Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Nonagenarians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background. Nonagenarians represent only a small proportion of patients included in large transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, but will become a relevant future population in need of treatment due to demographic change. Thus, this study sought to evaluate outcomes of TAVR for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in nonagenarian patients. Methods. We screened Medline/Pubmed for studies that stated specific outcomes for nonagenarians undergoing TAVR. A weighted meta-analysis was conducted, calculating pooled estimate rates using a binary random-effects model for dichotomous variables, and comparing non-dichotomous outcomes with a continuous random-effects model. Results. Data from 23 studies including 16,094 nonagenarians were merged; 53.4% were women. Despite reasonable rates of comorbidities, Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score was 10.2 ± 5.4. Pooled estimate rate of procedural success was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7-96.6), with major vascular complications occurring in 6.3% (95% CI, 2.7-9.8) and at least moderate postprocedural paravalvular leak in 7.5% (95% CI, 4.4-10.6). The rate of periprocedural stroke or transient ischemic attack was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0-3.2). At 30 days, the pooled estimate of mortality was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.7-7.4) and a permanent pacemaker was implanted in 12.6% (95% CI, 7.6-17.6). After 1 year, the mortality rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 15.9-25.1). Conclusion. TAVR in nonagenarians is an effective and safe procedure, with encouraging outcomes given the general life expectancy of these patients. Currently, only selected nonagenarians are undergoing TAVR, but their number will grow as life expectancy continues to increase in the developed world. Specific research to identify ideal candidates and techniques in this cohort is needed.
J INVASIVE CARDIOL 2022;34(3):E226-E236.
Key words: nonagenarians, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Introduction
During the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a reliable treatment option, with favorable outcomes and safety for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) at all levels of surgical risk.1-4 While longer-term issues like valve durability and potential valve deterioration are currently of utmost importance in younger patients with greater life expectancy, the focus in older patients (especially those aged ≥90 years) remains on safety and efficacy to determine whether TAVR might be a non-futile treatment in this high surgical risk population with no other treatment options.5-9 Of note, nonagenarians formed only a minority of the patients enrolled in relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TAVR. However, the number of nonagenarian patients evaluated for TAVR is rapidly growing due to demographic change and the increasing prevalence of severe calcific AS with age.10-12 Hence, specific data are vital to inform physicians, patients, and their relatives about the efficacy of TAVR in nonagenarians who present with characteristics, comorbidities, and procedural risks substantially different from most TAVR study cohorts. In this systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we evaluated current evidence concerning the safety profile and procedural outcomes of TAVR in nonagenarian patients.
Methods
Search strategy. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE databases via PubMed from 2008 to November 2019 for all TAVR studies. Our search string included (“TAVR” or “TAVI” or “transcatheter aortic valve replacement” or “transcatheter aortic valve implantation”) AND (“age” or “elderly” or “nonagenarian”). We also hand-searched bibliographies of relevant selected studies, reviews, and meta-analyses to identify further eligible studies. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility and full-text articles were accessed accordingly. The search was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.13 Two independent reviewers performed the search and literature screening (OMD and JC), with disputes resolved by consensus following discussion with a third author (AL).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment. We considered all TAVR studies. Studies were eligible if they explicitly reported TAVR outcomes for nonagenarians and were written in English. Editorial comments, conference abstracts, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and animal studies were excluded. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a 20-item checklist based on the STARD statement concerning Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy studies and the STROBE statement for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology.14,15
Data extraction and analysis. Two authors (OMD and JC) independently extracted the data from included trials; data were then verified by a third author (MP). We extracted baseline patient characteristics, procedural safety endpoints according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria, 30-day outcomes regarding mortality, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and 1-year outcomes regarding mortality.16 Baseline characteristics are reported as pooled weighted means and composite standard deviations for continuous variables or cumulative proportions for categorical variables. When data were available only as median and interquartile range, mean and standard deviation were calculated according to Wan et al.17 A weighted meta-analysis of TAVR outcomes in nonagenarians was performed. According to DerSimonian and Laird, cumulative event rates for dichotomous outcomes were obtained from a pooled analysis among selected studies and pooled estimate rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a binary random-effects model.18 For non-dichotomous outcomes, comparison was performed by means of a continuous random-effects model.18 Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochrane Q statistics to compute I2 (a heterogeneity P-value ≤.10 was considered significant). I2 values of <25%, 25%-50%, or >50% indicated low, moderate, or high heterogeneity, respectively. To evaluate the potential influence of growing experience and newer iterations of TAVR devices, subgroup analysis was undertaken in all studies enrolling patients since 2011 (the year of regulatory approval of TAVR as a treatment option for inoperable patients in the United States, resulting in rapid expansion and further development of the procedure). Meta-Analyst Beta 3.13 software (Tufts Evidence-Based Practice Center) was used for statistical computation.
