4.2 Article

Geriatric factors associated with 1-year mortality after aortic valve replacement

期刊

EUROPEAN GERIATRIC MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 845-851

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s41999-018-0118-3

关键词

Geriatric assessment; Aortic valve stenosis; Cardiac surgery; Survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve survival and quality of life in patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, clinical variables are known to be associated with an increased mortality rate. As geriatric conditions are highly prevalent in this older population, the aim of this study was to identify geriatric factors associated with 1-year mortality after a surgical aortic valve replacement among older patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Methods Between January 2012 and September 2014, all patients >= 75 years referred for a surgical aortic valve replacement after a complete pre-operative evaluation in a university-affiliated center were included in this observational study. Association between 1-year mortality surgical aortic valve replacement and baseline characteristics including cardiac and geriatric factors was analysed by Cox models. Results Mean age of the 197 patients studied was 81.3 +/- 3.5 years and 48.2% were men. At 1 year of the intervention, 19 patients (9.6%) were dead. On multivariate analysis, previous cardiac surgery (Hazard ratio [HR]=10.47, p=0.03), undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery (HR=6.22, p=0.03), pulmonary hypertension (HR=3.73, 0.04) were still associated with 1-year mortality. Moreover, cognitive impairment was also associated with 1-year mortality (HR=4.67, p=0.04). Conclusions This study is the first study to show that among geriatric factors, cognitive impairment was a strong predictor of 1-year mortality after a surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 75years old and older, independently of other geriatric and cardiac factors. This study highlights the importance of pre-operative cognitive assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据