Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2013 > Volume 22 Number 4 July 2013 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Advanced Age Per Se Should not be an Exclusion Criterion for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Advanced Age Per Se Should not be an Exclusion Criterion for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Giuseppe Santarpino, Steffen Pfeiffer, Ferdinand Vogt, Martin Hinzmann, Giovanni Concistre, Theodor Fischlein

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Klinikum Nurnberg, Nuremberg, Germany

Background and aim of the study: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), coupled with the increasing number of elderly patients requiring cardiac surgery, has given rise to an intense debate on the most appropriate treatment strategy for this high-risk population. The study aim was to compare clinical outcomes in older versus younger patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods: Between March 2010 and July 2012, 66 patients undergoing minimally invasive isolated AVR with the sutureless Perceval S bioprosthesis (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) were allocated to two groups according to age ≥80 years (group A, n = 25) or <80 years (group B, n = 41). In-hospital and follow up data were collected for all patients, including an evaluation of the patients’ quality of life, using the SF-36 questionnaire.

Results: Mean age and logistic EuroSCORE were statistically different between groups (p <0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). The length of intensive care unit stay was

similar in groups A and B (1.9 ± 0.8 and 2.5 ± 1.4 days, respectively; p = 0.061). In-hospital mortality occurred in only one patient of group A (1.5%). Postoperative transient cerebral ischemic events occurred with similar frequency in both groups (two in group A and four in group B; p = 0.59). One patient in group A and two patients in group B required pacemaker implantation (1.5 versus 3%; p = 0.68). The mean follow up was 13.9 ± 7.4 months, during which time three patients died (two in group A, one in group B). All enrolled patients answered the SF-36 questionnaire, and there were no significant differences between groups in all eight domains of the test.

Conclusion: Within the setting of minimally invasive isolated AVR, the study results showed that the clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients aged ≥80 years were comparable to those of younger patients. Therefore, advanced age per se does not preclude successful AVR through a minimally invasive approach.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2013;22:455-459

Advanced Age Per Se Should not be an Exclusion Criterion for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.