Results
Search results and study quality. The final database search was performed on November 3, 2019. A total of 23 studies were identified for inclusion in the present meta-analysis following literature screening according to the PRISMA statement (Figure 1).19-41 Characteristics of the 23 studies included are presented in Table 1. Application of the 20-item checklist revealed sufficient allocation of relevant data and information concerning research design for all included studies (Supplemental Table S1). However, we identified occasional instances of potential bias and missing data concerning center details, implanter experience, and clinical management.
Baseline characteristics. Twenty-three studies enrolling 78,858 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, a total of 16,094 patients (20.4%) were nonagenarians and formed the study population. Baseline patient characteristics are depicted in Table 2. The mean age of the nonagenarians was 91.2 years and 53.4% were women. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score (STS-M) was 10.2 ± 5.4 (Figure 2). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 56.6 ± 12.7%, with prior percutaneous coronary intervention in 26.2%, myocardial infarction in 15.4%, coronary artery bypass grafting in 16.4%, and peripheral vascular disease in 25.2%.
Procedural characteristics and safety. Transfemoral access was the most commonly utilized approach (83.0%), followed by transapical (16.7%) and subclavian access (0.02%). Among patients for whom data concerning the type of valve used was available (2071/16,094 patients), the majority (72.7%) received a balloon-expandable device.
Procedural success pooled estimate rates were 94.1% (95% CI, 91.7-96.6; I2 = 95.2%; P<.001 for heterogeneity) using weighted meta-analysis. Incidence of major vascular complications was 6.3% (95% CI, 2.7-9.8; I2 = 76.6%; P<.001 for heterogeneity), while that of at least moderate postprocedural paravalvular leak (PVL) was 7.5% (95% CI, 4.4-10.6; I2 = 60.8%; P<.01 for heterogeneity) (see graphical abstract in Figure 3).
The pooled meta-analysis estimate of periprocedural mortality rate was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.4-6.4; I2 = 58.6%; P<.001 for heterogeneity). Further procedural outcomes are presented in Table 3.
Outcomes at 30 days and 1 year. The pooled estimate of 30-day mortality rate was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.7-7.4; I2 = 71.4%; P<.001 for heterogeneity) (Figure 4) and incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attack was 2.8% (95% CI, 1.9-3.6; I2 = 58.7%; P<.001 for heterogeneity). The estimate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate at 30 days was 12.6% (95% CI, 7.6-17.6; I2 = 97.8%; P<.001 for heterogeneity).
After 1 year, the pooled estimate of mortality rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 15.9-25.1; I2 = 93.2%; P<.001 for heterogeneity) (Figure 5). Table 4 summarizes the outcomes at different follow-up points.
Subgroup analysis of studies enrolling patients since 2011. Six studies that enrolled patients from 2011 onward, including a total of 13,297 nonagenarians, were identified.24,28,31,33,37,38 The procedural success pooled estimate rate was 93.5% (95% CI, 91.4-95.6; I2 = 82.3%; P<.001 for heterogeneity). A PPM was required in 13.6% (95% CI, 1.4-25.7; I2 = 99.5%; P<.001 for heterogeneity). The mortality rate in these patients was 5.5% at 30 days (95% CI, 3.4-7.6; I2 = 84.7%; P<.001 for heterogeneity) and 16.1% at 1 year (95% CI, 8.6-23.6; I2 = 97.7%; P<.001 for heterogeneity).
Discussion
In this study, we have shown the following: (1) TAVR in nonagenarians is effective and safe, with high procedural success rates and favorable outcomes up to 1 year; and (2) nonagenarians undergoing TAVR have a surgical risk profile comparable with patients enrolled in the inoperable and high-risk TAVR trials. However, since patients in these trials were noticeably younger, nonagenarians seem to be a selected cohort whose operative risk is driven by reasonable comorbidities and age.
