Stentless Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement in Octogenarians: The Influence of Coronary Artery Disease

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (04) ◽  
pp. 322-327
Author(s):  
Juergen Ennker ◽  
Behnam Zadeh ◽  
Joern Pons-Kuehnemann ◽  
Bernd Niemann ◽  
Philippe Grieshaber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Aged Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Background We sought to determine the long-term results of stentless biological heart valve replacement in octogenarians to find out whether coronary artery disease or the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure itself influences survival in these aged patients. Methods From 4,012 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a stentless prosthesis (Freestyle, Medtronic) at a single center, 721 patients were older than 80 years. They had a mean age of 83 ±  2 (2,320 patient years), the male/female ratio was 42:58, NYHA (New York Heart Association) class I and II was prevalent in 22.8%, preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) in 20.6%, coronary artery disease in 56.1%, mitral valve disease in 12.5%, and aortic disease in 3.5%. Follow-up included a total of 11,546 patient years (mean follow-up time: 74 ± 53 months); follow-up mortality data were 96.3% complete. Results In these aged patients, 30-day mortality in the isolated AVR group (10.3%) was similar to that in the AVR + CABG group (13.4%). Although long-term survival (15 years) in the octogenarian population is low (9% in the AVR group and 6% in the AVR + CABG group), it was not different (p = 0.191) between patients with and without coronary artery disease. The stroke rate and the myocardial infarction rate, respectively, in the AVR + CABG group (0.43%/100 patient years and 0.17%/100 patient years) were only insignificantly higher than that in the isolated AVR group (each 0.01%/100 patient years). The actuarial freedom from reoperation was 99% in both the groups. Conclusion Use of the Freestyle stentless valve prosthesis for AVR is feasible also in octogenarians. The existence of coronary artery disease leads to concomitant bypass surgery, but not a higher level of perioperative or long-term mortality.

scholarly journals Results of simultaneous intervention in patients with concomitant coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
D D Zubarev ◽  
E I Kretov ◽  
D A Khelimskiy ◽  
R A Naydenov ◽  
A V Biryukov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

<p><strong>Aim.</strong> The study was aimed at comparing the immediate and long-term results of aortic valve replacement in combination with various techniques of intervention for myocardial revascularization, namely: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA).<br /><strong>Methods.</strong> This randomized prospective controlled study involved 120 cardiac patients over 18 years old with combined aortic valve stenosis and arterial sclerotic disease of coronary arteries. The inclusion criteria were a combination of aortic valve stenosis and a hemodynamically significant lesion of the coronary bed. A comparative analysis of the results obtained in the nearest postoperative period and during 1-year follow-up is presented. <br /><strong>Results.</strong> Hybrid intervention (aortic valve replacement + percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) produces the results which are comparable with those of the control (aortic valve replacement + CABG), with a significantly greater decrease in the peak gradient on the aortic valve. During long-term follow-up, the group of patients who underwent hybrid intervention demonstrated a much higher myocardial infarction rate (12.5 versus 2.5 %, however, the severity of infarctions was significantly lower.<br /><strong>Conclusion.</strong> PTCA, as compared to CABG, with concomitant coronary artery disease significantly improves the indicators of aortic valve insufficiency and the survival after repeated myocardial infarction, with the matching frequency of acute cerebral circulation abnormalities and the lethality rate in the long-term period.</p><p>Received 29 August 2016. Accepted 5 October 2016.</p><p><strong>Funding:</strong> The study had no sponsorship. <br /><strong>Conflict of interest:</strong> The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p>

Use and outcomes of emergency treatment strategies in patients with aortic valve stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S.M Piepenburg ◽  
K Kaier ◽  
C Olivier ◽  
M Zehender ◽  
C Bode ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valve Stenosis ◽  
Emergency Treatment ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Introduction and aim Current emergency treatment options for severe aortic valve stenosis include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and balloon valvuloplasty (BV). So far no larger patient population has been evaluated regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes. Therefore we aimed to describe the use and outcome of the three therapy options in a broad registry study. Method and results Using German nationwide electronic health records, we evaluated emergency admissions of symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis between 2014 and 2017. Patients were grouped according to SAVR, TAVR or BV only treatments. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, acute kidney injury, periprocedural pacemaker implantation, delirium and prolonged mechanical ventilation &gt;48 hours. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analyses including baseline characteristics were performed to assess outcome risks. 8,651 patients with emergency admission for severe aortic valve stenosis were identified. The median age was 79 years and comorbidities included NYHA classes III-IV (52%), coronary artery disease (50%), atrial fibrillation (41%) and diabetes mellitus (33%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.2% during a mean length of stay of 22±15 days. TAVR was the most common treatment (6,357 [73.5%]), followed by SAVR (1,557 [18%]) and BV (737 8.5%]). Patients who were treated with TAVR or BV were significantly older than patients with SAVR (mean age 81.3±6.5 and 81.2±6.9 versus 67.2±11.0 years, p&lt;0.001), had more relevant comorbidities (coronary artery disease 52–91% vs. 21.8%; p&lt;0.001), worse NYHA classes III-IV (55–65% vs. 34.5%; p&lt;0.001) and higher EuroSCORES (24.6±14.3 and 23.4±13.9 vs. 9.5±7.6; p&lt;0.001) than SAVR patients. Patients treated with BV only had the highest in-hospital mortality compared with TAVR or SAVR (20.9% vs. 5.1 and 3.5%; p&lt;0.001). Compared with BV only, SAVR patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14–0.46; p&lt;0.001) and TAVR patients (aOR 0.37; 95% CI 0.28–0.50; p&lt;0.001) had a lower risk for in-hospital mortality. Conclusion In-hospital mortality for emergency patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis is high. Our results showed that BV only therapy was associated with highest mortality, which is in line with current research. Yet, there is a trend towards more TAVR interventions and this study might imply that balloon valvuloplasty alone is insufficient. The role of BV as a bridging strategy to TAVR or SAVR needs to be further investigated. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Heart Center Freiburg University, Department of Cardiology and Angiology I, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

scholarly journals Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with aortic stenosis and severe coronary artery disease: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Majid Ahsan ◽  
Rolf Alexander Jánosi ◽  
Tienush Rassaf ◽  
Alexander Lind
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often present with multiple comorbidities and suffer from critical coronary artery disease (CAD). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the therapy of choice for moderate to high-risk patients. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (v-a-ECMO) offers the possibility of temporary cardiac support to manage life-threatening critical situations. Case summary Here, we describe the management of a patient with severe AS and CAD with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We used v-a-ECMO as an emergency strategy in cardiogenic shock during a high-risk coronary intervention to stabilize the patient, and as a further bridge to TAVR. Discussion Very high-risk patients with severe AS are unlikely to tolerate the added risk of surgical aortic valve replacement. Using ECMO may help them to benefit from TAVR as the only treatment option available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document