QJM Advance Access published online on April 27, 2008
QJM, doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcn052
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Outcomes of elderly patients aged 80 and over with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis: impact of patient's choice of refusing aortic valve replacement on survival
From the 1Department of Cardiology, Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, 2Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College and 3Department of Cardiology, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College London, UK
Address correspondence to P. Kojodjojo, Department of Cardiology, Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, Hillfield Road, Hertfordshire HP2 4AD, UK. email: pipin.kojodjojo{at}imperial.ac.uk
Received 19 January 2008 and in revised form 18 March 2008
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed safely in selected elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, the survival benefits of AVR over conservative treatment have not been convincingly demonstrated in AS patients aged above 80.
Aim: To investigate the outcomes of patients aged 80 and over with symptomatic, severe AS and by analyzing the effects of patient's choice in either agreeing or refusing to undergo AVR, determine the survival benefits afforded by AVR.
Design: Cohort study.
Methods: Subjects aged 80 and over with severe symptomatic AS, diagnosed between 2001 and 2006 were segregated into three groups: subjects who underwent AVR (Group A); patients who were fit for AVR but declined surgery due to personal choice (Group B) and those who were not fit for surgery and were managed conservatively (Group C). Follow-up was conducted by out-patient attendances, review of medical records and telephone interviews. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.
Results: A total of 103 patients (86.0 ± 4.2 years, 41% male) were identified and no patient was lost during follow-up. In Group A (n = 17), all 15 patients who underwent AVR were alive after 3.6 ± 1.4 years follow-up and 2 died whilst awaiting AVR. Seventy-four percent of Group B (n = 24) and 76% of Group C (n = 62) died during follow-up. Group A had significantly better survival than B and C. (P < 0.01) Amongst patients fit for AVR with similar operative risks (Groups A and B), refusal to undergo surgery (hazard ratio 12.61, P = 0.001) was the only predictor of mortality in a multivariate model.
Conclusions: For elderly AS patients fit for surgery, the patient's decision to refuse AVR is associated with a >12-fold increase in mortality risk. These findings have significant implications for informed decision-making when managing the fit, elderly patient with AS.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. S. Likosky, M. J. Sorensen, L. J. Dacey, Y. R. Baribeau, B. J. Leavitt, A. W. DiScipio, F. Hernandez Jr, R. P. Cochran, R. Quinn, R. E. Helm, et al. Long-Term Survival of the Very Elderly Undergoing Aortic Valve Surgery Circulation, September 15, 2009; 120(11_suppl_1): S127 - S133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. L. Hannan, Z. Samadashvili, S. J. Lahey, C. R. Smith, A. T. Culliford, R. S.D. Higgins, J. P. Gold, and R. H. Jones Aortic Valve Replacement for Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Risk Factors and Their Impact on 30-Month Mortality. Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2009; 87(6): 1741 - 1749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Thomas Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation in the United Kingdom: NICE guidance Heart, April 1, 2009; 95(8): 674 - 675. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|