Hybrid Minimally Invasive Approach for Combined Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis

Abstract

Objective

There is a high prevalence of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS), and these conditions can be treated with a variety of invasive and/or percutaneous approaches. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a staged transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) after a hybrid minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) to treat combined complex CAD and AS.

Methods

Six patients with concomitant CAD and severe AS underwent staged treatment of their CAD with MIDCAB and TAVR. All patients had significant complex left main or left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis deemed to be not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results

The average syntax score was 22±8 and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for surgical AVR was 8±3%. All patients underwent a single vessel MIDCAB for revascularization of the LAD (three patients required additional PCI for non-LAD disease). Two patients had pre-TAVR balloon aortic valvuloplasty and one patient also required treatment of severe mitral valve regurgitation with percutaneous edge-to-edge repair (the MitraClip). There was no intraprocedural or hospital mortality. No neurological deficits or vascular complications were recorded.

Conclusions

A hybrid staged approach for combined complex CAD and severe AS with MIDCAB, PCI, and TAVR is a valid option in high-risk patients. The order and timing of these procedures must be tailored to the patient’s clinical symptoms, stability, and severity of disease.

Keywords

aortic stenosis coronary artery disease TAVR minimally invasive OPCAB PCI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nkomo

VT.

Gardin

JM.

Skelton

et al. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. The Lancet 2006; 368: 1005–1011.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8

Thaden

JJ.

Nkomo

VT.

Enriquez-Sarano

. The global burden of aortic stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2014; 56: 565–571.doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2014.02.006

Leon

MB.

Smith

CR.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1597–1607.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1008232

Wang

TKM.

Choi

DHM.

Ramanathan

et al. Comparing performance of risk scores for combined aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting surgery. Heart Lung Circ 2016; 25: 1118–1123.doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2016.03.007

Kadric

Kabil

Mujanovic

et al. Operative treatment of combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. Med Arch 2015; 69: 54–57.doi:10.5455/medarh.2015.69.54-57

Subramanian

VA.

Loulmet

DF.

Patel

. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 19: 281–288.doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2007.11.003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18395626

Lund

Nielsen

TT.

Pilegaard

et al. The influence of coronary artery disease and bypass grafting on early and late survival after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990; 100: 327–337.

Singh

Damluji

AA.

Mendirichaga

et al. Elective or emergency use of mechanical circulatory support devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Interv Cardiol 2016; 29: 513–522.doi:10.1111/joic.12323

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27550213

Goel

SS.

Agarwal

Tuzcu

et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with severe aortic stenosis: implications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2012; 125: 1005–1013.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.039180

10.

Singh

Patel

NJ.

Badheka

et al. Comparison of outcomes of balloon aortic valvuloplasty plus percutaneous coronary intervention versus percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty alone during the same hospitalization in the United States. Am J Cardiol 2015; 115: 480–486.doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25543235

11.

Sankaramangalam

Banerjee

Kandregula

et al. Impact of coronary artery disease on 30-day and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6: e006092.doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006092

12.

Adams

Burns

DJP.

Chu

MWA

et al. Single-stage hybrid coronary revascularization with long-term follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 45: 438–443.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezt390

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23956269

13.

Baumbach

Schairer

ER.

Wachter

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement- management of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing aortic valve interventions: surgical compared to catheter-based approaches in hybrid procedures. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019; 19: 108.doi:10.1186/s12872-019-1087-2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31088373

14.

Hemli

JM.

Darla

LS.

Panetta

et al. Does dual antiplatelet therapy affect blood loss and transfusion requirements in robotic-assisted coronary artery surgery? Innovations 2012; 7: 399–402.doi:10.1177/155698451200700605

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23422801