ReviewOpen heart2026
Life-expectancy paradox and the selection of older patients with aortic stenosis for valve intervention.
Review in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The natural history of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) heralds a poor prognosis-a paradigm that rightly drives valve intervention. A widely voiced corollary holds that once patients exceed their nation's average life expectancy, aortic valve replacement offers no prognostic benefit. We argue that this corollary is statistically incoherent and potentially clinically harmful. Life expectancy at birth is a period average across a whole cohort, weighted by deaths at younger ages; it is not a ceiling on individual survival. Expectancy is conditional on survival already achieved: the longer a person has lived, the older they are expected to be at death. A man of 90 in England and Wales still has a mean of 3.9 years ahead of him, and an average 82-year-old will outlive an average 72-year-old. The patient who has 'beaten the average' has, by surviving, demonstrated membership of a longer-lived stratum-precisely the group with most to gain from a durable valve. The hazard in AS is cardiac, not chronological: it tracks extravalvular cardiac damage, frailty and competing illness rather than the calendar, and stage, not age, discriminates outcome after valve replacement. Futility is real-advanced cardiac damage, established frailty and prognosis-dominating comorbidity do foreclose benefit-but age is an inaccurate proxy for it. Drawing on natural history and clinical trial data, including cardiac damage staging, national life tables and the deprivation gradient, we propose replacing age-based nihilism with conditional, comorbidity-adjusted prognostication, with the expected gain estimated, documented and stated explicitly as part of consent and shared decision-making.
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.