Management of High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease

Complete transcatheter versus surgical approach to aortic stenosis with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through November 2021 to identify studies comparing TAVR + PCI and SAVR + CABG for severe aortic stenosis with concurrent coronary artery disease. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, repeat coronary intervention, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, and stroke during follow-up, and 30-day periprocedural outcomes.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies including a total of 104,220 patients (TAVR + PCI, n = 5004; SAVR + CABG, n = 99,216) were included. The weighted mean follow-up period was 30.2 months. TAVR + PCI was associated with greater all-cause mortality and coronary reintervention during follow-up period (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65; P = .003, hazard ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.74-9.86; P = .001, respectively), 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation rate (odds ratio [OR], 3.79; 95% CI, 1.61-8.95; P = .002), and periprocedural vascular complications (OR, 6.97; 95% CI, 1.85-26.30; P = .004). In contrast, TAVR + PCI was associated with a lower rate of 30-day acute kidney injury (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50; P = .0001). Rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, stroke during follow-up, and other periprocedural outcomes including 30-day mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, TAVR + PCI was associated with greater all-cause mortality at follow-up compared with SAVR + CABG. Heart Team approach to assess TAVR candidacy remains imperative.

Concomitant Valve Replacement and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: Lessons from the Past, Guidance for the Future? A Mortality Analysis in 294 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to analyze parameters influencing early and late mortality after concomitant valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, using early and long-term information from an institutionally available data registry, and to discuss the results in relation to the current treatment strategies and perspectives.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 294 patients after combined valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis and CABG surgery.

RESULTS

There were 201 men (68.4%) and 93 women (31.6%). Concurrent to the coronary artery bypass grafting, 238 patients (80.9%) underwent aortic-, 46 patients (15.6%) mitral- and 10 patients (3.4%) doublevalve replacement. Cumulative duration of follow up was 1007 patient-years (py) with a maximum of 94 months and was completed in 92.2% (271 cases). Overall hospital mortality (30 days) rate was 6.5% (n = 19). It was significantly higher in patients of female gender, older than 70 y, in those suffering preoperative myocardial infarction, presenting with an additive EuroScore > 8 and being hemodynamically unstable after the operation. Cumulative survival rate at 7.6 y was 78.6%. Determinants of prolonged survival were male gender, age at operation < 70 y, preoperative sinus rhythm, normal renal function, additive EuroScore < 8 and the use of internal thoracic artery for grafting. Subsequent multivariate analysis revealed preoperative atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 0.82-5.44, p: 0.01) and risk group of ES > 8 (HR: 3.63, 95% CI: 1.45-9.07, p < 0.01) as independent predictors for lower long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital mortality (30 d) was nearly 2.5-fold higher in female and/or older than 70 y patients. Preoperative atrial fibrillation and/ or a calculated ES > 8 were independent predisposing factors of late mortality for combined VR and CABG surgery. Tailoring the approach, with the employment of the newest techniques and hybrid procedures, to the individual patient clinical profile enables favorable outcomes for concomitant valvular disease and CAD, especially in high-risk patients.

Impact of Chronic Coronary Artery Disease and Revascularization Strategy in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of CAD and different revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent TAVI with third generation devices. Patients enrolled in the national observational Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment II study were stratified according to the presence of CAD (CAD+, n = 1,130) versus no CAD (CAD-, n = 1,505), and compared using a propensity matched analysis. CAD+ group was further stratified according to the revascularization strategy: no revascularization (n = 331), revascularization performed >90 days before index-TAVI (n = 417) and coronary revascularization performed <90 days before index-TAVI or during TAVI (n = 382). In-hospital, 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes were estimated. The mean age of the overall population was 81.8 years; 54.9% of patients were female. Propensity score matching yielded 813 pairs and their 30-day all-cause mortality was comparable (p = 0.480). Major periprocedural adverse events were also similar between the groups. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and all-cause mortality were similar between the groups (p = 0.732 and p = 0.633, respectively). Conversely, patients with CAD experienced more often myocardial infarction and need for percutaneous coronary intervention at 1 year (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). Neither CAD nor revascularization strategy were independent predictors of 1-year MACCE. About 40% of patients presenting with severe AS and who underwent TAVI had concomitant CAD. The presence of CAD had no impact on all-cause mortality and MACCE 1-year after TAVR. However, CAD carries a higher risk for acute myocardial infarction and need of percutaneous coronary intervention during follow-up.

