We have located links that may give you full text access.
Is routine use of stentless aortic prostheses justified in an elderly (aged > or =75 years) population?
Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2005 January
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Stentless prostheses in the aortic position produce a superior hemodynamic profile in comparison to that with stented valves. To determine whether routine use of stentless valves in an elderly population is justified, a 10-year retrospective review was performed of a consecutive series of patients aged > or =75 years undergoing stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR).
METHODS: Demographic, operative and mortality data were obtained retrospectively. Survivors were interviewed by telephone according to a defined protocol. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of 30-day and overall medium-term mortality. Definitions and analyses were in accordance with joint STS/AATS guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (57 males, 46 females; mean age 79.8 years; range: 75-91 years) underwent AVR with a either a Toronto stentless porcine valve (size range: 21-29 mm; n = 74) or an aortic homograft (n = 29). Twenty-eight patients (27%) had either urgent/emergency surgery, 12 (11%) underwent redo surgery, and in 54 cases (52%), the preoperative left ventricular function was significantly impaired (ejection fraction <50%). Forty patients (39%) also underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 105+/-22 min and 144+/-47 min, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 11.6% (n = 12). The 30-day mortality for all elective cases was 5.3%, but for isolated elective AVR was only 2.5%. Using a multivariate model, the only independent predictor of 30-day mortality and medium-term overall mortality was increasing age. The mean follow up period was 3.6 years (range: 0.1-9.3 years), and the Kaplan-Meier actuarial five-year survival was 52%. At follow up, 92% of patients were in NYHA functional classes I and II.
CONCLUSION: Stentless AVR in elderly patients is associated with excellent functional and survival outcome in the medium term. Furthermore, in elective cases, age alone should not be a deterrent to the routine use of stentless aortic valves.
METHODS: Demographic, operative and mortality data were obtained retrospectively. Survivors were interviewed by telephone according to a defined protocol. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of 30-day and overall medium-term mortality. Definitions and analyses were in accordance with joint STS/AATS guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (57 males, 46 females; mean age 79.8 years; range: 75-91 years) underwent AVR with a either a Toronto stentless porcine valve (size range: 21-29 mm; n = 74) or an aortic homograft (n = 29). Twenty-eight patients (27%) had either urgent/emergency surgery, 12 (11%) underwent redo surgery, and in 54 cases (52%), the preoperative left ventricular function was significantly impaired (ejection fraction <50%). Forty patients (39%) also underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 105+/-22 min and 144+/-47 min, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 11.6% (n = 12). The 30-day mortality for all elective cases was 5.3%, but for isolated elective AVR was only 2.5%. Using a multivariate model, the only independent predictor of 30-day mortality and medium-term overall mortality was increasing age. The mean follow up period was 3.6 years (range: 0.1-9.3 years), and the Kaplan-Meier actuarial five-year survival was 52%. At follow up, 92% of patients were in NYHA functional classes I and II.
CONCLUSION: Stentless AVR in elderly patients is associated with excellent functional and survival outcome in the medium term. Furthermore, in elective cases, age alone should not be a deterrent to the routine use of stentless aortic valves.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app