Conventional aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the current era

Kentaro Yamane, Hitoshi Hirose, Benjamin A. Youdelman, Linda J. Bogar, James T. Diehl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


Background: Because of the rising expectation of prolonged life in the general population and the recent recognition of undertreated aortic valve disease in the elderly, updating the available results of aortic valve surgery is imperative, especially considering the rapid evolution of the transcatheter valve implantation procedure. Methods and Results: Between 1997 and 2010, 308 patients aged 70 years or older underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS). Short- and long-term results were analyzed and risk factors for long-term mortality were determined. Mean age was 78.5 years and 124 patients were aged 80 or older. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 46% of the cases. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 52%. Overall observed and expected operative mortality using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 88.6%, 71.6%, and 31.8%, respectively. Predictors of long-term mortality included diabetes; preoperative shock; LVEF ≤40%; New York Heart Association functional class III or IV; and age. Conclusions: Short- and long-term results of conventional AVR in the elderly prove it to be durable and, especially in relatively low-risk patients and patients who require concomitant CABG, operative mortality is reasonably low. Conventional AVR±CABG remains the gold standard for elderly patients with AS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2692-2698
Number of pages7
JournalCirculation Journal
Issue number11
StatePublished - 2011

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Conventional aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the current era'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this