RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Two therapeutic strategies are available when aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease coexist: a transcatheter approach, with percutaneous coronary intervention followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement; and a surgical approach, consisting of surgical aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass graft. AIM: We sought to compare the outcomes of these two strategies. METHODS: The study population consisted of 241 patients who benefited from aortic valve replacement and coronary revascularization (transcatheter, n=150; surgery, n=91). RESULTS: Patients in the transcatheter population were older (83.5 vs. 71.8years; P<0.001) and had a higher Logistic EuroSCORE (11.1% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001). At 30days postprocedure, patients who had surgery exhibited more life-threatening bleedings (12.1% vs 4.5%; P=0.034), acute kidney injury (12.1% vs. 1.3%; P<0.001) and atrial fibrillation (55.6% vs. 8.7%; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 27months, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between the two strategies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-2.04; P=0.07), whereas estimated glomerular filtration rate<60mL/min (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.58-3.12; P<0.001), peripheral artery disease (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37-2.91; P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction<50% (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12-2.55; P=0.012) were associated with a negative prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease treated by catheter were older and had a higher co-morbidity burden than those treated by surgery. The surgical strategy was associated with a higher rate of 30-day complications, but long-term outcomes were similar between the two strategies.