PURPOSE: To assess whether there is survival benefit for patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis if they undergo aortic valve replacement at the time of coronary artery bypass surgery. METHODS: From 1985 to 1995 we evaluated all patients at our institution who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery and who had the echocardiographic diagnosis of mild (mean gradient <0 mm Hg and/or valve area >1.5 cm(2)) or moderate (mean gradient > or =30 and < or =40 mm Hg and/or valve area >1.0 < or =1.5 cm(2)) aortic stenosis. Using propensity analysis, survival was compared between 129 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone and 78 patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: Perioperative mortality was similar among patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone compared with patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, 1-year and 8-year survival were better at 90% and 55% for patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement compared with 85% and 39% for patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone (P <0.001). This benefit was limited to patients with moderate aortic stenosis (propensity-adjusted relative risk = 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.20 to 0.96; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Concomitant aortic valve replacement at the time of coronary artery bypass surgery for mild or moderate aortic stenosis appears to convey a survival advantage for patients with moderate aortic stenosis but not for those with mild aortic stenosis.
PURPOSE: To assess whether there is survival benefit for patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis if they undergo aortic valve replacement at the time of coronary artery bypass surgery. METHODS: From 1985 to 1995 we evaluated all patients at our institution who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery and who had the echocardiographic diagnosis of mild (mean gradient <0 mm Hg and/or valve area >1.5 cm(2)) or moderate (mean gradient > or =30 and < or =40 mm Hg and/or valve area >1.0 < or =1.5 cm(2)) aortic stenosis. Using propensity analysis, survival was compared between 129 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone and 78 patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: Perioperative mortality was similar among patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone compared with patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, 1-year and 8-year survival were better at 90% and 55% for patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve replacement compared with 85% and 39% for patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery alone (P <0.001). This benefit was limited to patients with moderate aortic stenosis (propensity-adjusted relative risk = 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.20 to 0.96; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Concomitant aortic valve replacement at the time of coronary artery bypass surgery for mild or moderate aortic stenosis appears to convey a survival advantage for patients with moderate aortic stenosis but not for those with mild aortic stenosis.
Authors: Zainab Samad; Amit N Vora; Allison Dunning; Phillip J Schulte; Linda K Shaw; Fawaz Al-Enezi; Mads Ersboll; Robert W McGarrah; John P Vavalle; Svati H Shah; Joseph Kisslo; Donald Glower; J Kevin Harrison; Eric J Velazquez Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Philippe Unger; Marie-Annick Clavel; Brian R Lindman; Patrick Mathieu; Philippe Pibarot Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 32.419