Patient characteristics of nonagenarians undergoing TAVR. The overall pooled baseline characteristics of patients in our study were comparable to those enrolled in the high-risk TAVR trials. However, the prevalence of previous percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, or peripheral vascular disease was in keeping with intermediate-risk TAVR study patients.2,42-44 Conversely, their surgical risk profile was substantially elevated and comparable to inoperable-risk TAVR trial cohorts (which enrolled patients almost a decade younger, suggesting that age is the main factor driving operative risk in nonagenarians) (Figure 2).45,46 We also observed a trend toward more female nonagenarians undergoing TAVR when compared with high-risk TAVR cohorts (53.4% in nonagenarians vs 42.2% in the PARTNER high-risk trial vs 46.4% in the CoreValve high-risk trial), likely reflecting longer life expectancy in women.42,43,47 The baseline risk-profile data of women undergoing TAVR are heterogeneous. Previous studies have demonstrated that while comorbidities such as coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus are less prevalent, overall surgical risk profile is significantly higher in females.48-50 However, it is important to note that this higher surgical risk did not translate into worse survival in women in all studies assessing these baseline differences. In contrast to findings for surgical aortic valve replacement, women demonstrated significantly lower mortality following TAVR than men at 1-year follow-up.48-50 Consistent with the so-called “obesity paradox” (a predictor of improved outcomes following TAVR in overweight or even obese patients), the body mass index (BMI) of the pooled nonagenarian cohort was rather low (24.8 ± 4.1 kg/m2, corresponding to normal weight).51-53 BMI declines naturally with age (especially above 80 years and beyond) and may dilute the established effect of BMI on outcomes in elderly patients, necessitating a broader approach including assessment of physical capability, mobility, and frailty.54,55 In addition to these findings, it is important to consider potential survival (healthy patients, still alive at ≥90 years) and selection biases (healthy patients, scheduled for the procedure) when considering the risk profile of nonagenarians currently undergoing TAVR.
Procedural performance in nonagenarians. Despite the high surgical risk, with an expected mortality of over 10% according to the STS-M score, the observed perioperative mortality of 6.1% fell noticeably below this prediction. The modest difference between periprocedural (5.4%) and 30-day mortality (6.1%) infers that 30-day mortality is principally driven by periprocedural events, thereby emphasizing the importance of careful patient selection in nonagenarians and the potential scope for technical improvement with greater operator experience. It is important to note that only about a quarter of the patients were older than 75 years in the original cohort used to develop the STS-M scoring algorithm, inferring that the proportion of nonagenarians was even smaller.56 Hence, the efficacy (and even validity) of these risk predictors in nonagenarians undergoing TAVR remains unclear. According to recent Social Security life tables, the probability of dying within 1 year at the age of 90 or 93 years (the standard deviation range for pooled age in our study cohort) is 16.4% or 22.0% for men and 13.0% or 17.8% for women, respectively.47 Thus, with a pooled estimate of 20.5% 1-year mortality, life expectancy in nonagenarians (albeit selected) with severe AS undergoing TAVR is almost comparable to the general population. Such outcomes are encouraging given the high mortality rate (approximately 40% within 1 year) if severe AS is left untreated.57 The observed rate of major vascular complications (6.3%) is promising, as elevated risks of this adverse outcome have been previously observed in elderly patients.58 Furthermore, women, who were well represented in our study and who tend to have more vascular complications, still demonstrated significantly better survival 1 year after TAVR.48-50
The low rate of periprocedural stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.6%) is encouraging, especially since an increase in aortic calcification (more common in older patients) is associated with higher risk of embolism during TAVR.59,60 Functional outcomes are of utmost interest in nonagenarians undergoing TAVR, which is why low stroke rates (which may potentially be reduced using cerebral protection devices) are extremely valuable.61 However, low stroke rates may also be the result of selection bias—for example, operators may have selected patients with favorable anatomy and less calcification from within this high-risk population. Importantly, only very few studies have separately reported rates of major stroke, hindering further elucidation of different strokes and their respective impact.
