Effect of preoperative pulmonary hypertension on outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis following surgical aortic valve replacement.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is prevalent in patients with aortic stenosis (AS); however, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent results regarding the association of PH with adverse outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative PH on outcomes after AVR. We performed a regional prospective cohort study using the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group database to identify 1,116 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2010 who underwent AVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting for severe AS with a preoperative assessment of pulmonary pressures by right-sided cardiac catheterization. PH was defined as a mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥25 mm Hg, with severity based on the pulmonary artery systolic pressure-mild, 35 to 44 mm Hg; moderate, 45 to 59 mm Hg; and severe, ≥60 mm Hg. We found that PH was present in 536 patients (48%). Postoperative acute kidney injury, low-output heart failure, and in-hospital mortality increased with worsening severity of PH. In multivariate logistic regression, severe PH was independently associated with postoperative acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 10, p = 0.002) and in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 6.9, 95% CI 2.5 to 19.1, p <0.001). There was a significant association between PH and decreased 5-year survival (adjusted log-rank p value = 0.006), with severe PH being associated with the poorest survival (adjusted hazard ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.2, p = 0.003). In conclusion, severe PH in patients with severe AS is associated with increased rates of in-hospital adverse events and decreased 5-year survival after AVR.

Long-term survival of the very elderly undergoing aortic valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of the very elderly are undergoing aortic valve procedures. We describe the short- and long-term survivorship for this cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cohort study of 7584 consecutive patients undergoing open aortic valve surgery without (51.1%; AVR) or with (48.9%; AVR + CABG) concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery between November 10, 1987 through June 30, 2006. Patient records were linked to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File. Survivorship was stratified by age and concomitant CABG surgery. During 39 835 person-years of follow-up, there were 2877 deaths. Among AVR, there were 3304 patients <80 years of age, 419 patients 80 to 84 years, and 156 patients > or =85 years (24 patients >90 years). Among AVR+CABG patients, there were 2890 patients <80 years of age, 577 patients 80 to 84 years, and 238 patients > or =85 years (22 patients >90 years). Median survivorship for patients undergoing isolated AVR was 11.5 years (<80 years), 6.8 years (80 to 84 years), 6.2 years (> or =85 years); for patients undergoing AVR+CABG, median survivorship was 9.4 years (<80 years), 6.8 years (80 to 84 years), and 7.1 years (> or =85 years). Among both procedures, adjusted survivorship was significantly different across strata of age (P<0.001). These findings are similar to life expectancy of the general population from actuarial tables: 80 to 84 years (7 years) and > or =85 years (5 years). CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship among octogenarians is favorable, with more than half the patients surviving more than 6 years after their surgery. Concomitant CABG surgery does not diminish median survivorship among patients >80 years of age.

Outcomes of patients undergoing concomitant aortic and mitral valve surgery in northern new England.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant aortic (AV) and mitral (MV) valve surgery accounts for 4% of all valve procedures in northern New England. We examined in-hospital and long-term mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a report of a prospective study of 1057 patients undergoing concomitant AV and MV surgery from 1989 to 2007. The Social Security Administration Death Master File was used to assess long-term survival. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were performed. In-hospital mortality was 15.5% (11.0% for patients <70 years, 18.0% for 70- to 79-year-olds, and 24% for those > or =80 years). Overall median survival was 7.3 years. Median survival without coronary artery bypass grafting was 9.5 years and with coronary artery bypass grafting was 5.7 years (P<0.001). Survival in women was worse than in men (7.3 versus 9.3, years, P=0.033). Median survival by age was 11.0 years for patients <70 years, 5.4 years for 70- to 79-year-olds, and 4.8 years for those > or =80 years. Median survival was not significantly different for patients > or =80 years compared with those who were 70 to 79 years old (P=0.245). CONCLUSIONS: Double-valve surgery has a high in-hospital mortality rate and a median survival of 7.3 years. After patients have survived surgery, long-term survival is similar between men and women, smaller and larger patients, and those receiving MV repair or replacement. Survival continues to decline after surviving surgery for patients > or =70 years old and those who undergo concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. In patients <70 years, either mechanical valves in both positions or a tissue AV and mitral repair have the lowest in-hospital mortality and the best long-term survival. In patients > or =70 years, tissue valves in both positions have the best in-hospital and long-term survival.

Appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performed in northern New England.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the concordance between the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and actual clinical practice. BACKGROUND: There is substantial geographic variability in the population-based rates of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, and in recent years, there have been several public concerns about unnecessary cardiac care. The actual rate of inappropriate cardiac procedures is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated 4,684 consecutive isolated coronary artery bypass graft procedures performed in 2004 and 2005 in northern New England. Our regional registry data were used to categorize patients into clinical subgroups. Detailed clinical criteria were then used to categorize procedures within these subgroups as class I (useful and effective), class IIa (evidence favors usefulness), class IIb (evidence less well established), and class III (not useful or effective). RESULTS: Among these 4,684 procedures, we were able to classify 99.6% (n = 4,665). The majority of procedures were class I (87.7%). Class II procedures totaled 10.9%. The remaining 1.4% of procedures were class III. CONCLUSIONS: In this regional study, we found that 98.6% of CABG procedures that could be classified were considered to be appropriate. In these data, actual clinical practice closely follows the recommendations of the 2004 ACC/AHA guidelines for CABG surgery.

Long-term survival of the very elderly undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of the very elderly are undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Short-term results have been studied, but few data are available concerning long-term outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 54,397 consecutive patients undergoing primary, isolated CABG surgery between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 2006. Patient records were linked to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File. RESULTS: During 390,871 person-years of follow-up, there were 17,352 deaths. There were 51,149 patients younger than 80 years, 2,661 patients aged 80 to 84 years, and 587 patients aged 85 or more years who underwent isolated CABG surgery. Crude in-hospital survival was 97.2% for those less than 80 years, 98.3% for those aged 80 to 84 years, and 87.6% for those aged 85 or more years. Patients aged 80 or more years were more likely to be female (46.9%), more likely to be emergency priority (10.2%), and more likely to have associated comorbidities than younger patients. Patients aged 85 or more years were more likely to have intraoperative and postoperative morbid events. Among patients younger than 80, median survival was 14.4 years with an annual incidence of death of 4.2%. Among patients 80 to 84 years old, median survival time was 7.4 years, with an annual incidence rate of death of 10.3%. Among patients aged 85 or more years, median survival was 5.8 years, and the annual incidence of death was 13.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although very elderly CABG patients have more comorbidities and more acute presentation than younger patients and their in-hospital mortality rate is high, their long-term survival is surprisingly good.

Long-term survival after surgery versus percutaneous intervention in octogenarians with multivessel coronary disease.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information comparing long-term survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients aged 80 years and older. We studied the long-term survival of octogenarians with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing PCI or CABG who might have been candidates for either procedure. METHODS: We identified 1693 patients, aged 80 to 89, with two-vessel disease (57.6%) or three-vessel disease (42.4%), without left main disease, undergoing a first, nonemergency revascularization from 1992 to 2001. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for CABG versus PCI. Because survival curves for these procedures crossed midway through year 1, results were analyzed separately for the first 6 months and 6 months to 8 years. RESULTS: PCI was performed in 54.6% of patients with two-vessel disease and 23.7% of those with three-vessel disease. More CABG patients were men (54.7% versus 43.3%). The CABG patients had more peripheral vascular disease (23.1% versus 15.2%) and congestive heart failure (24.5% versus 13.1%) but less renal failure (4.6% versus 9.1%) and fewer prior myocardial infarctions (48.7% versus 53.6%). In-hospital mortality was 3.0% for PCI and 5.9% for CABG (p = 0.005). CABG was associated with poorer survival than PCI during the first 6 months (HR, 1.32; p = 0.135). Survival from 6 months to 8 years was significantly better with CABG for the group as a whole (HR, 0.72; p = 0.005) and for patients with two-vessel disease (HR, 0.68; p = 0.016), and there was a nonsignificant trend for those with three-vessel disease (HR, 0.75; p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 80 years or older with multivessel disease must consider the trade-off between the increased early risks of CABG in return for improved long-term survival.

