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

Quality of life and activities of daily living one year after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) surgery: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Daily activities have been recommended to minimize the long-term complications of coronary artery bypass as one of the strategies to return to the normal activity level, the effectiveness of which needs further investigation. This study aims to determine the quality of life and activities of daily living one year after CABG.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was performed on 206 patients who had undergone CABG for more than one year in 2018 in the north of Iran. The research instrument was a questionnaire including five sections, Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi2, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a Logistic regression model.

RESULT

The mean score of quality of life was 31.7 ± 2.04 of 12 to 48 possible scores. About Activities of Daily Living results showed 99.5% and 84.7% of the samples needed help with many of these activities respectively. The mean score of quality of life was significantly different based on sex (p < 0.018) and instrumental activity of daily living (p < 0.0001). A logistic regression model was used to determine the factors related to quality of life. The final model showed cross-clamp duration (OR = 0.33,p = 0.014), length of stay(LOS)in the intensive care unit(OR = 0.42,p = 0.05), and instrumental activities of daily living (OR = 0.08,p = 0.001) predicted patients' quality of life one year after coronary artery bypass grafting.

CONCLUSION

Although more than half of the samples had a good average quality of life score, due to the lack of definitive treatment for coronary artery disease, it is suggested to consider predictive variables to help plan to improve the quality of life of these patients.

Aortic Stenosis With Coronary Artery Disease: SAVR or TAVR-When and How?

The growing number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased the interest in the concomitant presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), prompting the need to define the appropriate revascularization strategy for each case. The reported prevalence of concurrent AS and CAD has varied over the years on the basis of the CAD definition and the population evaluated. Revascularization for treating CAD in patients with severe AS involves additional interventions that could impact outcomes. The addition of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has demonstrated favourable effects on long-term prognosis, while the impact of adding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to TAVR may depend on the CAD complexity and the feasibility of achieving complete or reasonably incomplete revascularization. Furthermore, the comparison between SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI in low-intermediate surgical risk and low-intermediate complex CAD patients did not reveal differences in all-cause mortality or stroke between the groups. However, there is some evidence showing a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events with the SAVR+CABG strategy for patients with complex CAD. Thus, SAVR+CABG seems to be the best option for patients with low-intermediate surgical risk and complex CAD, and TAVR+PCI for high surgical risk patients seeking complete and/or reasonable incomplete revascularization. After deciding between TAVR+PCI or SAVR+CABG, factors such as timing for PCI, low ejection fraction, coronary reaccess, and valve durability must be considered. Finally, alternative methods for assessing CAD severity are currently under evaluation to ascertain their real value for guiding revascularization in patients with severe AS with CAD.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Outcome of Postcardiac Surgery Acute Myocardial Infarction and Role of Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Background. Cardiac surgery carries a well-known risk of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), which is associated with high morbidity and both in-hospital and late mortality. The rapid haemodynamics deterioration and presence of myocardial ischemia early after cardiac surgical operations is a complex life-threatening condition where rapid diagnosis and management is of fundamental importance. Objective. To analyse the factors associated with mortality of patients with postcardiotomy MI and to study the role of emergency coronary angiography in management and outcome. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed to have postcardiotomy MI and underwent emergency coronary angiography at our tertiary care hospital between January 2016 and August 2019. Results. Sixty-one patients from consecutive 1869 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were enrolled in our study. The studied patients had a mean age of 49 ± 16.2 years with a mean BMI of 29.5 ± 6.6 and 65.6% of them were males. As compared to the survivors group, the nonsurvivors of perioperative MI had significant preoperative CKD, postoperative AKI, longer CPB time, frequent histories of previous PCI, previous cardiotomies, pre and postoperative ECMO use, higher median troponin I levels, higher peak and 24 hours median lactate levels. Regression analysis revealed that reoperation for revascularization (OR: 23; 95% CI: 8.27–217.06; P=0.034) and hyperlactataemia (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.14–9.04; P=0.027) were independent factors associated with hospital mortality after perioperative MI. Hospital mortality occurred in 25.7% vs 86.7% (P<0.001), AKI occurred in 37.1% vs 93.3% (P<0.001), haemodialysis was used in 28.6% vs 80% (P=0.002), and mediastinal exploration for bleeding was performed in 31.4% vs 80% (P=0.006) in the PCI and reoperation groups, respectively, while there were no significant differences regarding gastrointestinal bleeding, cerebral strokes, or intracerebral bleeding. The median peak troponin level was 795 (IQR 630–1200) vs 4190 (IQR 3700–6300) (P<0.001) in the PCI and reoperation groups, respectively. Absence of significant angiographic findings occurred in 18% of patients. Conclusions. Perioperative MI is associated with significant morbidities and hospital mortality. Reoperation for revascularization and progressive hyperlactataemia are independent predictors of hospital mortality. Emergency coronary angiography is helpful in diagnosis and management of perioperative MI.

