ArticleFuture cardiology
Operation in the gray zone: is SAVR still useful in patients aged between 75 and 80 years?
Article in Future cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Perceval Valves in Older Patients: A Systematic Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Predictors for and Consequences of Acute Kidney Injury After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Observational Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAortic valve replacement is the only effective treatment for symptomatic aortic valve disease. Transcatheter implantation has been introduced as alternative for surgery (SAVR), but its penetration varied widely. For high-risk octogenarian patients, the advantages of TAVI are clear. Patients between 75 and 79 years of age could be considered as "the gray zone."
methodsWe compared the outcome of SAVR with or without concomitant procedures between patients younger than 75 versus 75-79 years for their preoperative profile, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes.
resultsOlder patients had a higher risk score with more cardiovascular comorbidity and renal dysfunction. They required more concomitant CABG but less mitral valve repair. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was similar. In-hospital complication rates, need for blood transfusion, and length of stay in intensive care unit were higher in older patients. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly increased, Euroscore II overestimated mortality in both age groups. Age over 75 years was not an independent predictor for mortality. Need for emergent SAVR was only predictive in the older group. Long-term survival was acceptable. Age over 75 years was not the dominant predictor.
conclusionsSAVR remains a valid option to treat symptomatic aortic valve disease in the age group of 75-79.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.