5.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.003) and overall mortality (24.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) were lower in the isolated-SAVR group. Re-AVR was indicated in 1.7% of patients due to endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: SAVR in elderly patients offers good outcomes with increased life quality and rare re-operation for structural valvular deterioration. Mortality rates were significantly higher when SAVR was combined with another "non-valvular, non-coronary" procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mourad et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Intermediate risk elderly patients requiring surgical aortic valve replacement (n=464). Combined-SAVR (with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures) vs. Isolated-SAVR was evaluated on Overall mortality (p=0.002). Combined SAVR with non-valvular, non-coronary procedures was associated with significantly higher overall mortality compared to isolated SAVR (37.5% vs 24.6%, p=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: