Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement as redo procedure after prior coronary artery bypass grafting.
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: As the population ages, an increasing number of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) will require subsequent aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study examined outcome of AVR after previous CABG and reviewed possible indications for valve replacement at the time of initial myocardial revascularization. Between March 1975 and December 1994, 145 patients had AVR after previous CABG. Sixty-three patients (43%) had their initial CABG elsewhere. Reoperation for AVR was the second cardiac procedure in 137 patients and the third in 8. Redo CABG with AVR was done in 66 (46%). There were 118 men and 27 women. The mean age at CABG was 64 +/- 7.9 years; for AVR this was 71 +/- 7.6 years. In 2 young patients accelerated calcific aortic stenosis occurred in the setting of renal failure. Significant aortic stenosis did not appear to be addressed at initial CABG in 3 patients. Transaortic valvular gradient, as measured by cardiac catheterization, increased by 10.4 +/- 7.0 mm Hg/y. Twenty-four patients (16.6%) died. The mortality for AVR alone or for AVR + redo-CABG was 15 of 125 patients (12%). For patients having more complicated procedures, the mortality was 9 of 20 (45%). Nine patients (6.2%) suffered a postoperative cerebrovascular accident. Low preoperative ejection fraction measured by echocardiography, sternal reentry problems, complexity of operation, and prolonged cross-clamp and bypass times were significant factors associated with mortality. Age at AVR, interval between operations, the extent of underlying native coronary artery disease, the state of the previously placed bypass conduits, and methods of myocardial preservation were not significant predictors of operative mortality. On multivariate analysis there was only one significant value: prolonged cross-clamp time. Aortic valve replacement after previous CABG is associated with a mortality that is higher than that seen after repeat CABG or repeat AVR. It seems prudent, therefore, to use liberal criteria for AVR in those patients who require coronary revascularization and who, at the same time, have mild or moderate aortic valve disease.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 12/1996; 62(5):1424-30. · 3.45 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The risk of aortic valve replacement (AVR) after previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversial. Its magnitude influences the threshold for recommending this procedure and has been cited in arguments regarding the optimal management of mild aortic stenosis at primary CABG. We therefore reviewed our experience with reoperative AVR +/- CABG and the primary combined procedure. Between January 1, 1985, and June 30, 1996, 427 patients underwent primary AVR+CABG, and 52 underwent AVR +/- CABG after prior CABG. Demographics, operative characteristics, and operative results were compared between groups. Data for all patients were pooled and analyzed collectively for risk factors influencing mortality. The extent of native coronary artery disease and the incidence of prior myocardial infarction and stroke were greater in the reoperative group. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were slightly shorter, and fewer distal anastomoses were performed in the reoperative group. Operative mortality (primary group, 6.3% versus reoperative group, 7.4%) and morbidity were similar. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis identified age, perioperative myocardial infarction, intraaortic balloon support, ventricular arrhythmia, perioperative stroke, and development of renal failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, but not reoperative status, as predictors of mortality. The risk of AVR after previous CABG is similar to that for primary AVR+CABG. Valve replacement should, therefore, be pursued despite prior CABG when hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis develops. Furthermore, a circumspect approach to "prophylactic" AVR for mild aortic stenosis at primary CABG seems warranted.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 10/1997; 64(3):651-7; discussion 657-8. · 3.45 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To identify the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) in Europe, and to examine adherence to guidelines. The Euro Heart Survey on VHD was conducted from April to July 2001 in 92 centres from 25 countries; it included prospectively 5001 adults with moderate to severe native VHD, infective endocarditis, or previous valve intervention. VHD was native in 71.9% of patients and 28.1% had had a previous intervention. Mean age was 64+/-14 years. Degenerative aetiologies were the most frequent in aortic VHD and mitral regurgitation while most cases of mitral stenosis were of rheumatic origin. Coronary angiography was used in 85.2% of patients before intervention. Of the 1269 patients who underwent intervention, prosthetic replacement was performed in 99.0% of aortic VHD, percutaneous dilatation in 33.9% of mitral stenosis, and valve repair in 46.5% of mitral regurgitation; 31.7% of patients had > or =1 associated procedure. Of patients with severe, symptomatic, single VHD, 31.8% did not undergo intervention, most frequently because of comorbidities. In asymptomatic patients, accordance with guidelines ranged between 66.0 and 78.5%. Operative mortality was <5% for single VHD. This survey provides unique contemporary data on characteristics and management of patients with VHD. Adherence to guidelines is globally satisfying as regards investigations and interventions.European Heart Journal 07/2003; 24(13):1231-43. · 14.10 Impact Factor