Percutaneous versus surgical approach to aortic valve replacement with coronary revascularization: A systematic review andmeta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and complex coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from its inception up to 17 December 2022 for studies that assessed TAVR + PCI versus SAVR + CABG in patients with AS and CAD. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

Six observational studies including 135,003 patients assessing TAVI + PCI (n = 6988) versus SAVR + CABG (n = 128,015) were included. Compared to SAVR + CABG, TAVR + PCI was not significantly associated with perioperative mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.48-1.21; p = 0.25), vascular complications (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.72-4.71; p = 0.20), acute kidney injury (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.33; p = 0.95), myocardial infraction (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.30-1.77; p = 0.49), or stroke (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02; p = 0.09). TAVR + PCI significantly reduced the incidence of major bleeding (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.24-0.36; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -2.45 to -0.76; p < 0.01), but increased the incidence of pacemaker implantation (RR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.88-2.19; p < 0.01). At follow-up, TAVR + PCI was significantly associated with coronary reintervention (RR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.03-9.71; p = 0.04) and a reduced rate of long-term survival (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AS and CAD, TAVR + PCI did not increase perioperative mortality, but increased the rates of coronary reintervention and long-term mortality.

An Unusual Case of Severe Aortic Stenosis and Triple-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease in a Patient Presenting With Intermittent Chest Pain

Although relatively uncommon, premature coronary artery disease (CAD) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. A key risk factor for this condition is the presence of familial hyperlipidemia (FH), which is a genetic disorder of impaired cholesterol metabolism. While aortic stenosis is relatively common in the older population, it is rare in young adults, and its presence should raise concern for a bicuspid valve. We present the case of a 37-year-old male patient with intermittent chest pain and physical examination findings of multiple-site xanthomas and echocardiography/angiography findings of severe aortic stenosis and severe three-vessel CAD, respectively. FH was noted as the most critical risk factor in this patient. He was subsequently managed with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and simultaneous coronary bypass graft surgery with interval symptom improvement. Cholesterol-lowering agents - high-intensity statins/ezetimibe - were started to control cholesterol levels. Guideline-directed medical therapy for CAD/aortic valve replacement (AVR) with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, antiplatelet therapy, and warfarin therapy was also employed. This report highlights a case of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in a young adult and how early detection and treatment of risk factors can lead to a good prognosis.

Clinical impact of the extent of jeopardized myocardium in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is found in 30%-50% of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing treatment. The best management of CAD in AS patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear. We investigated the clinical impact of the extent of jeopardized myocardium in patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS treated by TAVI.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TAVI procedures at our hospital were identified. In the presence of CAD, the myocardium jeopardized before TAVI was graded using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) jeopardy score (JS). The study population was divided in 3 groups: patients without concomitant CAD (no-CAD), patients with CAD and BCIS-JS ≤ 4 (CAD BCIS-JS ≤ 4) and patients with concomitant CAD and BCIS-JS> 4 (CAD BCIS-JS> 4). The primary study endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

