Tom C Nguyen1, Vasilis C Babaliaros2, Seyed Amirhossein Razavi3, Patrick D Kilgo4, Chandan M Devireddy2, Brad G Leshnower3, Kreton Mavromatis2, Robert A Guyton3, Mihir Kanitkar2, Stam Lerakis2, John Merlino2, Edward P Chen3, Vinod H Thourani5. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Memorial Hermann Hospital-Heart and Vascular Institute, Houston, Texas. 2. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Cardiothoracic Surgery Clinical Research Unit, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division of Biostatistics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Cardiothoracic Surgery Clinical Research Unit, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: vthoura@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) now present with severe aortic stenosis. The proposed benefit of surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare short-term and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing isolated SAVR vs TAVR in those with prior CABG. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 255 patients who underwent isolated SAVR after prior CABG from January 2002 to February 2013 at Emory University. Outcomes of 148 patients undergoing SAVR (2002 to 2013) and 107 undergoing TAVR (2007 to 2013) were compared using multivariable logistic regression and analysis of variance techniques, adjusting for The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to determine survival rates, and midterm survival between groups was compared using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: TAVR patients were older (79.8 ± 7.9 years vs 72.5 ± 8.8 years, p < 0.001) but were gender equivalent (female: 24% vs 22%, p = 0.61). The preoperative ejection fraction was similar between groups (TAVR: 0.433 ± 0.131 vs SAVR: 0.469 ± 0.148%, p = 0.60). The TAVR group had a significantly higher the STS risk scores (11.8% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day mortality was 1.9% for TAVR and 4.1% for SAVR (p = 0.32), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; p = 0.07). Postoperative morbidity and resource utilization was significantly higher in the SAVR patients. Midterm survival was similar between the two groups after adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in SAVR or TAVR after prior CABG. Although TAVR improves short-term outcomes and resource utilization compared with SAVR, midterm mortality outcomes are similar.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) now present with severe aortic stenosis. The proposed benefit of surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare short-term and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing isolated SAVR vs TAVR in those with prior CABG. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 255 patients who underwent isolated SAVR after prior CABG from January 2002 to February 2013 at Emory University. Outcomes of 148 patients undergoing SAVR (2002 to 2013) and 107 undergoing TAVR (2007 to 2013) were compared using multivariable logistic regression and analysis of variance techniques, adjusting for The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to determine survival rates, and midterm survival between groups was compared using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: TAVR patients were older (79.8 ± 7.9 years vs 72.5 ± 8.8 years, p < 0.001) but were gender equivalent (female: 24% vs 22%, p = 0.61). The preoperative ejection fraction was similar between groups (TAVR: 0.433 ± 0.131 vs SAVR: 0.469 ± 0.148%, p = 0.60). The TAVR group had a significantly higher the STS risk scores (11.8% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day mortality was 1.9% for TAVR and 4.1% for SAVR (p = 0.32), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; p = 0.07). Postoperative morbidity and resource utilization was significantly higher in the SAVR patients. Midterm survival was similar between the two groups after adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in SAVR or TAVR after prior CABG. Although TAVR improves short-term outcomes and resource utilization compared with SAVR, midterm mortality outcomes are similar.
Authors: Francesco Onorati; Augusto D'Onofrio; Fausto Biancari; Stefano Salizzoni; Marisa De Feo; Marco Agrifoglio; Giovanni Mariscalco; Vincenzo Lucchetti; Antonio Messina; Francesco Musumeci; Giuseppe Santarpino; Giampiero Esposito; Francesco Santini; Paolo Magagna; Cesare Beghi; Marco Aiello; Ester Dalla Ratta; Carlo Savini; Giovanni Troise; Mauro Cassese; Theodor Fischlein; Mattia Glauber; Giancarlo Passerone; Giuseppe Punta; Tatu Juvonen; Ottavio Alfieri; Davide Gabbieri; Domenico Mangino; Andrea Agostinelli; Ugolino Livi; Omar Di Gregorio; Alessandro Minati; Mauro Rinaldi; Gino Gerosa; Giuseppe Faggian Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2016-03-14
Authors: Maroun Yammine; Fernando Ramirez-Del Val; Julius I Ejiofor; Robert C Neely; Diana Shi; Siobhan McGurk; Sary F Aranki; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Prem S Shekar Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-09
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
Authors: Farid Foroutan; Gordon H Guyatt; Kathleen O'Brien; Eva Bain; Madeleine Stein; Sai Bhagra; Daegan Sit; Rakhshan Kamran; Yaping Chang; Tahira Devji; Hassan Mir; Veena Manja; Toni Schofield; Reed A Siemieniuk; Thomas Agoritsas; Rodrigo Bagur; Catherine M Otto; Per O Vandvik Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-09-28