Why the study?
Does surgery improve symptoms and life expectancy compared to nonsurgical therapy in an elderly patient with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease?
Does surgery improve symptoms and life expectancy compared to nonsurgical therapy in an elderly patient with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease?
This editorial highlights the complex clinical decision-making process regarding surgical versus nonsurgical management in elderly patients with severe valvular and coronary disease.
The Clinical Problem-Solving article “Too Old for What?” elsewhere in this issue1 describes an 87-year-old woman with severe aortic stenosis, three-vessel coronary artery disease, depressed left ventricular function, and moderately severe heart failure. Once the diagnosis of aortic stenosis was made, neither the patient's physicians nor the discussant considered nonsurgical therapy, but in an accompanying note the editor wonders whether the discussion, which strongly favors surgery, might be too one-sided. Might the risks of surgery outweigh the expected benefit of symptomatic improvement? Should the possibility of improved life expectancy have a role in such decisions? How should the potential for . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: