Coronary revascularization during treatment of severe aortic stenosis: A meta-analysis of the complete percutaneous approach (PCI plus TAVR) versus the complete surgical approach (CABG plus SAVR)

Surgical vs Transcatheter Treatment in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) coexists with coronary artery disease (CAD) in approximately 50% of patients. The preferred treatment is combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) along with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a viable alternative.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the outcomes of PCI + TAVR vs CABG + SAVR.

METHODS

This national multicenter retrospective study in Spain involved patients with severe AS and CAD treated between 2018 and 2021. Patients underwent either PCI + TAVR or CABG + SAVR and were compared. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year. Propensity score analysis was performed to mitigate baseline differences.

RESULTS

Of the 1,342 included patients, 625 (46.6%) underwent PCI + TAVR, and 713 (53.1%) underwent CABG + SAVR. Patients in the percutaneous arm were older (age 81.6 ± 5.8 years vs 72.1 ± 7 years; P < 0.001), had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease (40.6% vs 14.9%; P < 0.001), and had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores (4.3% [interquartile range (Q1-Q3): 2.8-6.4] vs 2.2% [Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.3]; P < 0.001). Technical success rates were 96% for PCI + TAVR and 98.4% for CABG + SAVR (P = 0.008), with similar periprocedural mortality (0.8% vs 0.7%; P = 0.999). However, the mortality + stroke rate at 30 days was higher in the CABG + SAVR group compared with PCI + TAVR, both in the unmatched (12.2% vs 4.7%; P = 0.005) and matched cohorts (8.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.002), persisting at the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lower baseline risk, CABG + SAVR in patients with severe AS and CAD was associated with a higher rate of death and stroke compared with PCI + TAVR, highlighting the necessity for a large, randomized analysis.

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.

Surgical versus Interventional Treatment of Concomitant Aortic Valve Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently diagnosed in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Treatment options include surgical and interventional approaches. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting with simultaneous aortic valve replacement (CABG + AVR) or staged percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (PCI + TAVI).

METHODS

From all patients treated since 2017, we retrospectively identified 237 patients undergoing TAVI within 6 months after PCI and 241 patients undergoing combined CABG + AVR surgery. Propensity score matching was performed, resulting in 101 matched pairs.

RESULTS

Patients in the CABG + AVR group were younger compared with patients in the PCI + TAVI group (71.9 ± 4.9 vs 81.4 ± 3.6 years; p < 0.001). The overall mortality at 30 days before matching was higher after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (7.8 vs 2.1%; p = 0.012). The paired cohort was balanced for both groups regarding demographic variables and the risk profile (age: 77.2 ± 3.7 vs78.5 ± 2.7 years; p = 0.141) and EuroSCORE II (6.2 vs 7.6%; p = 0.297). At 30 days, mortality was 4.9% in the CABG + AVR group and 1.0% in the PCI + TAVI group (p = 0.099). Rethoracotomy was necessary in 7.9% in the CABG + AVR, while conversion to open heart surgery was necessary in 2% in the PCI + TAVI group. The need for new pacemaker was lower after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (4.1 vs 6.9%; p = 0.010). No paravalvular leak (PVL) was noted in the CABG + AVR group, while the incidence of moderate-to-severe PVL after PCI + TAVI was 4.9% (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

A staged interventional approach comprises a short-term survival advantage compared with combined surgery for management of CAD and aortic stenosis. However, PCI + TAVI show a significantly higher risk of atrioventricular block and PVL. Further long-term trials are warranted.

Trends and outcomes of combined percutaneous (TAVI+PCI) and surgical approach (SAVR+CABG) for patients with aortic valve and coronary artery disease: A National Readmission Database (NRD) analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant severe coronary artery disease (CAD), the relative merits of a combined percutaneous (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]] versus surgical approach (surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]) remain unknown.

AIMS

To determine the utility of combined percutaneous versus surgical approaches in patients with severe AS and CAD.

