A staged approach of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) is an alternative to the combined coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgery for patients with concomitant coronary artery (CAD) and valvular heart disease. We sought to evaluate the impact of the complexity of CAD, as assessed by the Syntax score, on the outcomes of the staged approach.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 138 patients who underwent PCI and MIVS at our institution between January 2009 and June 2013. The baseline Syntax score was calculated, and the patients were divided into two groups: low risk (Syntax scores, 0–22) or intermediate-high risk (>22).
Results
There were 125 patients with low (mean ± standard deviation, 8 ± 5) and 13 with intermediate-high (mean ± standard deviation, 26 ± 4) Syntax scores. Baseline, PCI, and operative characteristics were similar between the groups, except for an observed higher incidence of peripheral arterial disease, multivessel coronary disease, mitral valve replacement, and a higher predicted The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score in the intermediate-high Syntax group. The short-term postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, and 3-year survival (84% vs 77%) were similar between the groups. Patients in the intermediate-high-risk group had a higher incidence of repeat target vessel revascularization during follow-up (0.8% vs 16.7%).
Conclusions
A staged approach of PCI followed by MIVS is a safe and feasible alternative for patients with valvular heart disease and concomitant CAD. However, it may confer an increased incidence of repeat target vessel revascularization in patients with intermediate- to high-complexity CAD.
OttoC.M., LindB.K., KitzmanD.W., GershB.J., SiscovickD.S.Association of aortic-valve sclerosis with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the elderly. N Engl J Med.1999; 341: 142–147.
2.
AriasE.United States life tables, 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep.2014; 63: 1–63.
OttoC.M.Calcific aortic stenosis—time to look more closely at the valve. N Engl J Med.2008; 359: 1395–1398.
5.
OttoC.M., KuusistoJ., ReichenbachD.D., GownA.M., O'BrienK.D.Characterization of the early lesion of ‘degenerative’ valvular aortic stenosis. Histological and immunohistochemical studies. Circulation.1994; 90: 844–853.
6.
BeachJ.M., MihaljevicT., SvenssonL.G.Coronary artery disease and outcomes of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol.2013; 61: 837–848.
7.
LikoskyD.S., SorensenM.J., DaceyL.J.Long-term survival of the very elderly undergoing aortic valve surgery. Circulation.2009; 120: S127–S133.
8.
DeweyT.M., BrownD.L., HerbertM.A.Effect of concomitant coronary artery disease on procedural and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg.2010; 89: 758–767.
9.
MassonJ.B., LeeM., BooneR.H.Impact of coronary artery disease on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.2010; 76: 165–173.
10.
Abdel-WahabM., ZahnR., HorackM.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with and without concomitant coronary artery disease: comparison of characteristics and early outcome in the German multicenter TAVI registry. Clin Res Cardiol.2012; 101: 973–981.
11.
KadricN., KabilE., MujanovicE.Operative treatment of combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. Med Arch.2015; 69: 54–57.
DahlbergP.S., OrszulakT.A., MullanyC.J., DalyR.C., Enriquez-SaranoM., SchaffH.V.Late outcome of mitral valve surgery for patients with coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg.2003; 76: 1539–1487.
14.
D'AgostinoR.S., JacobsJ.P., BadhwarV.The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2016 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg.2016; 101: 24–32.
15.
GoldsteinD., MoskowitzA.J., GelijnsA.C.Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med.2016; 374: 344–353.
16.
GammieJ.S., BartlettS.T., GriffithB.P.Small-incision mitral valve repair: safe, durable, and approaching perfection. Ann Surg.2009; 250: 409–415.
ChengD.C., MartinJ., LalA.Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Innovations.2011; 6: 84–103.
LamelasJ., SarriaA., SantanaO., PinedaA.M., LamasG.A.Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann Thorac Surg.2011; 91: 79–84.
21.
PinedaA.M., SantanaO., ReynaJ., SarriaA., LamasG.A., LamelasJ.Outcomes of reoperative aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy versus median sternotomy. J Heart Valve Dis.2013; 22: 50–55.
