Efficacy of the internal mammary artery in combined aortic valve replacement-coronary artery bypass grafting

Surgical outcome of elective total arch replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting

Purpose

We aimed to compare the surgical outcome between total arch replacement with coronary bypass surgery and that without.

Methods

Between 2008 and 2016, 157 consecutive patients underwent total arch replacement with antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest using the proximal first approach. They were divided into two groups: total arch replacement with coronary bypass surgery (group 1, n = 38) and that without (group 2, n = 119).

Results

Of the 38 patients in group 1, 37 (97%) were asymptomatic. The left internal thoracic artery and saphenous vein were used in one (2.6%) and 38 (100%) patients, respectively. The mean number of coronary anastomoses was 1.5 ± 1.0. In-hospital mortality rate was 3.8%. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and operation time in group 1 were significantly longer than those in group 2 (336 ± 52 min vs. 276 ± 38 min, P < 0.0001 and 702 ± 122 min vs. 619 ± 94 min, P < 0.0001, respectively). No differences in in-hospital mortality and perioperative myocardial infarction were found between the groups (5.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.633 and 0% vs. 1.7%, P = 1.000, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio, 1.208; 95% confidence interval, 1.041-1.497; P = 0.008) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (odds ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.001-1.041; P = 0.041) were significant determinants of in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Although prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time was a significant determinant of in-hospital mortality, total arch replacement with coronary bypass surgery could be safely performed with favorable outcomes.

Outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), we analyzed the outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) with and without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at our institution.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2014, 605 consecutive patients underwent AVR for AS. Of these, the 275 who received isolated AVR (Group A) and the 122 who received both AVR and CABG (Group AC) patients were enrolled, after the exclusion of 8 patients who underwent reoperation and 200 who received other concomitant surgery. AVR and all bypass anastomoses were performed under intermittent retrograde cold blood cardioplegia. Multivariate analysis was used to assess any association of concomitant CABG with morbidity and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

No significant difference in 30-day mortality was found between Group A and Group AC (1.5% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.000). Nor did post-discharge survival differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.20). Likewise, multivariate analysis showed that concomitant CABG was not associated with significantly greater in-hospital or mid-term mortality. Operative morbidities were comparable between the two groups, in terms of stroke (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), prolonged ventilation (4.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.565), deep sternal infection (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), and acute renal failure (0.4% vs. 1.6% P = 0.176).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant CABG at the time of AVR was performed without increasing early- or mid-term mortality. This absence of increased risk deserves consideration when choosing between different treatment strategies.

Outcomes of Concomitant Total Aortic Arch Replacement with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVE

Total aortic arch replacement is a highly invasive procedure. Here, we have investigated patient outcomes following total aortic arch replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-one patients underwent total aortic arch replacement without coronary artery bypass grafting, and 65 underwent with coronary artery bypass grafting. We compared preoperative, operative, and postoperative factors and analyzed survival outcomes. We used univariate and multivariate analyses to determine factors associated with long-term mortality.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass and surgical times were significantly longer in the concomitant total aortic arch replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting group. Hospital mortality was 3.3% in the total aortic arch replacement group and 7.7% in the concomitant total aortic arch replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting group. Perioperative myocardial infarction was not seen in either group. There were no significant differences in mortality between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed preoperative age, ischemic heart disease, and estimated glemerular filtration rate (eGFR) as risk factors affecting long-term mortality, whereas concomitant total aortic arch replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting was not a risk factor.

CONCLUSION

Although patients' backgrounds should be considered, total aortic arch replacement can be concomitantly performed with coronary artery bypass grafting surgery without additional mortality risk.

The STS AVR+CABG composite score: a report of the STS Quality Measurement Task Force

BACKGROUND

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) is developing a portfolio of composite performance measures for the most commonly performed adult cardiac procedures. This manuscript describes the third composite measure in this series, aortic valve replacement (AVR) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG).

METHODS

We identified all patients in the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database who underwent AVR+CABG during recent 3-year (July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2012) and 5-year (July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012) periods. Variables from the STS risk model for AVR+CABG were used to adjust morbidity and mortality outcomes. Evidence for internal mammary artery use in AVR+CABG was examined. We compared composite measures constructed using 3 or 5 years of outcomes with Bayesian credible intervals of 90%, 95%, or 98%. The final STS AVR+CABG composite performance measure is based on 3 years of data and 95% credible intervals. It includes risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity but not internal mammary artery use.

RESULTS

Median composite score is 91.0% (interquartile range, 89.5% to 92.2%). There were 2.6% (24 of 915) one-star (lower performing) and 6.5% (59 of 915) three-star (higher performing) programs. Morbidity and mortality decrease monotonically as star ratings increase. The percentage of three-star programs increased substantially among programs that performed more than 150 procedures over 3 years compared with those performing 25 to 50 procedures (32.8% versus 1.6 %). Measure reliability was 0.51.

CONCLUSIONS

The STS has developed a composite performance measure for AVR+CABG based on 3-year data samples and 95% credible intervals. This composite measure identified 9.1% of STS participants as having higher or lower than expected performance.

Early and mid-term outcomes of combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly patients

OBJECTIVES

Although the number of elderly patients undergoing combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increasing, the early and mid-term outcomes of this combined procedure remain to be determined. We sought to elucidate the early and mid-term outcomes of elderly (≥75 years) vs non-elderly (<75 years) patients who underwent combined AVR and CABG.

