Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: Cost of Transcatheter versus Surgical Management

Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: Decision-Making Between Surgical and Transcatheter Management

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist and share pathophysiological mechanisms. The proportion of patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization varies widely because of uncertainty about best clinical practices. Although combined surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting has been the standard of care, management options in patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization have expanded with the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Potential alternative treatment pathways include revascularization before TAVR, concomitant TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVR and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention or hybrid procedures. Selection depends on underlying disease severity, antithrombotic treatment strategies, clinical presentation, and symptom evolution after TAVR. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the addition of coronary artery bypass grafting has been associated with improved long-term mortality, especially if CAD is complex. although it is associated with higher periprocedural risk. The therapeutic impact of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with TAVR is less well-established. The multitude of clinical permutations and remaining uncertainties do not support a uniform treatment strategy for patients with AS and CAD. Therefore, to provide the best possible care for each individual patient, heart teams need to be familiar with the available data on AS and CAD. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of the evidence supporting the decision-making process between transcatheter and surgical approaches and the key elements of treatment selection in patients with AS and CAD.

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.

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.

In-hospital outcomes following percutaneous versus surgical intervention in the treatment of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among aortic stenosis patients; however the optimal therapeutic strategy remains debated. We investigated periprocedural outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVI/PCI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR/CABG) for aortic stenosis with CAD.

METHODS

Using discharge data from the Spanish National Health System, we identified 6194 patients (5217 SAVR/CABG and 977 TAVI/PCI) between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day cardiovascular readmission.

RESULTS

Matching resulted in 774 pairs. In-hospital all-cause mortality was more common in the SAVR/CABG group (3.4% vs 9.4%, P <.001) as was periprocedural stroke (0.9% vs 2.2%; P=.004), acute kidney injury (4.3% vs 16.0%, P <.001), blood transfusion (9.6% vs 21.1%, P <.001), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (0.1% vs 1.7%, P=.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher for matched TAVI/PCI (12.0% vs 5.7%, P <.001). Lower volume centers (< 130 procedures/y) had higher in-hospital all-cause mortality for both procedures: TAVI/PCI (3.6% vs 2.9%, P <.001) and SAVR/CABG (8.3 vs 6.8%, P <.001). Thirty-day cardiovascular readmission did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large contemporary nationwide study, percutaneous management of aortic stenosis and CAD with TAVI/PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgical intervention. Higher volume centers had less in-hospital mortality in both groups. Dedicated national high-volume heart centers warrant further investigation.