In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

Prevalence and Prognosis of Aortic Valve Disease in Subjects Older than 85 Years of Age

Although degenerative aortic valve disease is common with increasing age, limited data exist regarding prevalence and prognosis of aortic valve disease among the oldest old. Subjects were recruited from the Jerusalem Longitudinal Cohort Study. Echocardiography was performed at home in 498 randomly selected subjects. Subjects were divided into 3 groups; normal subjects, subjects with valve calcium but without stenosis (AVC), and subjects with aortic stenosis (AS). Survival status at 5-year follow-up was assessed via the centralized population registry. AVC was noted in 55% of the study subjects and AS was seen in 8.2%. There were no significant differences between the 3 groups in any of the clinical parameters examined including risk factors for atherosclerotic heart disease. Of the 498 subjects, 107 (21%) had died at the time of 5-year follow-up. Five-year mortality was similar among the normal (17%) and AVC (20%) subjects but was significantly higher among the subjects with AS (46%; p <0.0001). AS was associated with a nearly fourfold increased likelihood of mortality (hazard ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 9.3). In conclusion, among subjects ≥85 years of age, the prevalence of AS is higher than previously reported and not associated with traditional vascular risk factors. AS but not AVC alone was independently predictive of 5-year mortality.

Notes to editor

David Leibowitz, Jochanan Stessman, Jeremy M. Jacobs, Irit Stessman-Lande,Dan Gilon
American journal of cardiology 2013;112(3),395-399

The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.