4.6 Article

Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 2111-2115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.07.048

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a surgically correctable condition. However, aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not offered to many patients with severe AS for various reasons. We investigated the profile and survival patterns of patients with severe AS who did not have AVR. Methods. Our echocardiographic database was screened for patients with severe AS, defined as a Doppler estimated aortic valve area of 0.8 cm(2) or less between 1993 and 2003. Seven hundred and forty patients with severe AS were identified, of whom 453 patients had no AVR through the follow-up period, forming the study cohort. These patients were comprehensively characterized by obtaining clinical, pharmacologic, and surgical data through a comprehensive chart review and extracting survival data from the National Death Index. Results. Patient characteristics were as follows: age 75 +/- 13 years, 48% male, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 52 +/- 21%, coronary artery disease in 34%, hypertension in 35%, serum creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL in 11%, and diabetes mellitus in 14%. The survival at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was 62%, 32%, and 18%, respectively. The univariate predictors of reduced survival were advanced age, low LV ejection fraction, heart failure, elevated serum creatinine level, severe mitral regurgitation, and pulmonary hypertension; and the independent predictors were advanced age, low LV ejection fraction, heart failure, elevated serum creatinine level, and systemic hypertension. Concomitant pharmacotherapy had no impact on survival. Conclusions. Conservatively treated patients with severe AS have a grave prognosis, and it is worse in the presence of advanced age, LV dysfunction, heart failure, and renal failure.

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

4.6
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