METHODS

Between September 2004 and September 2011, 259 patients underwent combined AVR and CABG at our institute, including 155 elderly patients (59.8%; Elderly group) with a mean age of 79.8 ± 3.6 years and 104 non-elderly patients (40.2%; Non-elderly group) with a mean age of 67.3±5.8 years. Early and mid-term outcomes were compared, and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the risk factors for morbidity and mortality. The mean follow-up times were 33.1±21.7 and 37.4±22.2 months in the Elderly and Non-elderly groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean number of anastomoses and the frequency of use of the internal thoracic artery were similar between the two groups. The use of a mechanical valve was less frequent in the Elderly group than in the Non-elderly group (11.6 vs 60.6%, P<0.001). The Elderly and Non-elderly groups had similar rates of operative death (1.9 vs 1.0%, P=0.651), early stroke (2.6 vs 1.0%, P=0.651), 5-year overall survival (83.1±4.8 vs 87.2±5.2%, P=0.358), 5-year freedom from cardiac death (92.3±2.7 vs 94.8±3.4%, P=0.570) and 5-year freedom from stroke (94.0±2.6 vs 99.0±1.0%, P=0.097). Cox proportional hazards analyses identified diabetes, creatinine level and EuroSCORE II, but not age, as independent predictors of overall mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and mid-term outcomes of combined AVR and CABG were similar between elderly and non-elderly patients. Older age was not a risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing combined AVR plus CABG, and this procedure should be recommended in properly selected elderly patients.

Adding coronary artery bypass grafting to aortic valve replacement increases operative mortality for elderly (70 years and older) patients with aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to determine the effect of simultaneous aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on operative outcomes and long-term survival in elderly patients with a high prevalence of comorbidity.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-seven elderly patients (70 years old or older) undergoing isolated AVR (n = 120) or combined AVR/CABG (n = 37) were evaluated. Operative outcomes were compared between the two surgical groups. Long-term survival was also compared between the groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and long-rank (Mantel-Cox) test.

RESULTS

Operative mortality was 0.8 % for the isolated AVR group and 5.4 % for the combined AVR/CABG group (p = 0.076). The length of the intensive care unit stay for the combined AVR/CABG group was significantly longer than that for the isolated AVR group (median: 40 vs. 21 h, p = 0.008). However, the occurrence rate of hospital complications, such as reoperation for bleeding, deep sternal infection, supra-ventricular arrhythmia, and neurological complications, was similar between the two groups. Actuarial survival at 3 and 5 years was 82.3 and 80.9 % for the isolated AVR group, and 88.3 and 73.0 % for the combined AVR/CABG group, respectively (p = 0.637).

CONCLUSIONS

The satisfactory operative and long-term results in our study support a more aggressive simultaneous coronary revascularization combined with AVR for aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients.

Effect of the Left Internal Mammary Artery to the Left Anterior Descending Artery on Mortality and Morbidity After Combined Coronary and Valve Operations

BACKGROUND

The effect of using the left internal mammary artery in combined coronary and valve operations have not been fully investigated. We aimed to quantify the impact of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery on early and mid-term outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

Data was collected prospectively on 630 consecutive patients who underwent revascularization of the left anterior descending artery with concomitant valve operations between April 1997 and March 2003. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to adjust in-hospital outcomes and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A propensity score for left internal mammary artery use was constructed to control for selection bias.

RESULTS

The left internal mammary artery was used in 478 (75.9%) patients. Univariate analyses found left internal mammary artery patients had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (6.3% versus 13.2%; p < 0.01) and postoperative renal failure (8.2% versus 13.8%; p = 0.038). After adjusting for treatment selection bias, in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; p = 0.45) and renal failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; p = 0.86) were no longer significantly different. A total of 171 (27.1%) deaths occurred during the follow-up, with a total follow-up of 2,325 patient-years. The crude relative risk for the left internal mammary artery was 0.67 (p = 0.015). After adjusting for the propensity score, the adjusted relative risk was 0.91 (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

The left internal mammary artery does not adversely affect the short-term and medium-term outcomes in patients undergoing concomitant coronary and valve operations. Survival at 7 years was similar with or without the use of the left internal mammary artery.

Gender-related differences in morbidity and mortality during combined valve and coronary surgery

BACKGROUND

Gender-related differences in morbidity and mortality are well described for coronary artery bypass grafting but are not well understood for combined valve and bypass surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospectively the morbidity and mortality of 1570 consecutive patients who underwent combined valve and bypass procedures at the Toronto General Hospital between January 1990 and October 2000.

RESULTS

There were 1073 men (68%) and 497 women (32%). The mean ages (+/- 1 SD) of women and men were 69 +/- 9 and 68 +/- 9 years, respectively (P =.02). Of the 1570 total patients, 973 patients (62%) underwent aortic valve and coronary bypass surgery, 481 patients (31%) had mitral valve and coronary bypass operations, and 116 (7%) patients had double or triple valve and coronary bypass operations. Preoperative hypertension (P =.002), diabetes (P =.001), and atrial fibrillation (P =.001) were seen more frequently in women. Body surface area was significantly lower in women (P =.0001). At presentation, more women were in congestive heart failure (69% vs 58%, P =.001) and in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV (25% vs 19%, P =.001). Although there was no difference in the number of women with three or more diseased vessels (32% vs 38%), only 35% of women received three or more grafts compared with 44% of men (P =.001). The use of left internal thoracic grafts, although uncommon in the whole study population (36%), was less common in women than in men (26% vs 41%, P =.001). Multivariable logistic analyses for morbidity and mortality showed female gender to be an independent risk factor. Mitral valve replacement, age, left ventricular dysfunction, New York Heart Association classes III and IV, and association of tricuspid valve disease, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and preoperative renal failure were found to be independent risk factors for mortality.

CONCLUSION

Female gender is an independent risk factor for combined morbidity and mortality during and after combined valve and coronary bypass surgery. As with isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, women undergoing combined procedures have more premorbid conditions, are more often in heart failure, had an equal incidence of triple vessel disease but received fewer grafts than men, and, therefore, were more frequently incompletely revascularized.