Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement as Redo Procedure After Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Department of Cardiology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
The Annals of thoracic surgery (Impact Factor: 3.65). 08/2011; 92(4):1324-30; discussion 1230-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.106
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The perioperative risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (S-AVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increased. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents an alternative. We assessed the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing S-AVR or TAVI.
In a retrospective observational, comparative study, 40 consecutive patients underwent redo operation with S-AVR or TAVI between April 2005 and April 2010. Median sternotomy and extracorporeal circulation were used for S-AVR; TAVI access was transfemoral (n = 27; 67.5%), transapical (n = 11; 27.5%), or transsubclavian (n = 2; 5.0%). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was at 30 days and 6 months.
TAVI patients were older (78.5 ± 6 vs 70.6 ± 8 years, p < 0.001) and presented higher logistic (33.5 ± 17 vs 20.2 ± 14, p < 0.001) European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation scores. All-cause mortality was 2.5% in both groups and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were comparable (7.5% TAVI vs 17.5% S-AVR, p = 0.311) after 30 days. TAVI was associated with a higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (30% vs 0%, p < 0.001) and grade II residual aortic regurgitation in 14%. Incidence of cerebrovascular events was 7.5% in S-AVR vs 2.5% in TAVI (p = 0.61).
In elderly, high-risk patients after prior CABG, conventional aortic valve replacement and TAVI are comparable treatment options with favorable clinical outcome. A redo operation itself does not sufficiently justify a TAVI approach.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Redo cardiac surgery has an increased risk of morbidity and mortality when compared with the initial operation. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of previous cardiac operations on patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI). We analysed data from 566 patients included in the Italian Registry of Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation who underwent TA-TAVI implantation with the Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) from April 2008 through May 2011. Of these, 110 patients (19.4%) had already undergone at least one previous cardiac operation with opening of the pericardium (group R) while for 456 patients (80.6%) TA-TAVI was the first cardiac procedure (group F). Data were prospectively collected at each of the 20 participating centres and then sent to a central database for storage and analysis. Preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was higher in group R (35 ± 18.6 vs. 23.5 ± 11.9%; P < 0.001). Hospital mortality occurred in eight (7.2%) and 36 (7.9%) patients in groups R and F, respectively (P = 0.8). Mean follow-up was 10.4 ± 7.9 months (range: 1-34). Overall 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 64.2 ± 9.8 and 75.4 ± 3.5% in groups R and F, respectively (P = 0.69). Incidence of operative complications, postoperative bleeding, pacemaker implantation, myocardial infarction and stroke did not show statistically significant differences between groups. The univariate analysis showed that arterial hypertension, logistic EuroSCORE, porcelain aorta, left ventricular ejection fraction and previous percutaneous coronary interventions were significantly associated with 30-day mortality in group R. According to our data, patients undergoing TAVI with previous cardiac operations have a higher preoperative risk profile but have similar outcomes when compared with patients undergoing a first operation. In these subset of patients, TAVI is a promising therapeutic option.
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 02/2012; 42(3):480-5. DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezs027 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery has been in clinical use since 1960. Results, particularly in high-risk populations such as the very elderly and frail, continue to improve in response to the challenges posed by this growing segment of the patient population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a fairly recent development, performed for the first time in 2002. The last decade has seen an exponential growth in the application of this technology in higher-risk populations. Results of recent randomized prospective trials demonstrate both the future promise and current problems of the TAVI approach. Many patients deemed inoperable for AVR have been treated successfully by TAVI. However, elevated procedural and late mortality rates, excessive early and late stroke, and a significant incidence of periprosthetic aortic valve insufficiency and patient-prosthesis mismatch all suggest caution in extending this technology to patients able to undergo conventional AVR with a low risk of early or late complications.
    Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal 04/2012; 8(2):4-8. DOI:10.14797/mdcj-8-2-4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objectives. To describe short-term clinical and echocardiography outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To explore patient selection criteria for treatment with TAVI. Design. TAVI patients (n = 45) were matched to SAVR patients (n = 45) with respect to age within ± 10 years, sex and systolic left ventricular function. Results. TAVI patients were older, 82 ± 8 versus 78 ± 5 years (p = 0.005) and they had higher logEuroSCORE, 16 ± 11% versus 8 ± 4% (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in 30 days mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction. TAVI patients received less erythrocyte (53% vs. 78%, p = 0.03) and thrombocyte (7% vs. 27%, p = 0.02) transfusions. Postoperative atrial fibrillation was less common (18% vs. 60%, p = 0.001) in the TAVI group. Paravalvular regurgitation was more common in TAVI patients (87% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and 27% had access site complications. Aortic transvalvular velocity was 2.3 ± 0.4 m/s versus 2.6 ± 0.5 m/s (p = 0.002) and mean valve pressure gradient was 12 ± 4 mmHg versus 15 ± 5 mmHg (p = 0.01) in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Twenty-nine (64%) of the TAVI patients had logEuroSCORE = 15%. Conclusions. Both TAVI and SAVR have good short term clinical outcome with excellent hemodynamic result. In clinical practice, factors other than high logEuroSCORE play an important role in patient selection for TAVI.
    Scandinavian cardiovascular journal: SCJ 06/2012; 46(5):301-7. DOI:10.3109/14017431.2012.699636 · 1.10 Impact Factor
Show more