The preoperative intraaortic balloon pump in coronary bypass surgery: a lack of evidence of effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of preoperative intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) use in isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. A single-center randomized trial demonstrated its benefit. We undertook a multicenter observational study to verify this finding. METHODS: In 29,950 consecutive patients undergoing isolated CABG between 1995 and 2000 at 10 centers, we compared patients with and without a preoperative IABP. We also compared the effect of preoperative IABP use within 7 high-risk clinical subgroups. To validate the previous randomized trial, patients with any 2 of the following were also analyzed: left main > 70%, ejection fraction < 40%, redo CABG, or preoperative intravenous nitroglycerin. RESULTS: Preoperative IABPs were used in 1896 patients (6.3%). These patients had more comorbid conditions and a higher crude mortality than those who did not have preoperative IABPs (9.5% vs 2.3%, P < .0001). Preoperative IABP patients were caliper matched to non-preoperative IABP patients using a propensity score. Excess mortality associated with preoperative IABP persisted (9.2% vs 5.8%, P = .0004). In 7 high-risk subgroups, mortality was significantly higher with preoperative IABP. We used propensity caliper matching to compare preoperative IABP with non-preoperative IABP patients who met trial criteria (n = 4332). Preoperative IABP was associated with higher mortality (11.0% vs 6.5%, P = .0009). Removing emergency patients did not alter results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of preoperative IABPs was consistently associated with higher mortality. Despite detailed statistical analysis, we were unable to show benefit from preoperative IABP use or confirm the results of a single-center trial that demonstrated its benefit. Assessment of preoperative IABP efficacy will require a randomized trial.

Multivariable prediction of in-hospital mortality associated with aortic and mitral valve surgery in Northern New England.

BACKGROUND: Predicting risk for aortic and mitral valve surgery is important both for informed consent of patients and objective review of surgical outcomes. Development of reliable prediction rules requires large data sets with appropriate risk factors that are available before surgery. METHODS: Data from eight Northern New England Medical Centers in the period January 1991 through December 2001 were analyzed on 8943 heart valve surgery patients aged 30 years and older. There were 5793 cases of aortic valve replacement and 3150 cases of mitral valve surgery (repair or replacement). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between risk factors and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In the multivariable analysis, 11 variables in the aortic model (older age, lower body surface area, prior cardiac operation, elevated creatinine, prior stroke, New York Heart Association [NYHA] class IV, congestive heart failure [CHF], atrial fibrillation, acuity, year of surgery, and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting) and 10 variables in the mitral model (female sex, older age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, prior cerebrovascular accident, elevated creatinine, NYHA class IV, CHF, acuity, and valve replacement) remained independent predictors of the outcome. The mathematical models were highly significant predictors of the outcome, in-hospital mortality, and the results are in general agreement with those of others. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the aortic model was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.77), and for the mitral model, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.81). The goodness-of-fit statistic for the aortic model was chi(2) [8 df] = 11.88, p = 0.157, and for the mitral model it was chi(2) [8 df] = 5.45, p = 0.708. CONCLUSIONS: We present results and methods for use in day-to-day practice to calculate patient-specific in-hospital mortality after aortic and mitral valve surgery, by the logistic equation for each model or a simple scoring system with a look-up table for mortality rate.

A multicenter comparison of intraaortic balloon pump utilization in isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

BACKGROUND: Single-center studies suggest substantial variation in intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) utilization. Our purpose is to examine IABP utilization over time and across medical centers. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort of 29,961 consecutive patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery, between 1995 and 2000, at 10 centers (eight in northern New England and two in Canada). RESULTS: A total of 2,678 (8.9%) patients received an IABP. The rate of preoperative IABP insertion was 6.3%, and that of intra- or postoperative insertion was 2.6%. During the 6 years, IABP use increased from 7.0% to 10.3% (p(trend) <0.001). Preoperative IABP insertion increased from 5.4% to 7.8% (p(trend) < 0.001). There was no significant increase in intra-/postoperative IABP insertion 1.7% to 3.4% (p(trend) = 0.34). Adjustment for changes in patient and disease characteristics did not substantially alter these results. The rate of IABP use varied substantially by center, from 5.9% to 16.4% (p < 0.001). Adjustment for patient and disease characteristics resulted in variation from 4.8% to 12.8% across the 10 centers (p < 0.001). The adjusted rates of preoperative IABP insertion varied from 3.6% to 13.7% (p < 0.001), and the rates of intra-/postoperative IABP insertion ranged from 1.0% to 5.2% (p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the rates of preoperative and intra-/postoperative IABP use (r(s) = 0.085, p = 0.815). CONCLUSIONS: During the 6 years, there was a 47% increase in the rate of IABP utilization. Even after adjustment, there was almost threefold variation in IABP use across centers. This variation likely reflects lack of consensus on the appropriate use of the IABP in CABG patients.