The rate of PPM implantation at 30 days (12.6%) was rather high in the pooled nonagenarian cohort. As the deleterious effect of PPM implantation is noticeable already at 1 year (when almost 80% of our cohort were still alive), the negative impact on ventricular synchronization becomes potentially relevant in a substantial number of patients.62,63 While extreme- and high-risk trials evaluating self-expanding devices found substantial new PPM rates at 30 days (21.6% and 19.8%, respectively), rates in the corresponding trials assessing balloon-expandable devices were markedly lower (3.4% in inoperable patients and 3.8% in high-risk patients).42,43,45,46 Unfortunately, information concerning the implanted TAVR prosthesis was only available in a small number of patients, hindering further assessment of the PPM findings. However, the PPM implantation rate in nonagenarians does not seem to markedly exceed the risk found in other contemporary (mostly younger) cohorts.
At least moderate postprocedural PVL is a second important factor impacting the long-term prognosis after TAVR and was present in 7.5% of the pooled nonagenarian cohort.64 These data are similar to the early experience in extreme- and high-risk patients (30-day mortality rates, 9.7%/9.1% in the CoreValve extreme-risk/high-risk trials; 11.8%/12.2% in the PARTNER inoperable/high-risk trials). However, it is important to note that successive iterations of TAVR devices have enabled a notable reduction of postprocedural PVL.42,43,45,46 Since we could not extract detailed data concerning procedural factors that influence the trade-off between PPM implantation and postprocedural PVL (valve-sizing, implantation depth, or postdilation), we could not further elucidate whether implanters might adapt their procedural strategies to influence these outcomes in nonagenarians.
Procedural complications and mortality have fallen dramatically over the period of TAVR evolution, and we postulate that the use of newer device iterations and improved implantation techniques may also have improved outcomes in nonagenarians.65 However, in our subgroup analysis of studies enrolling patients after 2011, we were unable to identify a uniform trend regarding procedural performance endpoints. While survival rates at 30 days and 1 year improved in more recent cohorts, rates of procedural success and PPM implantation were slightly worse. Of note, the more recent subgroup (13,297 patients) formed a major proportion of our total pooled cohort, complicating comparison with older studies. On the other hand, the fact that a large proportion of patients were treated using contemporary techniques and devices potentially explains the favorable overall results in our analysis. Further subgroup analysis was unfortunately limited by lack of patient-level data, particularly concerning procedural factors such as implantation techniques and implanted devices.
Future of TAVR in nonagenarians. As life expectancy increases (probably exceeding 90 years in women by the end of this decade), health care solutions for future elderly populations need to be established.66 The prevalence of AS is directly linked to age, suggesting significant growth in the number of nonagenarian patients referred for TAVR evaluation.12,67 Thus, the identification of ideal nonagenarian TAVR candidates and optimal implantation techniques will be necessary. The findings of our study show that TAVR seems to be undertaken in relatively healthy nonagenarians who develop severe AS threatening their further life expectancy. When screening nonagenarians with AS, it is important to bear in mind that elevated surgical risk scores might not necessarily be associated with increased mortality following TAVR, as indicated by the low perioperative mortality compared with the predicted rate in our study. More general aspects, such as frailty, quality of life, technical feasibility, and anatomical feasibility may well be of greater importance in guiding the choice of treatment.
Study limitations. As a study-level meta-analysis, our research was limited by the potentially pronounced impact of single large studies. Furthermore, valid assessment was complicated by the fact that some variables were available in only a subset of the included studies. The merger of some variables was also hindered by the heterogeneous terminology used by different authors (eg, major and/or minor bleeding/vascular complications). Importantly, selection and survival biases may be present in current nonagenarian cohorts undergoing TAVR and it remains unclear whether the favorable outcomes found in our study are generally applicable to all nonagenarian AS patients. However, inclusion of a large proportion of patients from real-world registries in this meta-analysis reflects everyday clinical practice and outcomes. Besides the endpoints assessed in our study, quality of life is an important outcome measure in elderly patients that we were unable to evaluate. Finally, the overlapping enrollment periods of the included studies spanned a substantial period of TAVR evolution; therefore, proving temporal trends in TAVR performance was not possible.
Conclusion
TAVR in nonagenarians is a viable and safe treatment option. The mortality rate at 1-year suggests that TAVR eliminates the negative impact of severe AS and can restore life expectancy to that of the age-matched population. While only selected nonagenarians currently undergo TAVR, it is important to further identify ideal candidates and treatment strategies given that the number of nonagenarian patients with AS will significantly increase during the next decade.
Affiliations and Disclosures
*Joint first authors.