A total of 403 patients entered the study: 223 no-CAD, 94 CAD BCIS-JS ≤ 4 and 86 CAD BCIS-JS> 4. At> 3 months of follow-up [range 104-3296 days], patients without CAD and CAD patients with BCIS-JS ≤ 4 had better survival free from MACCE compared with those with less extensive revascularization (BCIS-JS> 4) (P=.049). This result was driven by a significant reduction in death (P=.031). On multivariate analysis, residual BCIS-JS ≤ 4 and NYHA class III-IV independently predicted MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS, the extent of jeopardized myocardium before TAVI impacts on clinical outcomes.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Pre-TAVR: Current State of the Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review intends to give an up-to-date overview of the current state of evidence in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), focusing on percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) pre-TAVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recently published ACTIVATION trial is the 1st randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization (PCI) versus medical treatment in patients with significant CAD undergoing TAVR. With the caveat of several major limitations of the trial, the results of this study raised the question about the appropriateness of the common practice to routinely revascularize coronary stenosis before TAVR. Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease among the elderly and it often co-occurs with CAD. TAVR is increasingly considered an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement not only in the elderly population but also in younger and lower-risk patients. The impact of co-existing CAD on clinical outcomes as well as the optimal timing of PCI in TAVR candidates is still unclear and the subject of ongoing randomized trials. Meanwhile, it is common practice in many centers to routinely perform invasive coronary angiography and PCI for significant coronary disease as part of the TAVR workup. While computed tomography angiography has emerged as a possible alternative to the invasive coronary angiography in patients with low pre-test probability for CAD, the value of functional invasive assessment of coronary lesions in the pre-TAVR setting has still to be clarified. Also, there is an increasing interest in the clinical relevance and optimal management of the potentially challenging coronary access post-TAVR, requiring further research.

Simultaneous transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation and off-pump coronary artery bypass: An effective hybrid approach

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) techniques are increasingly being adopted into clinical routine for various risk groups. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is seen in up to 75% of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) presenting with typical angina pectoris. Due to high mortality rates and procedural complications in these patients, a hybrid concept of simultaneous transaortic TAVI and off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) can be a feasible treatment option.

METHODS

Between April 2014 and July 2020, 10 consecutive high-risk patients underwent concomitant transaortic TAVI and OPCAB at our institution. All indications were discussed in Heart Team and decisions were made based on patients' comorbidities and complexity of CAD. The study endpoints were 30-day mortality, device success, and development of postoperative adverse events defined by the Valve Academic Research Consorium.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 77.9 ± 7.1 years old. All patients presented with multiple comorbidities (mean logistic EuroSCORE 26.5 ± 12.3%, median EuroSCORE II 5.13% [interquartile range 4.2-9.5], mean STS-Score 6.04 ± 1.6%). Five patients (50%) presented with porcelain aorta. No conversion to conventional procedures was needed. 30-day mortality occurred in one patient (10%). Complete revascularization was achieved in seven (70%) of the patients. Device success rate was 100%. No paravalvular leakage was detected. No stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid approach combining transaortic TAVI and OPCAB might be a safe and feasible method of treatment in high-risk patients presenting with severe AS and CAD who are not eligible for conventional surgical or interventional solutions.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous coronary intervention versus surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against patients who had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Contemporary guidelines suggest that surgical or percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a reasonable strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline and Embase to identify studies comparing a percutaneous transcatheter versus a surgical approach. Random effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed to estimate the effect of percutaneous compared surgical strategies using aggregate data.

RESULTS

Six studies reporting on 1770 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in effect estimates for early and midterm mortality (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20 and OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49, respectively) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20-1.33 and OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.65, respectively). No significant difference was shown for peri-procedural stroke (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.87). A transcatheter approach had a higher rate of major vascular complications (OR: 14.44; 95% CI, 4.42-47.16), but a lower rate of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that a percutaneous transcatheter approach confers similar outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with severe AS and CAD. However, our findings are based on low quality studies and should serve as hypothesis generating. In the absence of adequately powered studies yielding high level evidence, individualized decision making should be based on surgical risk assessment.

Aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in very elderly patients aged 85 years and older

