Effect of untreated carotid artery stenosis at the time of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

Background: Severe carotid artery stenosis (sCAS) is frequently discovered at the time of evaluation for coronary arterial revascularization. However, there has been controversy regarding the optimal management of sCAS. This study evaluated the potential effects of untreated sCAS at time of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in contemporary practice. Methods: This was a retrospective study from a multihospital healthcare system including patients undergoing isolated CABG between 2011 and 2018. Patients were stratified by the presence of sCAS (≥80% stenosis) in at least 1 carotid artery. Perioperative and 5-year stroke were compared, and multivariable analysis was used to identify risk-adjusted predictors of stroke and mortality. Results: A total of 5475 patients were included, 459 (8.4%) with sCAS and 5016 (91.6%) without sCAS. Patients with sCAS experienced more frequent perioperative stroke (4.4% vs 1.2%; P < .001), with most attributable to ischemic or embolic etiologies. The median duration of follow-up was 4.6 years (interquartile range, 3.0-6.5 years). One-year and 5-year survival were both lower in patients with sCAS (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, sCAS was associated with increased risk-adjusted hazard for both mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.60; P = .030) and stroke (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.20-2.59; P = .004). The strongest risk-adjusted predictor for stroke was a previous history of stroke (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.77-3.55; P < .001). Conclusions: This contemporary analysis of CABG procedures reveals that concurrent sCAS continues to confer a significant stroke risk, especially in those with history of previous stroke. Although whether sCAS lesions are responsible for most strokes is unclear, they likely serve as a surrogate for other stroke risk factors.

Surgical explantation of transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), aortic valve reintervention, particularly surgical TAVR valve explantation (TAVR explant), has not been well described. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched through July 2021 to identify observational studies and case series reporting clinical outcomes of TAVR explant. Data on the frequency of TAVR explant, patient demographic characteristics, clinical indications, operative data, and perioperative outcomes were extracted. Study-specific estimates were combined using one-group meta-analysis in a random-effects model. Results: A total of 10 studies were identified that included 1690 patients undergoing a TAVR explant. The frequency of TAVR explant among TAVR recipients was 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-0.6%). The mean patient age was 73.7 years (95% CI, 72.9-74.6 years). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 5.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-8.8%) at the index TAVR and 8.1% (95% CI, 5.4%-10.8%) at TAVR explant. The mean time from implant to explant was 345.0 days (95% CI, 196.7-493.3 days). Among patients with documented device type, 59.8% (95% CI, 43.5%-76.0%) had a balloon-expandable valve and 40.2% (95% CI, 24.0%-56.5%) had a self-expandable valve. Concomitant procedures during TAVR explant were performed in 52.9% of patients (95% CI, 33.8%-72.0%), and the most common concomitant procedure was aortic repair (28.5%; 95% CI, 14.0%-42.9%). The 30-day mortality after TAVR explant was 16.7% (95% CI, 12.2%-21.2%). Conclusions: TAVR explant in patients with a failing TAVR appears to be rare; however, the clinical impact of TAVR explant is substantial. Implanters must be mindful of the need for a lifetime management strategy in younger and lower-risk patients when choosing the valve type for the initial procedure.

Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Definitions, Etiologies and Management Options.

Neurologic complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement are devastating. The etiologies of stroke in this setting are best addressed in an integrated fashion during each phase of the perioperative pathway. The conduct of this triphasic approach will continue to be refined to reduce the stroke risks even further, given the major focus on aspects such as embolic protection devices and valve thrombosis. This neurologic focus in transcatheter aortic valve replacement has transformed the investigational approach to neurologic events in cardiovascular clinical trials, resulting in novel guidelines for the diagnosis and assessment of neurologic injury after cardiovascular interventions.

Appropriate patient selection or health care rationing? Lessons from surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves I trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to (1) compare the safety of high-risk surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I trial with Society of Thoracic Surgeons national benchmarks; (2) reference intermediate-term survival to that of the US population; and (3) identify subsets of patients for whom aortic valve replacement may be futile, with no survival benefit compared with therapy without aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From May 2007 to October 2009, 699 patients with high surgical risk, aged 84 ± 6.3 years, were randomized in PARTNER-IA; 313 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Survival for therapy without aortic valve replacement used 181 PARTNER-IB patients. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 10.5% (expected 9.3%), stroke 2.6% (expected 3.5%), renal failure 5.8% (expected 12%), sternal wound infection 0.64% (expected 0.33%), and prolonged length of stay 26% (expected 18%). However, calibration of observed events in this relatively small sample was poor. Survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years was 75%, 68%, 57%, and 44%, respectively, lower than 90%, 81%, 73%, and 65%, respectively, in the US population, but higher than 53%, 32%, 21%, and 14%, respectively, in patients without aortic valve replacement. Risk factors for death included smaller body mass index, lower albumin, history of cancer, and prosthesis-patient mismatch. Within this high-risk aortic valve replacement group, only the 8% of patients with the poorest risk profiles had estimated 1-year survival less than that of similar patients treated without aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: PARTNER selection criteria for surgical aortic valve replacement, with a few caveats, may be more appropriate, realistic indications for surgery than those of the past, reflecting contemporary surgical management of severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients at experienced sites.