Outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting

Long-Term Survival among Octogenarians Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with or without Simultaneous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A 22-Year Tertiary Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians is still debated. We analyzed the characteristics and long-term survival of octogenarians undergoing isolated AVR and AVR + CABG.

METHODS

All octogenarians who consecutively underwent AVR with or without concomitant CABG at our tertiary cardiac center between 2000 and 2022 were included. Patients with redo, emergent, or any other concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary endpoints were 30-day and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints were early postoperative outcomes and determinants of long-term survival. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality, and Cox regression analysis was performed for predictors of adverse long-term survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1011 patients who underwent AVR (83.0 [81.0-85.0] years, 42.0% males) and 1055 with AVR + CABG (83.0 [81.2-85.4] years, 66.1% males) were included in our study. Survival at 30 days and at 1, 3, and 5 years in the AVR group was 97.9%, 91.5%, 80.5%, and 66.2%, respectively, while in the AVR + CABG group it was 96.2%, 89.6%, 77.7%, and 64.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in median postoperative survival between the AVR and AVR + CABG groups (7.1 years [IQR: 6.7-7.5] vs. 6.6 years [IQR: 6.3-7.2], respectively, p = 0.21). Significant predictors of adverse long-term survival in the AVR group included age (hazard ratio (HR): 1.09; 95% CI: 1.06-1.12, p < 0.001), previous MI (HR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.32-3.28, p = 0.002), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.33-3.23, p = 0.001), while in the AVR + CABG group they included age (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.10, p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.15-1.89, p = 0.002). Concomitant CABG was not an independent risk factor for adverse long-term survival (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.77-1.02, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term survival of octogenarians who underwent AVR or AVR + CABG was similar and was not affected by adding concomitant CABG. However, octogenarians who underwent concomitant CABG with AVR had significantly higher in-hospital mortality. Each decision should be discussed within the heart team.

Trend and Impact of Concomitant CABG and Multiple-Valve Procedure on In-hospital Outcomes of SAVR Patients

Background: The trends of concomitant CABG and multiple-valve procedures and their impact on in-hospital outcomes in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement are unexplored.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the administrative database of the U.S. national inpatient sample from 2012 to 2018 to identify patients who underwent SAVR with or without concomitant CABG and/or multiple-valve procedures.

Results: During the study period, a total of 75,763 representing 378,815 patients underwent SAVR nationwide were identified, of whom 42,993 (55.1%) experienced isolated SAVR, 27,133 (34.8%) underwent concomitant CABG, 5,637 (7.2%) underwent multiple-valve procedures, and 2,298 (2.9%) underwent both concomitant CABG and multiple-valve procedures. The rate of multiple-valve procedures increased from 6.1% in 2012 to 9.2% in 2018 (P < 0.001 for trend). In-hospital mortality was 2.1, 3.9, 7.3, and 11.2% for isolated SAVR, SAVR with CABG, SAVR with multiple-valve procedures, and SAVR with CABG and multiple-valve procedures, respectively. After propensity matching, compared to isolated SAVR, the risk ratio for in-hospital mortality associated with concomitant CABG was 1.54 (CI 1.39-1.70). In multiple-valve procedures, it was 2.36 (CI 1.97-2.83), and in concomitant CABG and multiple-valve procedures, it was 2.92 (CI 2.29-3.73).

Conclusions: The proportion of patients receiving multiple-valve procedures is increasing. While concomitant CABG moderately increased in-hospital mortality, multiple-valve procedures dramatically increased in-hospital mortality and complications, even after propensity score matching

Longitudinal Hemodynamics of Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve in Hemodialysis Patients

We examined the hemodynamic profile of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients on hemodialysis (HD), longitudinally, and assess the incidence of adverse changes detected by echocardiography. Of 1,146 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), 148 patients had end-stage renal disease requiring HD. Each patient on HD was matched one-to-one with a non-HD patient on the basis of propensity scores. The mean follow-up period was 3.3 years for the HD group and 5.9 years for the non-HD group. Follow-up information was available for 95.2%. Postoperative trends of valve hemodynamics derived from linear mixed-effect models showed significant group vs time interactions between the two groups. Stable hemodynamics was consistently observed in the non-HD group, whereas the HD group showed a decrease of -0.06 cm²/y (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.10 to -0.02) in effective orifice area, an increase of 0.8 mm Hg/year (95% CI, 0.4-1.1) in mean pressure gradient, and an increase of 0.08 m/s/year (95%CI, 0.02-0.13) in peak velocity. Cumulative incidence function of SVD more than stage 2 was significantly higher in the HD group (13.1% vs 3.1% at 5 years, Gray test p = 0.01). In a multivariable Fine-Gray analysis, diabetes was independently associated with SVD more than stage 2 in the HD group (subhazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.25-2.89; p = 0.02). Survival free-from stenotic-type SVD was significantly lower in HD patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR. Diabetes was independently associated with postoperative stenotic-type SVD in HD patients.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Having Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Versus Without Simultaneous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary artery disease is a common co-morbidity of aortic stenosis. When needed, adding coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the standard treatment method, but the impact of concomitant CABG on long-term outcomes is uncertain. We compared long-term outcomes of SAVR patients with and without CABG. Hospital survivors aged ≥50 years discharged after SAVR ± CABG in Finland between 2004 and 2014 (n = 6,870) were retrospectively studied using nationwide registries. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to identify patients with comparable baseline features (n = 2,188 patient pairs, mean age 73 years). The end points were postoperative 10-year major adverse cardiovascular outcome (MACE), all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, and myocardial infarction. Median follow-up was 6 years. Cumulative MACE rate (39.5% vs 35.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; p = 0.677) and mortality (32.7% vs 31.0%; HR 1.03; p = 0.729) after SAVR were comparable with or without CABG. Myocardial infarction was more common in patients with CABG (13.4% vs 6.9%; HR 1.47; p = 0.0495). Occurrence of stroke (15.1% vs 13.5%; p = 0.998) and major bleeding (20.0% vs 21.9%; p = 0.569) were comparable. There was no difference in gastrointestinal (8.1% vs 10.3%; p = 0.978) or intracranial bleeds (6.0% vs 5.5%; p = 0.794). The use of internal mammary artery in CABG did not have an impact on the results. In conclusion, matched patients with and without concomitant CABG had comparable long-term MACE, mortality, stroke, and major bleeding rates after SAVR. In conclusion, our results indicate that need for concomitant CABG has limited impact on long-term outcomes after initially successful SAVR.