Key result
Calcific aortic valve disease affects >25% of adults >65 years of age, and while valve replacement provides survival benefit, it is neither a prevention nor a cure.
Calcific aortic valve disease and severe aortic stenosis have high prevalence in older adults, and while valve replacement offers survival benefits, it is neither a prevention nor a cure.
alcific aortic valve disease has a prevalence of >25% in those >65 years of age 1 and may progress to aortic stenosis, in which calcification and fibrosis increase leaflet rigidity to an extent that outflow of blood from the left ventricle is obstructed.Severe aortic stenosis has a surprisingly high prevalence of ≈4% in those >65 years of age.2,3 In the presurgical valve replacement era, symptomatic aortic stenosis was a highly mortal disease with a median survival ≈2 years.4 Fortunately, both surgical aortic valve replacement and more recently transcatheter aortic valve implantation have conferred dramatic survival benefit for those with severe aortic stenosis.5,6 Nonetheless, despite their efficacy, valve replacement by either means is neither prevention nor cure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kevin D. O’Brien (2022) conducted an editorial in Calcific aortic valve disease. Calcific aortic valve disease affects >25% of adults >65 years of age, and while valve replacement provides survival benefit, it is neither a prevention nor a cure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: