PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 1, 1999Heart341 citationsOpen Access

To operate or not on elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the decision and its consequences

View Full Paper
BBBerto J. BoumaRBR. B. A. van den BrinkJMJan van der Meulen

Key Result

Surgical treatment for aortic stenosis in elderly patients was associated with better 3-year survival compared to medical treatment (80% vs 49%), especially with impaired left ventricular function.

Key Points

  • To assess how well guidelines influence the treatment decisions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients.
  • Cohort analysis based on a prospective inclusive registry of 205 patients aged 70 years and older
  • Evaluation of treatment choices (surgery vs. medical) based on established guidelines
  • Comparison of three-year survival rates between surgical and medical treatment groups.
  • Surgery was chosen for 94 patients, while 111 received medical treatment
  • Only 59% of eligible patients received proper surgical intervention as per guidelines
  • Three-year survival rates were 80% for the surgical group compared to 49% in the medical group.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=205)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does surgical treatment improve survival compared to medical treatment in elderly patients (≥70 years) with clinically relevant isolated aortic stenosis?

P
Population
205 consecutive elderly patients (≥70 years) with clinically relevant isolated aortic stenosis and without serious comorbidity, seen in Doppler-echocardiographic laboratories.
I
Intervention
Surgical treatment (aortic valve replacement)
C
Comparator
Medical treatment
O
Outcome
Three-year survivalhard clinical

Surgical treatment for isolated aortic stenosis in elderly patients, particularly those with impaired left ventricular function, is associated with significantly better three-year survival compared to medical management, despite frequent underutilization in clinical practice.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 49%

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the application of guidelines in the decision making process leading to medical or surgical treatment for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. DESIGN: Cohort analysis based on a prospective inclusive registry. SETTING: 205 consecutive patients (>/= 70 years) with clinically relevant isolated aortic stenosis and without serious comorbidity, seen for the first time in the Doppler-echocardiographic laboratories of three university hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The initial choice was surgery in 94 patients and medical treatment in 111. Only 59% of the patients who should have had valve replacement according to the practice guidelines were actually offered surgical treatment. These were mainly symptomatic patients under 80 years of age with a high gradient. Operative mortality (30 days) was only 2%. The three year survival was 80% in the surgical group (17 deaths among 94 patients) and 49% in the medical group (43/111). Multivariate analysis showed that only patients with a high baseline risk, mainly determined by impaired left ventricular function, had a significantly better three year survival with surgical treatment than with medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In daily practice, elderly patients with clinically relevant symptomatic aortic stenosis are often denied surgical treatment. This study indicates that a surgical approach, especially where there is impaired systolic left ventricular function, is associated with better survival.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bouma et al. (1999) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis (n=205). Surgical treatment vs. Medical treatment was evaluated on Three year survival. Surgical treatment for aortic stenosis in elderly patients was associated with better 3-year survival compared to medical treatment (80% vs 49%), especially with impaired left ventricular function.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0e9d7d9504565763479dd0https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.82.2.143
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Too Old for What?1993 · 33 citations
  2. 2Changing Aspects of the Natural History of Valvular Aortic Stenosis1987 · 245 citations
  3. 3Ten-year experience with aortic valve replacement in 482 patients 70 years of age or older: Operative risk and long-term results1990 · 71 citations
  4. 4Left ventricular performance improves late after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction1995 · 25 citations
  5. 5The Importance of Co-existent Disease in the Occurrence of Postoperative Complications and One-Year Recovery in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Replacement1993 · 500 citations