The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Utilization, Outcomes, and Healthcare Resource Use in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Decade of Insights (2011-2020).

It is well known that individuals with liver cirrhosis are considered at high risk for cardiac surgery, with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality as the liver disease progresses. In the last decade, there have been considerable advances in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in individuals deemed to be at high risk for surgery. However, research surrounding TAVI in the setting of liver cirrhosis has not been as widely studied. In this national population-based cohort study, we evaluated the trends of mortality, complications, and healthcare utilization in liver cirrhotic patients undergoing TAVI, as well as analyzed the basic demographics of these individuals. We found that from 2011 to 2020, the amount of TAVI procedures conducted in cirrhotic patients was increasing annually, while mortality, procedural complications, and healthcare utilization trends in these cirrhotic patients undergoing TAVI decreased. Overall, TAVI does seem to be reasonable management for aortic stenosis patients with liver cirrhosis who need aortic valve replacement.

Clinical Outcome of TAVI vs. SAVR in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

The utilization of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) with intermediate-to-high surgical risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) [...].

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Chronic and End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at higher risk of aortic stenosis. Data regarding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in these patients are limited. Herein, we aim to investigate TAVI outcomes in patients with ESKD and CKD. We analyzed clinical data of patients with ESKD and CKD who underwent TAVI from 2008 to 2018 in a large urban healthcare system. Patients' demographics were compared, and significant morbidity and mortality outcomes were noted. Multivariable analyses were used to adjust for potential baseline variables. A total of 643 patients with CKD underwent TAVI with an overall in-hospital mortality of 5.1%, whereas 84 patients with ESKD underwent TAVI with an overall mortality rate of 11.9%. The most frequently observed comorbidities in patients with CKD were heart failure, atrial fibrillation (AF), mitral stenosis (MS), pulmonary hypertension, and chronic lung disease. After multivariable analysis, MS (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 11.1, p <0.05) and AF (adjusted OR 2.42; 95% CI 1.3 to 4.4 p <0.05) were independently associated with mortality in patients with CKD. The most common comorbidities observed in patients with ESKD undergoing TAVI were heart failure, chronic lung disease, AF, MS, and pulmonary hypertension. An association between MS and increased mortality was observed (adjusted OR 2.01; 95 CI 0.93 to 2.02, p = 0.09) in patients with ESKD, but was not statistically significant. In conclusion, in patients with CKD undergoing TAVI, AF and MS were independently associated with increased mortality.

The influence of native aortic valve calcium and transcatheter valve oversize on the need for pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve insertion.

OBJECTIVE: Native aortic valve calcium and transcatheter aortic valve oversize have been reported to predict pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve insertion. We reviewed our experience to better understand the association. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 300 patients with no prior permanent pacemaker implantation who underwent transcatheter aortic valve insertion from November 2008 to February 2015. Valve oversize was calculated using area. The end point of the study was 30-day postoperative pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: Patient data included age of 81.1 ± 8.4 years, female sex in 135 patients (45%), atrial fibrillation in 74 patients (24.7%), Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 7.6% (interquartile range [IQR], 5.3-10.6), aortic valve calcium score of 2568 (IQR, 1775-3526) Agatston units, and annulus area of 471 ± 82 mm2. Balloon-expandable valves were inserted in 244 patients (81.3%). Transcatheter aortic valve oversize was 12.8% (IQR, 3.9-23.3). Pacemaker implantation was performed in 59 patients (19.7%). Aortic valve calcium score (adjusted P = .275) and transcatheter valve oversize (adjusted P = .833) were not independent risk factors for pacemaker implantation when controlling for preoperative right bundle branch block (adjusted odds ratio, 3.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-8.55; P = .002), implantation of self-expanding valve (adjusted odds ratio, 4.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-10.96; P = .005), left bundle branch block (adjusted P = .331), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted P = .053), or valve surgery (adjusted P = .111), and PR interval (adjusted P = .350). CONCLUSIONS: Right bundle branch block and implantation of a self-expanding prosthesis were predictive of pacemaker implantation, but not native aortic valve score or transcatheter valve oversize.