METHODS

The National Readmission Database (NRD) (2015-2019) was queried to identify all cases of TAVI+PCI and SAVR+CABG. The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of mortality, stroke, and its composite (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) were calculated using a propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 89,314 (5358 TAVI+PCI, 83,956 SAVR+CABG) patients were included in the crude analysis. There was a gradual increase in the utilization of TAVI+PCI from 2016 to 2019 by 2%-4% per year. Using PSM, a subset of 11,361 (5358 TAVI+PCI, 6003 SAVR+CABG) patients with a balanced set of demographics and baseline comorbidities was selected. During index hospitalization, the adjusted odds of MACE (aOR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.83), and all-cause mortality (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.81) were significantly lower in patients undergoing TAVI+PCI compared with SAVR+CABG. However, patients undergoing TAVI+PCI had a higher incidence of MACE (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.05-1.87), and mortality (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.22-2.50) at 30-days. The risk of index-admission (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62-1.09) and 30-day (aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51-1.51) stroke was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients with severe AS and concomitant CAD, a combined percutaneous approach (TAVR+PCI) compared with SAVR+CABG may confer a lower risk of MACE and mortality during index admission but a higher incidence of 30-day complications.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention followed by transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A promising concept in high-risk octogenarians

Objectives

In this article, we present our initial clinical experience with staged minimally invasive direct coronary bypass (MIDCAB), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk octogenarians (Hybrid).

Background

The use of percutaneous techniques for managing structural heart diseases, especially in elderly high-risk patients, has revolutionized the treatment of structural heart diseases. These procedures are present predominantly being offered as isolated interventions. The feasibility, clinical benefit, and outcomes of combining these techniques with MIDCAB have not been sufficiently explored and have subsequently been underreported in the contemporary literature.

Methods

Four consecutive octogenarians with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and complex coronary artery disease (CAD) that were at high risk for conventional surgery with extracorporeal circulation (ECC) were discussed in our Multidisciplinary Heart Team (MDH). Our MDH consisted of an interventional cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and cardiac anesthesiologist. A hybrid approach with the alternative strategy comprising of MIDCAB, PCI, and TAVI in a staged fashion was agreed on. All 4 patients had both PCI/stenting and MIDCAB prior to deployment of the TAVI-prosthesis.

Results

From January 2019 to December 2020, 4 consecutive patients aged between 83 and 85 (3 male/1 female) years were scheduled for MIDCAB/PCI followed by percutaneous treatment of severe symptomatic AS. Intraoperatively, one patient was converted to full sternotomy, and surgery was performed by off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. The overall procedural success rate was 100% in all 4 patients with resolution of their initial presenting cardiopulmonary symptoms. There were no severe complications associated with all hybrid procedures. There was no 30-day mortality in all patients. All patients were discharged home with a median hospital stay ranging between 9 and 25 days. All patients have since then been followed-up regularly. There was one noncardiac-related mortality at 6-months postsurgery. All other patients were well at 1-year follow-up with improved New York Heart Association Class II.

Conclusions

In a selected group of elderly, high prohibitive risk patients with CAD and severe symptomatic AS, a staged approach with MIDCAB and PCI followed by TAVI can be safely performed with excellent outcomes. We advocate a MDH-based preliminary evaluation of this patient cohort in selecting suitable patients and appropriate timing of each stage of the hybrid procedure.

Catheter versus surgical approach for the management of concomitant aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: An inverse probability treatment weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

Two therapeutic strategies are available when aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease coexist: a transcatheter approach, with percutaneous coronary intervention followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement; and a surgical approach, consisting of surgical aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass graft.

AIM

We sought to compare the outcomes of these two strategies.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 241 patients who benefited from aortic valve replacement and coronary revascularization (transcatheter, n=150; surgery, n=91).

