Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When is concomitant aortic valve replacement indicated in patients with mild to moderate stenosis undergoing coronary revascularization?

  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mild to moderate aortic stenosis is a common finding in patients presenting for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and its management is controversial. However, review of available data suggests a surgical strategy for these patients. Recent data demonstrate that 1) progression of aortic stenosis is more rapid in those with leaflet calcification; 2) the addition of aortic valve replacement to CABG in patients with mild to moderate stenosis does not increase hospital mortality when compared with bypass surgery alone; 3) hospital mortality for aortic valve replacement after previous bypass surgery has declined in recent years; 4) aortic valve replacement places the patient at risk for prosthesisrelated complications; 5) the limited 10-year survival (competing risk of death) leaves only a minority of individuals with mild aortic stenosis alive and eligible for aortic valve replacement 10 years after bypass surgery; and 6) combined aortic valve replacement and CABG confers a survival benefit in those with moderate aortic stenosis but not in those with mild aortic stenosis. Therefore, in the coronary artery bypass patient with moderate aortic stenosis, leaflet calcification, and life expectancy greater than 5 years, concomitant aortic valve replacement is advised. In contrast, aortic valve replacement is rarely indicated in those with mild aortic stenosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Carabello B, De Leon AC, Edmunds Jr, LH, et al.: ACC/AHA Task Force Report. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 32:1486–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carabello BA: Is it ever too late to operate on the patient with valvular heart disease? J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:376–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tam JW, Masters RG, Burwash IG, et al.: Management of patients with mild aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1998, 65:1215–1219.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hilton TC: Aortic valve replacement for patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Clin Cardiol 2000, 23:141–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rahimtoola SH: Should patients with asymptomatic mild or moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery also have valve replacement for their aortic stenosis? Heart 2001, 85:337–341.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Filsoufi F, Aklog L, Adams DH, Byrne JG: Management of mild to moderate aortic stenosis at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting. J Heart Valve Dis 2002, 11(Suppl 1):S45-S49. A well-written review of management of mild to moderate AS at the time of CABG, including definitions and recommendations based upon clinical experience.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chambers J, Bach D, Carabello B, et al.: Valve morphology and the rate of progression in aortic stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis 2002, 11:141–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmed AAM, Graham ANJ, Lovell D, O'Kane HO: Management of mild to moderate aortic valve disease during coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003, 24:535–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pereira JJ, Balaban K, Lauer MS, et al.: Long-term survival with and without aortic valve replacement among patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Am J Med 2004, in press.

  10. Odell JA, Mullany CJ, Schaff HV, et al.: Aortic valve replacement after previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 62:1424–1430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eitz T, Kleikamp G, Minami K, et al.: Aortic valve surgery following previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Impact of calcification and leaflet movement. Int J Cardiol 1998, 64:125–130.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosenhek R, Klaar U, Schemper M, et al.: Mild and moderate aortic stenosis. Natural history and risk stratification by echocardiography. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:199–205. Demonstrates that valve calcification reduces survival in patients with mild to moderate AS, supporting replacement in such patients at the time of CABG.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bahler RC, Desser DR, Finkelhor RS, et al.: Factors leading to progression of valvular aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1999, 84:1044–1048.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eitz T, Kleikamp G, Minami K, Körfer R: The prognostic value of calcification and impaired valve motion in combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. J Heart Valve Dis 2002, 11:713–718.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Porenta G, et al.: Predictors of outcome in severe, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:611–617.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lester SJ, Heilbron B, Gin K, et al.: The natural history and rate of progression of aortic stenosis. Chest 1998, 113:1109–1114.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yilmaz MB, Guray U, Guray Y, et al.: Lipid profile of patients with aortic stenosis might be predictive of rate of progression. Am Heart J 2004, 147:915–918.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nassimiha D, Aronow WS, Ahn C, Goldman ME: Rate of progression of valvular aortic stenosis in patients ≥ 60 years of age. Am J Cardiol 2001, 87:807–809.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Otto CM: Aortic stenosis. Clinical evaluation and optimal timing of surgery. Cardiol Clinics 1998, 16:353–373.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aikawa K, Otto CM: Timing of surgery in aortic stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2001, 43:477–493.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Loop FK, et al.: Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999, 117:855–872.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Akins CW, Hilgenberg AD, Vlahakes GJ, et al.: Results of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2002, 74:1098–1106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sundt TM 3rd, Murphy SF, Barzilai B, et al.: Previous coronary artery bypass grafting is not a risk factor for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1997, 64:651–658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoff SJ, Merrill WH, Stewart JR, Bender HW Jr.: Safety of remote aortic valve replacement after prior coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 61:1689–1692.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fiore AC, Swartz MT, Naunheim KS, et al.: Management of asymptomatic mild aortic stenosis during coronary artery operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 61:1693–1698.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers ML, Lawne GM, Crawford ES, et al.: The St. Jude valve prosthesis: analysis of the clinical results in 815 implants and the need for systemic anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989, 13:57–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, Alster JM, et al.: The Carbomedics Top Hat supra-annular aortic valve: a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg 2003, 75:1175–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Puvimanasinghe JPA, Takkenberg JJM, Eijkemans MJC, et al.: Choice of a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis for AVR: does CABG matter? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003, 23:688–695. Sophisticated statistical analysis suggesting that patients 60 years of age or older should receive a bioprosthesis at the time of AVR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gillinov AM, Lytle BW, Hoang V, et al. The atherosclerotic aorta at aortic valve replacement: surgical strategies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000, 120:957–965.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM3rd, White JA, et al.: Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001, 72:753–757.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation/F24, 9500 Euclid Avenue, 44195, Cleveland, OH, USA

    A. Marc Gillinov MD

Authors
  1. A. Marc Gillinov MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mario J. Garcia MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gillinov, A.M., Garcia, M.J. When is concomitant aortic valve replacement indicated in patients with mild to moderate stenosis undergoing coronary revascularization?. Curr Cardiol Rep 7, 101–104 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-005-0020-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-005-0020-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation