Kommentar zu den Leitlinien (2017) der ESC/EACTS zum Management von Herzklappenerkrankungen

Surgical versus Interventional Treatment of Concomitant Aortic Valve Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently diagnosed in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Treatment options include surgical and interventional approaches. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting with simultaneous aortic valve replacement (CABG + AVR) or staged percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (PCI + TAVI).

METHODS

From all patients treated since 2017, we retrospectively identified 237 patients undergoing TAVI within 6 months after PCI and 241 patients undergoing combined CABG + AVR surgery. Propensity score matching was performed, resulting in 101 matched pairs.

RESULTS

Patients in the CABG + AVR group were younger compared with patients in the PCI + TAVI group (71.9 ± 4.9 vs 81.4 ± 3.6 years; p < 0.001). The overall mortality at 30 days before matching was higher after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (7.8 vs 2.1%; p = 0.012). The paired cohort was balanced for both groups regarding demographic variables and the risk profile (age: 77.2 ± 3.7 vs78.5 ± 2.7 years; p = 0.141) and EuroSCORE II (6.2 vs 7.6%; p = 0.297). At 30 days, mortality was 4.9% in the CABG + AVR group and 1.0% in the PCI + TAVI group (p = 0.099). Rethoracotomy was necessary in 7.9% in the CABG + AVR, while conversion to open heart surgery was necessary in 2% in the PCI + TAVI group. The need for new pacemaker was lower after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (4.1 vs 6.9%; p = 0.010). No paravalvular leak (PVL) was noted in the CABG + AVR group, while the incidence of moderate-to-severe PVL after PCI + TAVI was 4.9% (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

A staged interventional approach comprises a short-term survival advantage compared with combined surgery for management of CAD and aortic stenosis. However, PCI + TAVI show a significantly higher risk of atrioventricular block and PVL. Further long-term trials are warranted.

[Anticoagulation after heart valve replacement]

In patients after mechanical heart valve replacement anticoagulation is required for the prevention of thrombotic and thromboembolic events. In this setting oral anticoagulation can only be performed with vitamin K antagonists (VKA), while currently all available non-vitamin K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are contraindicated in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement. This review deals with anticoagulation in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement as well as coagulation inhibition after bioprosthetic or percutaneous valve replacement. In addition, recommendations are given for antithrombotic medication in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement in various clinical scenarios.

[Cardioband®: Where do we stand, who are suitable patients?]

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is characterized by a dilatation of the mitral valve annulus resulting in an insufficient adaptation of the anterior and posterior mitral valve leaflets and/or severe tethering of the leaflets due to dilatation of the left ventricle. The Cardioband® system was introduced in 2015 and is a catheter-based direct mitral valve annuloplasty procedure for treatment of FMR. In the European CE approval study 60 patients with moderate or severe FMR were analyzed per protocol. There were no device or procedure-related deaths. The technical success rate of the procedure, defined as successful implantation and tightening was 97%. At 1 year, the overall survival and survival free of hospital readmission for heart failure were 87% and 66%, respectively. Currently, various interventional treatment procedures are available, such as the edge-to-edge technique as well as direct and indirect annuloplasty. In summary, patients with FMR as a result of a dilatation of the mitral valve annulus appear to be suitable for direct annuloplasty with the Cardioband® system.