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most common structural heart valve disease affecting the aging population. Catheter-based heart valve interventions are less invasive and very useful for very elderly patients. However, we often consider open heart surgery for these patients because of anatomical reasons and co-existing cardiac diseases, i.e., severe coronary artery disease. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 years undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Twenty-nine very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 years who underwent AVR with CABG (n = 11, Group AC) or isolated AVR (n = 18, Group A) were examined. The overall mean age of the patients was 87.2 ± 2.6 (range 85-94) years. The estimated operative mortality rate, calculated using the Japan score, EuroSCORE II, and STS risk score, was 5.72%-10.88% in Group AC and 5.63%-8.30% in Group A. Aortic cross-clamp time (126.5 ± 29.0 vs. 96.9 ± 29.2 min, p = 0.016) was significantly longer in Group AC than in Group A. Although the major morbidity rate was higher in Group AC than in Group A (36% vs. 6%, p = 0.0336), the length of intensive care unit stay and hospital stay was comparable between both groups. There was no 30-day and hospital mortality in both groups. Eleven patients died during follow-up (senility, 5; cerebrovascular events, 2; renal failure, 1; unknown, 3). There were no significant differences in survival rates during follow-up (log-rank p value = 0.1051). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year survival rates were 91%, 80%, 69%, 69% and 69%, respectively, in Group AC and 94%, 94%, 94%, 94% and 88%, respectively, in Group A. In conclusion, AVR with or without CABG could be safely performed in carefully selected very elderly patients with acceptable early- and long-term results. AVR with CABG in very elderly patients aged ≥ 85 offers similar results to isolated AVR in terms of 30-day mortality, hospital mortality, and long-term survival.

Does additional coronary artery bypass grafting to aortic valve replacement in elderly patients affect the early and long-term outcome?

Early and long-term outcomes in elderly patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (iAVR) are well defined. Conflicting data exist in elderly patients who underwent AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to evaluate the early and long-term outcomes of combined AVR + CABG in patients older than 75 years of age. From June 1999 to June 2018, 402 patients ≥ 75 years who underwent iAVR (n = 200; 49.7%) or combined AVR plus CABG (n = 202; 50.3%) were retrospectively analysed. AVR + CABG patients were older than iAVR patients (78.5 ± 2.5 vs 77.6 ± 2.8 years; p < 0.0001), with greater co-morbidities and more urgent/emergency surgery. 30-day mortality was 6.5% in the AVR + CABG and 4.5% in the iAVR group (p = 0.38). Multivariate analysis identified EuroSCORE II [odd ratio (OR) 1.13] postoperative stroke (OR 12.53), postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (OR 8.72) and postoperative mechanical ventilation > 48 h (OR 8.92) as independent predictors of 30-day mortality; preoperative cerebrovascular events (OR 3.43), creatinine (OR 7.27) and extracorporeal circulation time (OR 1.01) were independent predictors of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE). Treatment was not an independent predictor of 30-day mortality and in-hospital MACCE. Survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 94.7 ± 1.6%, 72.6 ± 3.6% and 31.7 ± 4.8% for iAVR patients and 89.1 ± 2.3%, 73.9 ± 3.5% and 37.2 ± 4.8% for AVR + CABG subjects (p = 0.99). Using adjusted Cox regression model, creatinine [hazard ration (HR) 1.50; p = 0.018], COPD (HR 1.97; p = 0.003) and NYHA class (HR 1.39; p < 0.0001) were independent predictors of late mortality; the combined AVR + CABG was not associated with increased risk of late mortality (HR 0.83; p = 0.30). In patients aged ≥ 75 years, combined AVR + CABG was not associated with increased 30-day mortality, in-hospital MACCE and long-term mortality. Surgical revascularization can be safely undertaken at the time of AVR in elderly patients.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent among patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Historically, surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting was the only treatment option for patients with severe AS and significant CAD. The rapid expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has led to significant paradigm shifts in the treatment of severe AS and has raised new questions regarding the optimal management of CAD in these patients. We review the evidence regarding management of concomitant CAD in severe AS patients, specifically focusing on issues surrounding transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of robust evidence supporting specific treatment strategies, decisions regarding coronary revascularization in severe AS should be individualized and made within the context of a multidisciplinary heart team.

Coronary artery disease and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current treatment paradigms

Aortic stenosis is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the elderly population and is often diagnosed in individuals who also have coronary artery disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the standard of care for the treatment of aortic stenosis during the past decades, but the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has now allowed different options for high or extreme surgical risk patients. The management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains a controversial issue, as available studies in the literature have generated conflicting results. This review offers a comprehensive portrait of coronary artery disease management in the presence of concomitant aortic stenosis and proposes treatment approaches for patients presenting both diseases.

