Aortic Valve Replacement With or Without Concurrent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Octogenarians: Eight-Year Cohort Study

Coronary Artery Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary artery disease present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in clinical practice. There are no clear-cut guidelines as to the timing of revascularization in these patients who are referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This article aims to show that in patients without high-grade proximal coronary artery disease, revascularization after TAVR is safe, feasible, and practical. Additionally, the use of preoperative TAVR computed tomographic angiography might be used in both intermediate and high-risk patients rather than invasive coronary angiography to assess for significant proximal coronary artery disease to help guide the timing of revascularization.

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.

The impact of coronary artery bypass grafting added to aortic valve replacement on long-term outcomes in octogenarian patients: a reconstructed time-to-event meta-analysis

The long-term results in studies comparing octogenarian patients who received either isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (i-SAVR) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in addition to SAVR are still debated. We performed a reconstructed time-to-event data meta-analysis of studies comparing i-SAVR and CABG+SAVR to evaluate the impact of CABG and to analyse the time-varying effects on long-term outcome. We performed a systematic review of the literature from January 2000 through November 2021, including studies comparing i-SAVR and CABG+SAVR, which reported at least 3-year follow-up and that plotted Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival. The primary endpoint was overall long-term survival; secondary endpoints were in-hospital/30-day mortality and postoperative outcomes. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. Random-effect model was used in all analyses. Sixteen retrospective studies were included (5382 patients, i-SAVR = 2568 and CABG+SAVR = 2814). I-SAVR showed a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality compared to CABG+SAVR (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI= 0.60–0.89; P = 0.002). Landmark analyses showed a significantly higher all-cause mortality within 1 year from surgery in CABG+SAVR (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.01–1.36; P = 0.03); after 1 year, no significant difference was observed (HR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.87–1.04; P = 0.35). Landmark analysis was confirmed by time-varying trend of HR. Late survival of octogenarians did not differ significantly between the 2 interventions. Interestingly, CABG added to SAVR was associated with both higher in-hospital and within 1-year mortality after surgery, whereas this difference was statistically non-significant at long-term follow-up.

The early and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting added to aortic valve replacement compared to isolated aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In aged population, the early and long-term outcomes of coronary revascularization (CABG) added to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared to isolated SAVR (i-SAVR) are conflicting. To address this limitation, a meta-analysis comparing the early and late outcomes of SAVR plus CABG with i-SAVR was performed. Electronic databases from January 2000 to November 2021 were screened. Studies reporting early-term and long-term comparison between the two treatments in patients over 75 years were analyzed. The primary endpoints were in-hospital/30-day mortality and overall long-term survival. The pooled odd ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for in-early outcome and long-term survival, respectively. Random-effect model was used in all analyses. Forty-four retrospective observational studies reporting on 74,560 patients (i-SAVR = 36,062; SAVR + CABG = 38,498) were included for comparison. The pooled analysis revealed that i-SAVR was significantly associated with lower rate of early mortality compared to SAVR plus CABG (OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66–0.75; p < 0.0001) and with lower incidence of postoperative acute renal failure (OR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.50–0.91; p = 0.02), need for dialysis (OR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.50–0.86; p = 0.002) and prolonged mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.42–0.77; p < 0.0001). Twenty-two studies reported data of long-term follow-up. No differences were reported between the two groups in long-term survival (HR = 0.95; 95% CI  0.87–1.03; p = 0.23). CABG added to SAVR is associated with worse early outcomes in terms of early mortality, postoperative acute renal failure, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Long-term survival was comparable between the two treatments.

[Current problems of simultaneous surgery of the aortic valve and ischaemic heart disease]

Surgical policy in treatment of patients suffering from concomitant valvular pathology and ischaemic heart disease is an extremely important problem of contemporary cardiac surgery. With the advent of advanced techniques and due to the improvement of old ones, there have over the last decades appeared new approaches to treatment of this cohort of patients. Presented in the article is a review of current publications regarding the problem of surgical treatment of patients with a combination of pronounced valvular pathology requiring surgical correction and ischaemic heart disease necessitating the need for myocardial revascularization. This is followed by providing the data concerning contemporary strategies of treatment of patients with concomitant pathology, as well as the comparison of various approaches and the effect of the chosen technique on the outcome.

Octogenarians and aortic valve surgery: surgical outcomes in the geriatric population

Background

The era of percutaneous aortic valve intervention has challenged the continuing indication for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of the elderly patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy, in order to assess the impact of surgery on patient outcomes and discharge destination.

Methods

The study involves a retrospective observational analysis in a single centre, including all octogenarian patients who underwent aortic valve surgery between January of 2011 and July of 2016. The study assessed pre-operative co-morbidities and post-operative outcomes, including long-term mortality and discharge destination following on from surgery.

Results

The mean age of patients was 82.7 years (± 2.9), 67% of whom were male. The mean EuroSCORE II was 8.1 (± 7.6). The most common pre-operative co-morbidities were dyslipidaemia (82%), hypertension (80%), and ischaemic heart disease (78.8%). The median length of stay was 10 days (± 6.9 days). Discharge home occurred in 71.8% of patients, with 21.2% of patients requiring transfer to a rehabilitation facility, and 1.2% of patients required placement into an aged care facility. There were five peri-operative deaths, equating to 5.9% of the cohort.

Conclusion

Despite high EuroSCORE II values for the majority of our patients, our data adds to overall suggestions that the octogenarian population can be considered eligible for SAVR and should not be excluded due to age alone. The use of the EuroSCORE II index more accurately predicts adequacy for treatment however does not entirely predict overall course of events, and proceduralist discretion should still be used.

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.

Association between transcatheter aortic valve implantation or replacement and mortality, and major adverse events after coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

In recent years, many people are opting for minimally invasive surgery in China. Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation or replacement (TAVIR) with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have higher risks of death and major complications.

Materials/methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for all comparison studies between TAVIR with and without prior CABG and mortality as a primary outcome, irrespective of surgical risk, to investigate whether patients with prior CABG can undergo TAVIR. Randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. The outcomes of interest included 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality and 30-day complications. If significant heterogeneity was found in the random-effects meta-analyses, a sensitivity analysis that individually removed each study was conducted.

Results

Five studies reported results on patients undergoing TAVIR with or without prior CABG. Compared with the non-CABG cohort, the CABG cohort showed no significant difference in the 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality and the 30-day risk of major complications, except life-threatening bleeding. However, for the 30-day risk of life-threatening bleeding, the morbidity of CABG cohort was significantly lower than that of the non-CABG cohort (risk ratio 0.555; 95% confidence interval 0.35–0.85; P = 0.006; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

Patients with prior CABG can undergo TAVIR. Patients undergoing TAVIR without prior CABG need more attention because of a higher risk of life-threatening bleeding.

Off-Pump Semicircular Annuloplasty: Effective Treatment of Concurrent Moderate Aortic Regurgitation

The treatment of aortic regurgitation (AR) in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a difficult problem. Aortic valve repair has become a promising therapy for AR. Various annuloplasty approaches have been used and have gained satisfactory results. Thus we adopted off-pump semicircular annuloplasty to treat concurrent moderate AR in 12 high-risk patients. Early follow-up results showed that this way is simple, safe, and effective.