RESULTS

Patients in the transcatheter population were older (83.5 vs. 71.8years; P<0.001) and had a higher Logistic EuroSCORE (11.1% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001). At 30days postprocedure, patients who had surgery exhibited more life-threatening bleedings (12.1% vs 4.5%; P=0.034), acute kidney injury (12.1% vs. 1.3%; P<0.001) and atrial fibrillation (55.6% vs. 8.7%; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 27months, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between the two strategies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-2.04; P=0.07), whereas estimated glomerular filtration rate<60mL/min (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.58-3.12; P<0.001), peripheral artery disease (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37-2.91; P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction<50% (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12-2.55; P=0.012) were associated with a negative prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease treated by catheter were older and had a higher co-morbidity burden than those treated by surgery. The surgical strategy was associated with a higher rate of 30-day complications, but long-term outcomes were similar between the two strategies.

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.

Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Valvular Disease in the Elderly

Aortic valvular disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation, is increasingly common with age. Due to the aging population, more elderly patients are presenting with aortic valve pathology and expectations for prompt diagnosis and efficacious treatment. The current paradigm for aortic valve disease is based on surgical or interventional therapy. In this review, we discuss the approach to diagnosing aortic valvular disease and the different options for treatment based on the most recent evidence.

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.

Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing Transvalvular Aortic Valve Implantation

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis. With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a therapeutic option, management of CAD in such patients has undergone a revolution. Younger patients are now candidates for treatment, and have a greater life-time probability of requiring post-TAVI coronary access. Considerations include pre-procedural assessment and revascularisation, procedural planning to avoid coronary obstruction as well as optimisation of post-procedural coronary access. The authors review the challenges of managing CAD in TAVI patients, shed light on the evidence base, and provide guidance on how to optimise management.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR+CABG) is the recommended treatment for aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD), however percutaneous coronary intervention at the time of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR+PCI) is used with increasing frequency.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified all adult admissions with a diagnosis of AS. Sub-groups of SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI formed the study group. Outcomes of interest included total hospitalization charges, temporal trends, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2017, a total of 97,955 (95.9%) admissions received SAVR+CABG, and 4240 (4.1%) received TAVR+PCI; the proportion of TAVR+PCI increased from 1.0% in 2012 to 9.2% in 2017 (p<0.001). Compared to those receiving TAVR+PCI, admissions receiving SAVR+CABG were younger, more likely to be male, and had lower comorbidity (all p<0.001). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was comparable in both groups (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.11, p=0.45). Higher rates of pacemaker implantation, cardiac arrest, and vascular complications were seen in the TAVR+PCI group, while SAVR+CABG was associated with a greater requirement of prolonged ventilation. Admissions receiving TAVR+PCI had shorter lengths of hospital stay and were more likely to be discharged home. Nevertheless, TAVR+PCI had higher hospitalization charges compared to SAVR+CABG group (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a steady increase in the utilization of percutaneous strategies for AS and CAD management. In-hospital mortality was comparable in SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI groups, but despite shorter in-hospital stays, TAVR+PCI was associated with higher cardiac and vascular complication rates and hospitalization charges.

Coronary Assessment and Revascularization Before Transcutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation: An Update on Current Knowledge

Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has led to a paradigm shift in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly and is expanding to still younger and lower-risk patients with severe AS as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). While the role of coronary artery bypass grafting with SAVR is well-documented, the analog of percutaneous coronary intervention with TAVI is less so. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the important challenges in treating severe AS and co-existing coronary artery disease in patients planned for TAVI.

Aortic valve replacement plus revascularization: The battle of surgical versus transcatheter approach still rages

The current guidelines for primary aortic valve disease suggest, with different class of recommendation, concomitant coronary artery revascularization in all candidates to aortic valve replacement with angiographic evidence of significant coronary artery diameter stenosis (≥70%, ≥50% for left main stenosis) both for surgical or transcatheter approach. Initial (non-patient-level) pooled data analyses suggest that a percutaneous transcatheter approach confers similar outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with severe AS and CAD. Further scientific evidences from RCTs are warranted to clarify the prognostic impact of CAD on TAVR candidates and to identify the most appropriate revascularization strategy.