Article

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: 3.45). 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views