Key result
AVR matches valvuloplasty for hospital mortality but is deemed superior for significant aortic regurgitation.
Why the study?
Does prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve improve outcomes compared to valvuloplasty in patients with aortic valve disease?
Cohort (n=157)
Does prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve improve outcomes compared to valvuloplasty in patients with aortic valve disease?
Prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve provides superior long-term results compared to valvuloplasty in patients with significant aortic regurgitation or heavily calcified valves, despite similar hospital mortality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Similar hospital mortality in this cohort does not favor valvuloplasty; leaves open long-term superiority of replacement in significant aortic regurgitation.
The technic of prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve has developed rapidly. Long-term follow-up of 51 hospital survivors of valvuloplasty is presented, showing worthwhile results at three years following operation and, in a very few cases, at four, five or more years. A recent 15 months' experience with 84 valve replacements and 22 valvuloplasties shows an 18 per cent hospital mortality in each group. Results of valve replacement are immeasurably superior to those achieved with incision and debridement in patients with significant aortic regurgitation or heavily calcified valves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scannell et al. (1965) conducted a cohort in Aortic Valve Disease (n=157). Prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve vs. Valvuloplasty was evaluated on Hospital mortality. Prosthetic replacement of the aortic valve and valvuloplasty both resulted in an 18% hospital mortality, though replacement was deemed superior for significant aortic regurgitation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: