long-term results Aortic valve surgery in octogenarians: predictive factors for operative and This information is current as of April 2, 2007http://ejcts.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/4/600 located on the World Wide Web at:The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is AbstractObjective: To assess factors influencing operative and long-term outcome in octogenarians undergoing aortic valve surgery (AVR). Methods: Records of 220 consecutive octogenarians having AVR between 1992 and 2004 were reviewed, and follow-up obtained (99% complete). Of the group (mean age: 82.8 years; 174 females), 142 patients (65%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV, 22 (10%) had previous myocardial infarction, 11 (5%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and 8 (4%) had percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty. There were 44 urgent procedures (20%), and additional CABG was performed in 58 patients (26%). Results: Operative mortality was 13% (9% for AVR, 24% for AVR + CABG). Among the 29 patients who died, 14 (48%) were operated on urgently (32% mortality for urgent procedures). Causes of hospital death were respiratory insufficiency or infection in 16 patients (16/29 = 55%), myocardial infarction in 8 (28%), stroke in 2 (7%), sepsis in 2 (7%), and renal failure in 1 (3%). Significant postoperative complications were atrial fibrillation in 48 patients (22%), respiratory insufficiency in 46 (21%), permanent atrio-ventricular bloc in 12 (5%), myocardial infarction in 10 (5%), hemodialysis in 4 (2%), and stroke in 4 (2%). Mean hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays were 17.6 AE 5.2 and 6.9 AE 3.4 days, respectively. Multivariate predictors ( p < 0.05) of hospital death were urgent procedure, associated CABG, NYHA class IV, and percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty. Age, associated CABG, and urgent procedure were predictors of prolonged ICU stay. Mean follow-up was 58.2 months and actuarial 5-year survival was 73.2 AE 6.9%. Age, preoperative myocardial infarction, urgent procedure, and duration of ICU stay were independent predictors of late death. Among 130 patients alive at follow-up, 91% were angina free and 81% in class I-II. Conclusions: AVR in octogenarians can be performed with acceptable mortality, although significant morbidity. These results stress the importance of early operation on elderly patients with aortic valve disease, avoiding urgent procedures. Associated coronary artery disease is a harbinger of poor operative outcome. Long-term survival and functional recovery are excellent. #

No abstract

Chest wall pain was the most common diagnosis in the group A (64%). Other causes included pulmonary (13%), psychological (9%), cardiac (5%), traumatic (5%), and gastrointestinal problems (4%). The organic causes were easily identified or suspected by history and physical examination. Chest radiography, electrocardiography, and blood analysis were performed in most patients with suspected nonorganic chest pain but in no case were organic diseases diagnosed by those ancillary studies. In group B, chest wall pain was also the most common diagnosis (89%). Supraventricular tachyarrhythmia and exercise-induced asthma were demonstrated in 5 (7%) and 3 patients (4%), respectively. The most important tools in assessing a child with acute chest pain in an emergency department are thorough history and physical examination. Assessment of recurrent chest pain is more difficult; arrhythmia, and allergic and exercise-induced asthma may be underestimated when investigations are not performed.

Concurrent CEA and CABG can be performed with acceptable operative mortality and morbidity, and good long-term freedom from coronary and neurologic events. Atheromatous aortic disease is a harbinger of poor operative and long-term outcome.

Once-daily dosing almost invariably shows a slightly higher percentage of prescribed doses taken than does twice-daily dosing. Many pharmaceutical scientists, regulators, and prescribers have considered this finding to signify the therapeutic superiority of once-daily dosing. The therapeutically more relevant question, however, is not the percentage of prescribed doses taken but the comparative impact of missed doses on the pharmacologic effects of a drug under the two dosing regimens. A key point in this regard is that the pharmacokinetic equivalent of a single missed once-daily dose is 2-3 sequentially omitted twice-daily doses. Thus, an important parameter in comparing the two regimens is the probability of two or three twice-daily doses being sequentially omitted, versus the probability of missing a single once-daily dose. Our data indicate that the probability of sequential omission of 2-3 twice daily doses is half the probability of omission of a single once-daily dose. For that reason, a twice-daily regimen could prove to be superior to a once-daily regimen in maintaining drug concentrations within a therapeutically desirable range. A more important consideration, however, is to maintain not just the concentration of drug in plasma, but the drug's therapeutic action. The duration of therapeutic drug action following a last-taken dose is not only drug-specific, but also, for some drug, dependent on the pharmacodynamic properties. Judging the comparative superiority of one dosing regimen over another requires knowledge of the drug's duration action after a last-taken dose, plus knowledge of the comparative probabilities of the various patterns of dose omission. When applied to HIV protease inhibitors, a twice-daily regimen appears to be better than an once-daily regimen in maintaining therapeutically effective drug actions.