Management of Less-Than-Severe Aortic Stenosis During Coronary Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective The management of concomitant mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis (AS) at the time of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is controversial. Here we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CABG and aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus CABG alone in patients with mild–moderate AS. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until July 2018 for studies comparing CABG & AVR versus CABG in patients with mild–moderate AS undergoing coronary bypass. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators. The main outcomes were operative mortality, long-term survival, and reintervention for AS. Results There were 6 unmatched retrospective observational studies with 1,172 patients (median follow-up 4.7 [interquartile range: 4.3 to 5.3] years). Patients undergoing CABG & AVR had less severe coronary artery disease. There were no differences in operative mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.94; P = 0.8). CABG & AVR was associated with greater incidence of stroke, bleeding, renal failure, and mediastinitis. At median follow-up of 5 years, there was no difference in long-term mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR]:1.44; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.51; P = 0.19), but CABG & AVR was associated with 73% lower risk of reoperation for AS ( n = 13/485 versus n = 71/702; IRR: 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.51; P < 0.001). Conclusions In patients undergoing CABG with mild–moderate AS, combining AVR with CABG was associated with no difference in operative mortality but with increased risk of stroke, bleeding, renal failure, and mediastinitis. Long-term mortality was not different, but a risk of reoperation for AS at 5 years was 73% lower. Given the increasingly wide availability and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), one may consider a conservative approach toward concomitant mild–moderate AS.