BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Abundant data are available reporting excellent in-hospital outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians. However, there is a paucity of studies reporting the in-hospital outcome of concomitant AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in this group of patients. Hence, a comparison was made of the impact of concomitant AVR and CABG versus isolated AVR on in-hospital outcome in octogenarians. METHODS: Between January 2001 and October 2011, a total of 114 consecutive octogenarians undergoing combined AVR and CABG were compared with a control group of octogenarians (n = 68) undergoing isolated AVR. A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively collected cardiac surgery database. In addition, the medical notes and charts of all study patients were reviewed. RESULTS: The two groups had a similar mean age (AVR 82.3 +/- 2.4 years versus AVR + CABG 82.6 +/- 2.1 years; p = 0.91), demographics and EuroSCORE (AVR 11.4 versus AVR + CABG 13.2; p = 0.12). The aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer for AVR + CABG patients (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality (7.4% after isolated AVR, 9.6% after AVR + CABG; p = 0.35 between groups) and major clinical outcomes for the two groups were found to be similar except for an increased need for hemofiltration in AVR + CABG patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In-hospital outcomes for concomitant AVR and CABG in octogenarians are comparable to those of isolated AVR, justifying the performance of combined AVR and CABG in this high-risk group of carefully selected patients.
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Abundant data are available reporting excellent in-hospital outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians. However, there is a paucity of studies reporting the in-hospital outcome of concomitant AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in this group of patients. Hence, a comparison was made of the impact of concomitant AVR and CABG versus isolated AVR on in-hospital outcome in octogenarians. METHODS: Between January 2001 and October 2011, a total of 114 consecutive octogenarians undergoing combined AVR and CABG were compared with a control group of octogenarians (n = 68) undergoing isolated AVR. A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively collected cardiac surgery database. In addition, the medical notes and charts of all study patients were reviewed. RESULTS: The two groups had a similar mean age (AVR 82.3 +/- 2.4 years versus AVR + CABG 82.6 +/- 2.1 years; p = 0.91), demographics and EuroSCORE (AVR 11.4 versus AVR + CABG 13.2; p = 0.12). The aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer for AVR + CABG patients (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality (7.4% after isolated AVR, 9.6% after AVR + CABG; p = 0.35 between groups) and major clinical outcomes for the two groups were found to be similar except for an increased need for hemofiltration in AVR + CABG patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In-hospital outcomes for concomitant AVR and CABG in octogenarians are comparable to those of isolated AVR, justifying the performance of combined AVR and CABG in this high-risk group of carefully selected patients.