Outcome of Postcardiac Surgery Acute Myocardial Infarction and Role of Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Background. Cardiac surgery carries a well-known risk of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), which is associated with high morbidity and both in-hospital and late mortality. The rapid haemodynamics deterioration and presence of myocardial ischemia early after cardiac surgical operations is a complex life-threatening condition where rapid diagnosis and management is of fundamental importance. Objective. To analyse the factors associated with mortality of patients with postcardiotomy MI and to study the role of emergency coronary angiography in management and outcome. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed to have postcardiotomy MI and underwent emergency coronary angiography at our tertiary care hospital between January 2016 and August 2019. Results. Sixty-one patients from consecutive 1869 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were enrolled in our study. The studied patients had a mean age of 49 ± 16.2 years with a mean BMI of 29.5 ± 6.6 and 65.6% of them were males. As compared to the survivors group, the nonsurvivors of perioperative MI had significant preoperative CKD, postoperative AKI, longer CPB time, frequent histories of previous PCI, previous cardiotomies, pre and postoperative ECMO use, higher median troponin I levels, higher peak and 24 hours median lactate levels. Regression analysis revealed that reoperation for revascularization (OR: 23; 95% CI: 8.27–217.06; P=0.034) and hyperlactataemia (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.14–9.04; P=0.027) were independent factors associated with hospital mortality after perioperative MI. Hospital mortality occurred in 25.7% vs 86.7% (P<0.001), AKI occurred in 37.1% vs 93.3% (P<0.001), haemodialysis was used in 28.6% vs 80% (P=0.002), and mediastinal exploration for bleeding was performed in 31.4% vs 80% (P=0.006) in the PCI and reoperation groups, respectively, while there were no significant differences regarding gastrointestinal bleeding, cerebral strokes, or intracerebral bleeding. The median peak troponin level was 795 (IQR 630–1200) vs 4190 (IQR 3700–6300) (P<0.001) in the PCI and reoperation groups, respectively. Absence of significant angiographic findings occurred in 18% of patients. Conclusions. Perioperative MI is associated with significant morbidities and hospital mortality. Reoperation for revascularization and progressive hyperlactataemia are independent predictors of hospital mortality. Emergency coronary angiography is helpful in diagnosis and management of perioperative MI.

Expert Consensus Systems of Care Proposal to Optimize Care for Patients With Valvular Heart Disease Review of the 2019 Document for the Cardiac Anesthesiologist

Valvular heart disease requiring intervention is increasing in prevalence in the adult population. With advancement in transcatheter and surgical procedures for valvular heart disease, optimization of patient selection, availability of resources and personnel, appropriate training and certification, and optimal periprocedural management rely on clinical evaluation, accurate echocardiographic interpretation, and understanding of valvular pathophysiology by the cardiac anesthesiologist. To optimize care and improve access for patients with valvular heart disease the Expert Consensus Systems of Care Document by Nishimura et al.¹ was recently published. The authors propose a protocol with guidelines and performance metrics to create tiered-level valve centers. This review focuses and expands on aspects discussed in Nishimura et al.'s Expert Consensus Systems of Care Document that are relevant to the cardiac anesthesiologist in the periprocedural setting.

Does the presence of coronary artery disease affect the outcome of aortic valve replacement?

