Why the study?
Does aortic valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis improve exercise hemodynamics and quality of life in elderly patients with aortic stenosis?
Does aortic valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis improve exercise hemodynamics and quality of life in elderly patients with aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis in elderly patients with aortic stenosis results in significant improvements in quality of life and normal exercise hemodynamics at 6 months.
May support QoL gains after Hancock II AVR in elderly AS; leaves open need for RCTs on hemodynamics and durability.
Background and Aim. While aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis can be performed safely in elderly patients, there is a need for hemodynamic and quality of life evaluation to determine the value of aortic valve replacement in older patients who may have age-related activity limitation. Materials and Methods. We conducted a prospective evaluation of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and completed the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) preoperatively and six months postoperatively. Results. From 2004 to 2007, 33 patients were enrolled with an average age of 75.3 ± 5.3 years (24 men and 9 women). Preoperatively, 27/33 (82%) were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification 3, and postoperatively 27/33 (82%) were NYHA Functional Classification 1. Patients had a mean predicted maximum V O2 (mL/kg/min) of 19.5 ± 4.3 and an actual max V O2 of 15.5 ± 3.9, which was 80% of the predicted V O2 . Patients were found to have significant improvements (P ≤ 0.01) in six of the nine SF-36 health parameters. Conclusions. In our sample of elderly patients with aortic stenosis, replacing the aortic valve with a Hancock II bioprosthesis resulted in improved hemodynamics and quality of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Long et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: