Background. Frailty has emerged as one of the main predictors of worse outcomes after cardiac surgery, but scarce evidence is available about its influence on postoperative quality of life. Whether frail patients may improve their quality of life or not after the surgical procedure is a matter that still remains unclear.Methods. This observational and multicenter cohort study was conducted in 3 university-affiliated hospitals of three different regions of Spain (Madrid, Asturias, and Canary Islands). Patients were categorized into three ordinal levels of frailty (frail, prefrail, robust) using the Fried, FRAIL (fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight) scale, and Clinical Frailty Scale frailty scales. We analyzed the changes on health-related quality-of-life for each level of frailty using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5 Level questionnaire before and 6 months after the operation.Results. The study included 137 patients, and 109 completed the 6-month follow-up.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVES Some researchers have observed an increased number of deaths during the follow-up of young patients who undergo aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis, suggesting that this procedure does not restore their life expectancy. Our goal was to confirm these findings and explore sex-based differences. METHODS All patients between 50 and 65 years of age who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in 27 Spanish centres during an 18-year period were included. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up and estimated the cumulative incidence of death from a competing risks point of view. We stratified by sex and analysed if being a woman was an independent risk factor for death. RESULTS For men, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6%–86.4%] and 72.3% (95% CI 69.7%–74.7%), respectively whereas the expected survival was 88.1% and 78.8%. For women, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85% (95% CI 82.8%–86.9%) and 73% (95% CI 69.1%–76.4%), whereas the expected survival was 94.6% and 89.4%. At 15 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of death due to the disease in men and women was 8.2% and 16.7%, respectively. In addition, being a woman was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio = 1.23 (95% CI 1.02–1.48; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS After the aortic valve replacement, men and women do not have their life expectancy restored, but this loss is much higher in women than in men. In addition, being a woman is a risk factor for long-term death. Reasons for these findings are unknown and must be investigated.

The Trifecta aortic valve has excellent hemodynamics characteristics. Moreover, the Perceval prosthesis may achieve better hemodynamics than the conventional valves; therefore, it has been proposed to reduce the incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of this complication between both prostheses. All patients who underwent valve replacement with a Perceval or a Trifecta from 2016 to 2020 at our institution were included. We calculated the prevalence of patient–prosthesis mismatch for each prosthesis and size and performed a multinomial logistic regression model to investigate the impact of choosing one prosthesis over the other. A total of 516 patients were analyzed. Moderate mismatch was present in 33 (8.6%) in the Trifecta group and 28 (21.4%) in the Perceval group, p < 0.001. Severe mismatch was present in 8 (2.1%) patients with Trifecta and 5 (3.8%) patients with Perceval, p = 0.33. Compared with the Perceval, the Trifecta prosthesis was shown to reduce moderate patient–prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.3–0.9, p = 0.02). Both prostheses led to a similar risk of severe patient–prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3–2.8, p = 0.79). Both prostheses provide a very low risk of severe patient–prosthesis mismatch. Compared with the Perceval prothesis, the Trifecta prosthesis is able to reduce by 50% the risk of moderate mismatch.