From the 1Department of Cardiology, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom; 2Charité University Medical Care, Department of Cardiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany; 3Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; 4Interventional Cardiology Unit, New Tokyo Hospital, Chiba, Japan; 5Invasive Cardiology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; 6Department of Cardiac Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; 7Department of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; and the 8Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Disclosure: The authors have completed and returned the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Latib has served on the advisory boards or as a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Prendergast has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; consultant for Anteris. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.
Manuscript accepted May 20, 2021.
Address for correspondence: Dr Ozan M. Demir, Department of Cardiology, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. Email: ozan.demir@kcl.ac.uk
References
1. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2477-2484. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7
2. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609-1620. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616
3. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1695-1705. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052
4. Siontis GCM, Overtchouk P, Cahill TJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(38):3143-3153. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz275
5. Arsalan M, Walther T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(6):360-367. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.43
6. Costa G, Criscione E, Todaro D, Tamburino C, Barbanti M. Long-term Transcatheter aortic valve durability. Interv Cardiol. 2019;14(2):62-69. doi: 10.15420/icr.2019.4.2
7. Blackman DJ, Saraf S, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(5):537-545. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.078
8. Søndergaard L, Ihlemann N, Capodanno D, et al. Durability of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients at lower surgical risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(5):546-553. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.083
9. Manolis AS, Manolis AA. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians: selectively feasible or extravagantly futile? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;6(5):524-531. doi: 10.21037/acs.2017.07.11
10. Vincent G, Velkhoff V. US Census Bureau. The next four decades: the older population in the United States 2010 to 2050. Updated May 1, 2010. Accessed February 11, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2010/demo/p25-1138.html
11. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006;368(9540):1005-1011. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8
12. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(11):1002-1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
14. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527
15. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500-1524. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014
16. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(19):2403-2418. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/
17. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135
18. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
19. Akin I, Kische S, Paranskaya L, et al. Morbidity and mortality of nonagenarians undergoing CoreValve implantation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2012;12:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-12-80
20. Noble S, Frangos E, Samaras N, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians: effective and safe. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24(8):750-755. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.07.007
21. Murashita T, Greason KL, Suri RM, et al. Aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis in the nonagenarian patient. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(5):1593-1597. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.06.015
22. Pascual I, López-Otero D, Muñoz-García AJ, Alonso-Briales JH, Avanzas P, Morís C. Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarian patients. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014;67(7):583-584. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2014.02.013
23. Verouhis D, Yamasaki K, Ivert T, Rück A, Settergren M. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is feasible and safe in nonagenarians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(1):189-190. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12620
24. Abramowitz Y, Chakravarty T, Jilaihawi H, et al. Comparison of outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients ≥90 years versus <90 years. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(7):1110-1115. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.06.033
25. Kayatta MO, Thourani VH, Jensen HA, et al. Outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(4):1261-1267; discussion 1267. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.04.037
26. Mack MC, Szerlip M, Herbert MA, et al. Outcomes of treatment of nonagenarians with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(1):74-80. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.02.045
27. Thourani VH, Jensen HA, Babaliaros V, et al. Outcomes in nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(3):785-792; discussion 793. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.021
28. Arsalan M, Szerlip M, Vemulapalli S, et al. Should transcatheter aortic valve replacement be performed in nonagenarians?: Insights from the STS/ACC TVT Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(12):1387-1395. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.01.055
29. Escárcega RO, Baker NC, Lipinski MJ, et al. Clinical profiles and correlates of mortality in nonagenarians with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 2016;173:118-125. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.12.012
30. De Biasi AR, Wong SC, Minutello RM, et al. Short- and mid-term results after transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(1):99-104. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09038-8
31. McNeely C, Zajarias A, Robbs R, Markwell S, Vassileva CM. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in nonagenarians stratified by transfemoral and transapical approach. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1808-1814. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.02.056
32. Mendiz O, Fava C, Cura F, et al. Clinical outcome in nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter valve replacement. Indian Heart J. 2017;69(5):597-599. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2017.02.017
33. Miura M, Shirai S, Uemura Y, et al. Early safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for Asian nonagenarians (from KMH Registry). Int Heart J. 2017;58(6):900-907. doi: 10.1536/ihj.16-602
