HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Basar Sareyyupoglu Thoralf M. Sundt, III Hartzell V. Schaff Kevin L. Greason Rakesh M. Suri Harold M. Burkhart Soon J. Park Joseph A. Dearani Richard C. Daly Thomas A. Orszulak Permission Requests Google Scholar Articles by Sareyyupoglu, B. Articles by Orszulak, T. A. PubMed Articles by Sareyyupoglu, B. Articles by Orszulak, T. A. Related Collections Coronary disease Valve disease

---

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

Management of Mild Aortic Stenosis at the Time of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Should the Valve Be Replaced?

^a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
^b Division of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Accepted for publication May 27, 2009.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Sundt, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Joseph 5th Floor, Cardiovascular Surgery, Rochester, MN 55905 (Email: sundt.thoralf{at}mayo.edu).

Presented at the Poster Session of the Forty-fifth Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, Jan 26–28, 2009. Winner of the Blue Ribbon as the top Adult Cardiac Poster.

Background: General consensus favors aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG); however, the management of similar patients with mild AS is controversial. We therefore investigated such patients to determine incremental risk of concomitant AVR, progression of AS among those undergoing CABG alone, and operative risk of AVR after prior CABG.

Methods: Between January 1993 and December 2003, 316 consecutive patients with mild AS (mean gradient >15, <30 mm Hg) underwent CABG only (107) or CABG plus AVR (209). Follow-up was obtained by review of the medical record, the Social Security Death Index, and postal questionnaire.

Results: The operative mortality was 3.7% for CABG only and 4.3% for CABG plus AVR (p = 1). Survival at a mean of 5.4 ± 3.6 years was similar. Multivariate predictors of late mortality included comorbid illnesses (Charlson comorbidity score and age-weighted summary of diseases; p = 0.001), small body surface area (p = 0.001), low ejection fraction (p = 0.007), preoperative permanent pacemaker (p = 0.04), and congestive heart failure (p = 0.046), but not AVR. Twenty-three CABG-only patients (21%) underwent subsequent AVR (mean 5.6 ± 1.8 years) without mortality. Aortic valve replacement at the time of initial CABG (p < 0.001) and older age (p = 0.02) were multivariate predictors of freedom from reoperation.

Conclusions: Prophylactic AVR for mild AS at CABG does not confer a survival benefit, and the likelihood of requiring AVR after CABG alone is low in the first 5 years. The decision to intervene on the valve is critically dependent upon the incremental operative risk imposed by concomitant AVR and late survival.