Key result
AVR plus CABG shows no survival difference versus isolated AVR in propensity-matched severe AS.
Why the study?
In patients with severe AS, CAD is frequently an incidental finding with underappreciated survival implications.
Does AVR+CABG in patients with severe AS and CAD result in similar long-term survival compared to AVR alone in patients with isolated severe AS?
Observational (n=3,923)
No
Does AVR+CABG in patients with severe AS and CAD result in similar long-term survival compared to AVR alone in patients with isolated severe AS?
While patients with severe AS and CAD have worse overall survival due to comorbidities and ischemic damage, surgical revascularization at the time of AVR neutralizes the adverse effects of CAD in matched patients without prior ischemic damage.
Objectives We contrast risk profiles and compare outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (AS+CABG) with those of patients with isolated AS who underwent AVR alone. Background In patients with severe AS, CAD is often an incidental finding with underappreciated survival implications. Methods From 10/1991–7/2010, 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone. A propensity score was developed and used for matched comparisons of outcomes (1,082 patient pairs). Analyses of long-term mortality were performed for each group, then combined to identify common and unique risk factors. Results Patients with AS+CAD vs. isolated AS were older, more symptomatic, more likely to be hypertensive, had lower ejection fraction and greater arteriosclerotic burden, but less severe AS. Hospital morbidity and long-term survival were poorer (43% vs. 59% at 10 years). Both groups shared many mortality risk factors; however, early risk among AS+CAD patients reflected effects of CAD; late risk reflected diastolic left ventricular dysfunction expressed as ventricular hypertrophy and left atrial enlargement. Patients with isolated AS and few comorbidities had the best outcome, those with CAD without myocardial damage had intermediate outcome equivalent to propensity-matched isolated AS patients, and those with CAD, myocardial damage, and advanced comorbidities had the worst outcome. Conclusions Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities must be considered in managing patients with severe AS. Patients with severe AS and CAD risk factors should undergo early diagnostics and AVR+CABG before ischemic myocardial damage occurs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beach et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis with or without coronary artery disease (n=3,923). Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease undergoing AVR+CABG vs. Isolated severe aortic stenosis undergoing AVR alone was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 10 years (unadjusted). Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease undergoing AVR+CABG had poorer unadjusted 10-year survival (43% vs 59%) compared to isolated AS patients, though survival was similar in propensity-matched cohorts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: