Key result
Hybrid aortic valve replacement with percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in similar hospital mortality (1.2% vs 3.0%) and significantly fewer complications (18.6% vs 33.7%) compared to conventional surgery.
Why the study?
Minimally invasive and hybrid procedures are innovative solutions for patients with aortic valve pathology and coronary artery disease, but reporting of their results alongside conventional AVR/CABG was needed.
Does a hybrid approach of RT-AVR and PCI reduce hospital mortality and complications compared to conventional AVR and CABG in patients with concomitant aortic valve and coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=187)
No
Does a hybrid approach of RT-AVR and PCI reduce hospital mortality and complications compared to conventional AVR and CABG in patients with concomitant aortic valve and coronary artery disease?
A hybrid approach combining minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and PCI offers similar mortality but significantly lower complication rates compared to conventional AVR and CABG in selected patients.
Hybrid RT-AVR/PCI was associated with fewer complications and similar mortality; leaves open whether randomized trials will confirm benefit.
Introduction: Minimally invasive and hybrid procedures for patients with aortic valve pathology and coronary artery disease are innovative solutions. Aim: To report the results of hybrid aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy (RT-AVR)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR)/coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery for patients with aortic valve and coronary artery disease. Material and methods: Analysis of prospectively gathered data of 187 patients -86 hybrid and 101 conventional procedures. For 21 patients, RT-AVR was followed by PCI during the same session, and for 65 patients RT-AVR was performed within 90 days of PCI. Results: Hospital mortality in the AVR/CABG and RT-AVR/PCI groups was 3.0% and 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.237). Complications occurred in 18.6% of patients in the RT-AVR/PCI group and 33.7% in the AVR/CABG group (p = 0.020). Two-stage RT-AVR/PCI was performed due to ACS (100%); one-stage was due to the intention to perform a minimally invasive procedure instead of AVR/ CABG (71.4%) or due to replacing CABG with PCI because of a lack of vascular grafts for CABG (19.1%). In 38.5% of patients from the two-stage subgroup, antiplatelet therapy was stopped before RT-AVR, 32.3% of patients from the two-stage subgroup were on single, and 29.2% on dual antiplatelet therapy until RT-AVR, which had no influence on postoperative blood requirements or postoperative myocardial infarction (p = 0.410 and p = 0.077, respectively). Conclusions: The hybrid procedure presented in our series showed similar mortality and morbidity results and may be an alternative to conventional AVR and CABG through full sternotomy in selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rzucidło-Resil et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease and coronary artery disease (n=187). Hybrid aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy and percutaneous coronary intervention (RT-AVR/PCI) vs. Conventional aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting (AVR/CABG) was evaluated on Hospital mortality (p=0.237). Hybrid aortic valve replacement with percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in similar hospital mortality (1.2% vs 3.0%) and significantly fewer complications (18.6% vs 33.7%) compared to conventional surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: