Management of Less-Than-Severe Aortic Stenosis During Coronary Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective

The management of concomitant mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis (AS) at the time of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is controversial. Here we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CABG and aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus CABG alone in patients with mild–moderate AS.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until July 2018 for studies comparing CABG & AVR versus CABG in patients with mild–moderate AS undergoing coronary bypass. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators. The main outcomes were operative mortality, long-term survival, and reintervention for AS.

Results

There were 6 unmatched retrospective observational studies with 1,172 patients (median follow-up 4.7 [interquartile range: 4.3 to 5.3] years). Patients undergoing CABG & AVR had less severe coronary artery disease. There were no differences in operative mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.94; P = 0.8). CABG & AVR was associated with greater incidence of stroke, bleeding, renal failure, and mediastinitis. At median follow-up of 5 years, there was no difference in long-term mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR]:1.44; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.51; P = 0.19), but CABG & AVR was associated with 73% lower risk of reoperation for AS (n = 13/485 versus n = 71/702; IRR: 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.51; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing CABG with mild–moderate AS, combining AVR with CABG was associated with no difference in operative mortality but with increased risk of stroke, bleeding, renal failure, and mediastinitis. Long-term mortality was not different, but a risk of reoperation for AS at 5 years was 73% lower. Given the increasingly wide availability and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), one may consider a conservative approach toward concomitant mild–moderate AS.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement coronary artery bypass graft aortic stenosis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Yan

AT.

Koh

Chan

et al. Association between cardiovascular risk factors and aortic stenosis: the CANHEART aortic stenosis study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 1523–1532.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.025

Kvidal

Bergström

Hörte

et al. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 747–756.doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00584-7

Hilton

. Aortic valve replacement for patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Clin Cardiol 2000; 23: 141–147.doi:10.1002/clc.4960230303

Lester

SJ.

Heilbron

Gin

et al. The natural history and rate of progression of aortic stenosis. Chest 1998; 113: 1109–1114.doi:10.1378/chest.113.4.1109

Gupta

Khera

Kolte

et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting: trends in utilization and propensity-matched analysis of in-hospital outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: e006179.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006179

D'Agostino

RS.

Jacobs

JP.

Badhwar

et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2017 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 18–24.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.11.001

Pereira

JJ.

Balaban

Lauer

et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis and coronary bypass surgery. Am J Med 2005; 118: 735–742.doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.072

Dagenais

Mathieu

Doyle

et al. Moderate aortic stenosis in coronary artery bypass grafting patients more than 70 years of age: to replace or not to replace? Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 1495–1500.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.06.036

Nishimura

RA.

Otto

CM.

Bonow

et al. AHA/ACC focused update of the 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 clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 2017: 252–289.

10.

Falk

Baumgartner

Bax

et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52: 616–664.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx324

11.

DerSimonian

Laird

. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials 2015; 45(Pt A): 139–145.doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002

12.

Higgins

JPT.

Thompson

SG.

Deeks

et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–560.doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

13.

Tam

JW.

Masters

RG.

Burwash

et al. Management of patients with mild aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 65: 1215–1219.doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00062-9

14.

Karagounis

Valencia

Chandrasekaran

et al. Management of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with mild to moderate aortic stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 369–373.

15.

Sareyyupoglu

Sundt

TM.

Schaff

et al. Management of mild aortic stenosis at the time of coronary artery bypass surgery: should the valve be replaced? Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: 1224–1231.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.05.085

16.

Yamashita

Fujita

Hata

et al. Long-term outcome of isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary artery disease and mild to moderate aortic stenosis. J Cardiol 2017; 70: 48–54.doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.10.007

17.

Gillinov

AM.

Garcia

. When is concomitant aortic valve replacement indicated in patients with mild to moderate stenosis undergoing coronary revascularization? Curr Cardiol Rep 2005; 7: 101–104.doi:10.1007/s11886-005-0020-8

18.

Palta

Pai

AM.

Gill

et al. New insights into the progression of aortic stenosis: implications for secondary prevention. Circulation 2000; 101: 2497–2502.

19.

Pohle

Mäffert

Ropers

et al. Progression of aortic valve calcification: association with coronary atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk factors. Circulation 2001; 104: 1927–1932.

20.

Kume

Kawamoto

Okura

et al. Rapid progression of mild to moderate aortic stenosis in patients older than 80 years. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2007; 20: 1243–1246.doi:10.1016/j.echo.2007.03.022

21.

Rosenhek

Klaar

Schemper

et al. Mild and moderate aortic stenosis. Natural history and risk stratification by echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2004; 25: 199–205.doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2003.12.002

22.

Verhoye

JP.

Merlicco

Sami

et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis after previous coronary artery bypass grafting: could early reoperation be prevented? J Heart Valve Dis 2006; 15: 474–478.

23.

Thalji

NM.

Suri

RM.

Enriquez-Sarano

et al. Untreated aortic valve stenosis identified at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting: thresholds associated with adverse prognosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47: 712–719.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu231

24.

Smith

WT.

Ferguson

TB.

Ryan

et al. Should coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis undergo concomitant aortic valve replacement? A decision analysis approach to the surgical dilemma. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 1241–1247.doi:10.1016/j.accreview.2004.11.024

25.

Nguyen

TC.

Babaliaros

VC.

Razavi

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has improved short-term but similar midterm outcomes in isolated aortic valve replacement after prior coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 1316–1324.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.081

26.

Onorati

D'Onofrio

Biancari

et al. Results of surgical aortic valve replacement and transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 22: 806–812.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivw049

27.

Reinöhl

Kaier

Reinecke

et al. Effect of availability of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement on clinical practice. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2438–2447.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500893

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.07 MB

0.00 MB