These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in very elderly patients aged 85 years and older. Author: Takagi K, Arinaga K, Takaseya T, Otsuka H, Shojima T, Shintani Y, Zaima Y, Saku K, Oryoji A, Hiromatsu S. Journal: Heart Vessels; 2020 Oct; 35(10):1409-1418. PubMed ID: 32394242. Abstract: Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most common structural heart valve disease affecting the aging population. Catheter-based heart valve interventions are less invasive and very useful for very elderly patients. However, we often consider open heart surgery for these patients because of anatomical reasons and co-existing cardiac diseases, i.e., severe coronary artery disease. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 years undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Twenty-nine very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 years who underwent AVR with CABG (n = 11, Group AC) or isolated AVR (n = 18, Group A) were examined. The overall mean age of the patients was 87.2 ± 2.6 (range 85-94) years. The estimated operative mortality rate, calculated using the Japan score, EuroSCORE II, and STS risk score, was 5.72%-10.88% in Group AC and 5.63%-8.30% in Group A. Aortic cross-clamp time (126.5 ± 29.0 vs. 96.9 ± 29.2 min, p = 0.016) was significantly longer in Group AC than in Group A. Although the major morbidity rate was higher in Group AC than in Group A (36% vs. 6%, p = 0.0336), the length of intensive care unit stay and hospital stay was comparable between both groups. There was no 30-day and hospital mortality in both groups. Eleven patients died during follow-up (senility, 5; cerebrovascular events, 2; renal failure, 1; unknown, 3). There were no significant differences in survival rates during follow-up (log-rank p value = 0.1051). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year survival rates were 91%, 80%, 69%, 69% and 69%, respectively, in Group AC and 94%, 94%, 94%, 94% and 88%, respectively, in Group A. In conclusion, AVR with or without CABG could be safely performed in carefully selected very elderly patients with acceptable early- and long-term results. AVR with CABG in very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 offers similar results to isolated AVR in terms of 30-day mortality, hospital mortality, and long-term survival.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]