22.
GrossiE.A., GoldmanS., WolfeJ.A.Minithoracotomy for mitral valve repair improves inpatient and postdischarge economic savings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2014; 148: 2818–2822.
SantanaO., FunkM., ZamoraC., EscolarE., LamasG.A., LamelasJ.Staged percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally invasive valve surgery: results of a hybrid approach to concomitant coronary and valvular disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2012; 144: 634–639.
25.
ByrneJ.G., LeaccheM., UnicD.Staged initial percutaneous coronary intervention followed by valve surgery (“hybrid approach”) for patients with complex coronary and valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol.2005; 45: 14–18.
26.
SantanaO., PinedaA.M., Cortes-BergoderiM.Hybrid approach of percutaneous coronary intervention followed by minimally invasive valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg.2014; 97: 2049–2055.
27.
TjangY.S., van HeesY., KörferR., GrobbeeD.E., van der HeijdenG.J.Predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.2007; 32: 469–474.
28.
GoelS.S., IgeM., TuzcuE.M.Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease—implications for management in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era: a comprehensive review. J Am Coll Cardiol.2013; 62: 1–10.
29.
van HerwerdenL.A., TjanD., TijssenJ.G., QuaegebeurJ.M., BosE.Determinants of survival after surgery for mitral valve regurgitation in patients with and without coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.1990; 4: 329–335.
30.
MohrF.W., MoriceM.C., KappeteinA.P.Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet.2013; 381: 629–638.
31.
GargS., SarnoG., GirasisC.A patient-level pooled analysis assessing the impact of the SYNTAX (synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery) score on 1-year clinical outcomes in 6,508 patients enrolled in contemporary coronary stent trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv.2011; 4: 645–653.
32.
WykrzykowskaJ.J., GargS., GirasisC.Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol.2010; 56: 272–277.
33.
HeadS.J., HolmesD.R.Jr., MackM.J.Risk profile and 3-year outcomes from the SYNTAX percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting nested registries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv.2012; 5: 618–625.
34.
StefaniniG.G., StorteckyS., CaoD.Coronary artery disease severity and aortic stenosis: clinical outcomes according to SYNTAX score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J.2014; 35: 2530–2540.
35.
NishimuraR.A., OttoC.M., BonowR.O.2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2014; 148: e1–e132.
36.
HannanE.L., RaczM.J., JonesR.H.Predictors of mortality for patients undergoing cardiac valve replacements in New York State. Ann Thorac Surg.2000; 70: 1212–1218.
37.
FearonW.F., KodaliS., DoshiD.Outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) trial with the NRCA (Nonrandomized Continued Access) registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv.2014; 7: 1245–1251.
38.
MoatN.E., LudmanP., de BelderM.A.Long-term outcomes after trans-catheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: the U.K. TAVI (United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol.2011; 58: 2130–2138.
39.
D'AscenzoF., ConrottoF., GiordanaF.Mid-term prognostic value of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of adjusted observational results. Int J Cardiol.2013; 168: 2528–2532.
40.
ThouraniV.H., WeintraubW.S., CraverJ.M., JonesE.L., MahoneyE.M., GuytonR.A.Ten-year trends in heart valve replacement operations. Ann Thorac Surg.2000; 70: 448–455.
41.
AshrafS.S., ShaukatN., OdomN., KeenanD., GrotteG.Early and late results following combined coronary bypass surgery and mitral valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.1994; 8: 57–62.
42.
BrinsterD.R., ByrneM., RogersC.D.Effectiveness of same day percutaneous coronary intervention followed by minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis and moderate coronary disease (“hybrid approach”). Am J Cardiol.2006; 98: 1501–1503.
43.
UmakanthanR., LeaccheM., PetracekM.R., ZhaoD.X., ByrneJ.G.Combined PCI and minimally invasive heart valve surgery for high-risk patients. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med.2009; 11: 492–498.
44.
RanucciM., BallottaA., AgnelliB.Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and coronary angiography on the same day. Ann Thorac Surg.2013; 95: 513–519.