The purpose of this study is to compare the late outcome of aortic valve replacement with or without preoperative coronary artery disease, and with or without coronary artery bypass. Between 2014 and 2015, 291 patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Average follow-up term was 2.5 ± 2.2 years. The retrospective comparative study was performed between the patients with (n = 115) or without (n = 176) preoperative coronary artery disease (Study 1) and with (n = 93) or without (n = 198) coronary artery bypass grafting (Study 2). Study 1: male patients were more, and diabetes was more in the patients with coronary artery disease. Long-term survival rate was significantly low in the patients with coronary artery disease (p = 0.0002 by log rank test). Freedom from repeat coronary revascularization rate was lower in the patients with coronary artery disease (p = 0.02 by log rank test). Study 2: operation time (419 ± 130 vs 290 ± 101; p = 0.0001) was longer in the patients with coronary artery bypass grafting. Improvement of ejection fraction at follow-up was more in the patients with coronary artery bypass(114 ± 43 vs 104 ± 26%; p = 0.03). Long-term survival rate and freedom from major adverse cardiac event rater were not different with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (p = 0.26 and p = 0.59, respectively, by log rank test). Although prevalence of coronary artery disease inversely affected the long-term outcome of the aortic valve replacement, simultaneous coronary artery bypass did not. Aggressive simultaneous coronary revascularization would be important to improve the long-term outcome of aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Artery Revascularization Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent recommendations suggest that in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation and coexistent significant coronary artery disease, the latter should be treated before the index procedure; however, the evidence basis for such an approach remains limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease who did or did not undergo revascularization prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a search of Medline and Embase to identify studies evaluating patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses with the inverse variance method were used to estimate the rate and risk of adverse outcomes. Nine studies involving 3858 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Patients who underwent revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention had a higher rate of major vascular complications (odd ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-2.60; P=0.0003) and higher 30-day mortality (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08-1.87; P=0.01). There were no differences in effect estimates for 30-day cardiovascular mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.35-2.99), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.14-5.28), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.42-1.88), stroke (OR: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.38-2.97), or 1-year mortality (OR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.56). The timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (same setting versus a priori) did not negatively influence outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that revascularization before transcatheter aortic valve implantation confers no clinical advantage with respect to several patient-important clinical outcomes and may be associated with an increased risk of major vascular complications and 30-day mortality. In the absence of definitive evidence, careful evaluation of patients on an individual basis is of paramount importance to identify patients who might benefit from elective revascularization.

Use of preoperative aspirin in combined coronary and valve operations

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between preoperative aspirin use and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve operations.

METHODS

All combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve procedures from 2008 to 2015 at our institution were identified. After exclusions, patients were stratified according to those that received preoperative aspirin and those who did not. Propensity score methodology was used to match the 2 groups using baseline and operative characteristics. Logistic regression models were then developed to assess differences in postoperative outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 563 patients identified, 534 met inclusion criteria: preoperative aspirin = 327 (61.2%), no preoperative aspirin = 207 (38.8%). After propensity matching, 194 patient pairs were analyzed, with no significant differences in preoperative characteristics. No significant differences were observed between the preoperative aspirin and no preoperative aspirin groups in rates of 30-day mortality (3.6% vs 4.1%, P = 1.00), major adverse cardiovascular events (23.2% vs 24.2%, P = .91), or 30-day readmission (12.4% vs 11.9%, P = 1.00), among others.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative aspirin use in patients undergoing combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve operations was not associated with significant differences in major postoperative outcomes. Large-scale, randomized trials are needed to better establish the role of preoperative aspirin in this population.

The impact of coronary artery disease severity on late survival after combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting - experience of a single cardiac surgery center

Introduction

The severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) may have an impact on the outcomes of patients (pts) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Aim

The aim of the study was to analyze survival after simultaneous AVR and CABG with respect to CAD severity.

Material and methods

The study involved 143 consecutive pts (40 women and 103 men) with a mean age of 65.1 ± 7.7 years treated between 2006 and 2009. The indication for surgery was aortic stenosis accompanied by left main or three-vessel disease (group A; n = 43) and by single- or two-vessel disease (group B; n = 100). In-hospital and late mortality were analyzed. Post-discharge survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Moreover, selected preoperative clinical and echocardiographic data as well as intraoperative variables were compared between the groups.

Results

In-hospital mortality was 4.7% in group A and 3.0% in group B (NS). The 12-month and 48-month survival probability rates were 0.88 ± 0.05 and 0.83 ± 0.06 in group A, and 0.97 ± 0.01 and 0.92 ± 0.03 in group B, respectively (p < 0.05). Patients in group A and B differed (p < 0.05) with respect to the preoperative prevalence of arterial hypertension (65.1% vs. 42.0%) and atrial fibrillation (18.6% vs. 6.0%) as well as with regard to the rate of complete revascularization (20.9% vs. 85.0%, group A and B, respectively).

Conclusions

Coronary artery disease severity impacts long-term survival after combined AVR and CABG. Patients with left main or three-vessel disease more often undergo incomplete surgical revascularization, and this fact may be one of the predictors of an unfavorable outcome.