Objectives and background: To assess the long-term results of percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty and aortic valve replacement in elderly persons, two similar nonrandomized series of patients greater than or equal to 75 years old treated by one or the other method between January 1986 and March 1989 in the same institution were compared.
Methods: Forty-six patients, 23 men and 23 women, with a mean age of 79.7 +/- 3.6 years (range 75 to 90) underwent percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty with use of the Cribier method (group 1). Twenty-three additional patients, 14 men and 9 women with a mean age of 78.4 +/- 2.4 years (range 75 to 86) underwent aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis (group 2). All of them suffered from severe calcified aortic stenosis. Clinical and hemodynamic status were similar in both groups. The mean follow-up period was 21.5 months (5 days to 60 months) in group 1 and 27.5 months (7 days to 61 months) in group 2.
Results: Three patients (6.5%) in group 1 died within 5 days after percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty; 24 patients (52%) died during the follow-up period, 16 of whom died of recurrent cardiac failure. Of 16 patients (35%) subsequently operated on at an average of 15.8 months after percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty, 2 died at operation. Only three group 1 patients (6.5%) are still alive without subsequent aortic valve replacement. In group 2, two patients (8.7%) died postoperatively and three (13%) died during the follow-up period. All other patients (78%) are still alive and in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. The overall survival rate in group 1 was 75% at 1 year, 47% at 2 years and 33% at 5 years. In group 2, the survival rate was 83% at 1 and 2 years and 75% at 3 and 4 years.
Conclusions: The results of percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty do not compare favorably with those of surgery in elderly people, and this treatment should not be recommended.