Literature DB >> 19110438

Isolated surgical aortic valve replacement after previous coronary artery bypass grafting with patent grafts: is this old-fashioned technique obsolete?

Nawid Khaladj1, Malakh Shrestha, Sven Peterss, Ingo Kutschka, Martin Strueber, Ludwig Hoy, Axel Haverich, Christian Hagl.   

Abstract

AIM: High-risk patients are currently being evaluated for various catheter-based aortic valve replacement (AVR) techniques. To identify an individual patient's risk, scores such as the EuroSCORE or STS risk calculator (RC) are used. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical results in patients who underwent isolated AVR via a median re-sternotomy after prior CABG. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 01/96 and 01/08, 349 patients underwent AVR as a redo procedure. One hundred and thirty patients had undergone previous CABG; in 39 patients (29 male, median age 75 (60-84)) preoperative coronary angiography revealed open grafts with no need for additional revascularization (30 had LIMA grafts). These patients underwent isolated AVR. Operative mortality was calculated using the standard and logistic EuroSCORE, and the STS RC.
RESULTS: Operative (30-day mortality) was 5% (2 patients). Mean calculated predicted mortality rates for the cohort were: 12+/-3% for the standard, and 32+/-21% for the logistic EuroSCORE, and 10+/-4% according to the STS RC. Receiver operated characteristics (ROC) analysis revealed 100% specificity for standard EuroSCOREs up to 12.5%, logistic EuroSCOREs up to 39.7% and up to 17.45% for STS RC, with a sensitivity of 69.5%, 75% and 97.2%, respectively. The STS RC showed significant better prediction of mortality than the EuroSCOREs (p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional AVR as a redo procedure after CABG with patent grafts can be performed with excellent results and lower mortality than estimated. Results of newer catheter-based AVR approaches should not to be compared with artificial scores to justify high morbidity rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19110438     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.09.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  5 in total

1.  Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients at Intermediate Operative Risk With a History of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Michael J Reardon; Robin H Heijmen; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Mathew R Williams; Steven J Yakubov; Daniel Watson; Neal S Kleiman; John Conte; Atul Chawla; David Hockmuth; George Petrossian; Newell Robinson; A Pieter Kappetein; Shuzhen Li; Jeffrey J Popma
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 2.  [Surgery or medical therapy for secondary mitral regurgitation?].

Authors:  Arnd Schaefer
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.443

3.  Aortic valve stenosis after previous coronary bypass: transcatheter valve implantation or aortic valve replacement?

Authors:  Olivier Jegaden; Joel Lapeze; Fadi Farhart; Guy de Gevigney
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 1.637

Review 4.  Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement after Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sharaf-Eldin Shehada; Yacine Elhmidi; Öznur Öztürk; Markus Kasel; Antonio H Frangieh; Fanar Mourad; Jaroslav Benedik; Jaafar El Bahi; Mohamed El Gabry; Matthias Thielmann; Heinz Jakob; Daniel Wendt
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 1.866

5.  Aortic root surgery in septuagenarians: impact of different surgical techniques.

Authors:  Nawid Khaladj; Rainer Leyh; Malakh Shrestha; Sven Peterss; Axel Haverich; Christian Hagl
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 1.637

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.