34. Okoh AK, Chauhan D, Kang N, et al. The impact of frailty status on clinical and functional outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians with severe aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90(6):1000-1006. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27083
35. Zack CJ, Al-Qahtani F, Kawsara A, Al-Hijji M, Amin AH, Alkhouli M. Comparative outcomes of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in nonagenarians. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(6):893-899. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.045
36. Bernal E, Ariza-Solé A, Bayés-Genís A, et al. Management of nonagenarian patients with severe aortic stenosis: the role of comorbidity. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(2):219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.02.033
37. Doshi R, Patel V, Shah P. Comparison of in-hospital outcomes between octogenarians and nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity matched analysis. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018;15(2):123-130. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.02.001
38. Ichimoto E, Arnofsky A, Wilderman M, Goldweit R, De Gregorio J. Early mortality and safety after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the SAPIEN 3 in nonagenarians. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018;15(6):387-393. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.06.002
39. Scholtz S, Dimitriadis Z, Vlachojannis M, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians: procedural outcome and mid-term results. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(6):725-730.doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.05.137
40. Vendrik J, van Mourik MS, van Kesteren F, et al. Comparison of outcomes of transfemoral aortic valve implantation in patients <90 with those >90 years of age. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121(12):1581-1586. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.056
41. Vlastra W, Chandrasekhar J, Vendrik J, et al. Transfemoral TAVR in nonagenarians: from the CENTER Collaboration. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(10):911-920. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.031
42. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187-2198. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510
43. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(19):1790-1798. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1400590
44. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1321-1331. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700456
45. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597-1607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232
46. Popma JJ, Adams DH, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(19):1972-1981. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.556
47. Social Security Administration USA. Actuarial period life table. 2016. Accessed February 11, 2022. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
48. Kodali S, Williams MR, Doshi D, et al. Sex-specific differences at presentation and outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(6):377-384. doi: 10.7326/M15-0121
49. Sannino A, Szerlip M, Harrington K, Schiattarella GG, Grayburn PA. Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes in men versus women with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121(7):844-849. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.12.020
50. Chandrasekhar J, Dangas G, Yu J, et al. Sex-based differences in outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve therapy: TVT Registry from 2011 to 2014. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(25):2733-2744. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.041
51. Konigstein M, Havakuk O, Arbel Y, et al. The obesity paradox in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Cardiol. 2015;38(2):76-81. doi: 10.1002/clc.22355
52. Sannino A, Schiattarella GG, Toscano E, et al. Meta-analysis of effect of body mass index on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(6):308-316. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.06.022
53. Om SY, Ko E, Ahn JM, et al. Relation of body mass index to risk of death or stroke in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(4):638-643. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.11.015
54. Fryar CD, Gu Q, Ogden CL, Flegal KM. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2011-2014. Vital Health Stat 3. 2016(39):1-46.
55. Lisko I, Tiainen K, Raitanen J, et al. Body mass index and waist circumference as predictors of disability in nonagenarians: the Vitality 90+ Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72(11):1569-1574. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx032
56. O'Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2—isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(1 Suppl):S23-S42. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.05.056
57. Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J. 1987;8(5):471-483. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a062307
58. Yamamoto M, Meguro K, Mouillet G, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients aged ≥90 years versus <90 years. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(8):1156-1163. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.058
59. Lindroos M, Kupari M, Valvanne J, Strandberg T, Heikkilä J, Tilvis R. Factors associated with calcific aortic valve degeneration in the elderly. Eur Heart J. 1994;15(7):865-870. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060602
60. Aggarwal SK, Delahunty Rn N, Menezes LJ, et al. Patterns of solid particle embolization during transcatheter aortic valve implantation and correlation with aortic valve calcification. J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31(5):648-654. doi: 10.1111/joic.12526
61. Latib A, Pagnesi M. Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a disconnect between logic and data? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(4):378-380. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.036
62. Fadahunsi OO, Olowoyeye A, Ukaigwe A, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis from the U.S. Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(21):2189-2199. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.026
63. Dizon JM, Nazif TM, Hess PL, et al. Chronic pacing and adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2015;101(20):1665-1671. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307666
64. Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1585-1595. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.047
65. Van Mieghem NM, Chieffo A, Dumonteil N, et al. Trends in outcome after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J. 2013;165(2):183-192. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.11.002
66. Kontis V, Bennett JE, Mathers CD, Li G, Foreman K, Ezzati M. Future life expectancy in 35 industrialised countries: projections with a Bayesian model ensemble. Lancet. 2017;389(10076):1323-1335. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32381-9
67. Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, Lunde P, Rasmussen K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. the Tromsø Study. Heart. 2013;99(6):396-400. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302265