Clinical Outcome of Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease Not Treated According to Current Recommendations

We evaluated the clinical outcome of patients with moderate/severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease not treated according to guidelines, recommending combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). From 2002 to 2010, we assessed death up to 5 years in 650 patients with moderate/severe aortic stenosis and at least one coronary lesion (>50 %): 23 % were treated conservatively (MT), 17 % with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 11 % with AVR, and 49 % with combined CABG and AVR. At a median follow-up of 58 months, overall death decreased over the groups (MT, 68 % vs. PCI, 44 % vs. AVR, 34 % vs. CABG and AVR, 23 %, p < 0.01). Compared to the MT group, Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed significantly reduced mortality in the PCI, AVR, and CABG and AVR groups. When combined CABG and AVR is not feasible, PCI or AVR alone still improves significantly long-term survival as compared with MT alone.

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation--now and next?

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and its prevalence is expected to increase rapidly in coming decades as a consequence of the increasingly elderly population. Without treatment, severe symptomatic AS has a very poor prognosis with a mortality of 50% at two years. Whilst surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard treatment, a significant minority of patients are deemed inoperable and declined surgery due to prohibitively high risk. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised their treatment. In this review, we discuss current indications for TAVI, other applications of this technology and future indications.

Effect of coronary artery disease extent on contemporary outcomes of combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass graft surgery

BACKGROUND

Concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is a common procedure. Whether the extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) influences outcomes of AVR plus CABG is unknown.

METHODS

All AVR plus CABG cases from 2008 to 2010 were extracted from the California CABG Outcomes Reporting Program database. Patients with left main coronary artery stenosis greater than 50% or at least three diseased vessels were defined as having extensive CAD, and patients with one or two diseased coronary vessels were defined as having less extensive CAD. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for predicting major postoperative complications and 30-day mortality. A Cox proportional hazards model was developed to predict the risk of 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2010, 6,151 AVR plus CABG were performed in California. Compared with patients with one- or two-vessel CAD, patients with extensive CAD undergoing AVR plus CABG were on average older, more often male, had greater prevalence of multiple comorbidities, and underwent more urgent or emergent operations (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for baseline risk factors, AVR plus CABG with extensive CAD was associated with significantly increased risk of major postoperative complications (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.40; p = 0.001) but not operative mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.29; p = 0.978). A Cox proportional hazards model showed that age and other medical comorbidities, but not extensive CAD, were significant risk factors for 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AVR plus CABG for one- or two-vessel CAD, AVR plus CABG for left main or three or more vessel CAD had higher observed and risk-adjusted rates of postoperative complications but not operative or 1-year mortality.

The past, present and future of minimally invasive therapy in endovascular interventions: a review and speculative outlook

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in all developed countries. In response to this need, endovascular management techniques have been developed across a large range of medical specialties. Minimally invasive percutaneous interventions were initially complex and challenging, but with the continued development of equipment and expertise their use has become routine in many fields. With routine use, it has become important to establish the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatments against the respective "gold standard" procedures, especially in light of their initial intended use for the management of patients at unacceptably high risk for standard therapy only. Such evaluation has to take into account the variety and diversity of devices and techniques, as well as the effects of operator dependability. Endovascular techniques are increasingly recognised as valid alternative management options for a variety of conditions, and it is anticipated that the current trend towards minimally invasive techniques will continue in the future, with moves towards increasingly complex endovascular techniques and hybrid interventions.

A meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may not reduce the 30-day mortality rate over surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We performed an updated formal meta-analysis of TAVI vs AVR for reduction not only of early but also of late all-cause mortality in AS.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2012. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational comparative studies of TAVI vs AVR enrolling individuals with AS and reporting early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality, or both, as an outcome. Odds ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios in case of observational studies) were abstracted from each study.

RESULTS

We identified two randomized trials and 15 adjusted observational studies enrolling 4,873 patients with severe AS. Pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in early (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.19) and midterm (3-month to 3-year) total mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.17) among patients assigned to TAVI vs AVR. Exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantively alter the overall result of our analysis. No evidence of significant publication bias was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of data of approximately 5,000 patients from 17 studies showed that TAVI is likely ineffective in reducing early and midterm all-cause mortality vs AVR in high-risk patients with AS.