Hospital outcomes of transaortic implantation of the «MedLAB-CT» prosthesis in patients with combined coronary artery disease: a single-center study

Introduction. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in cardiac surgery, which significantly improves the quality of life and increases its duration. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been actively used, which is especially important in patients with concomitant pathology, in particular coronary heart disease (CHD). In this article, we describe the experience of successful surgical treatment of patients who underwent TAVI in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting.

Aim: To compare the results of open transaortic implantation of the “MedLAB–CT” prosthesis in combination with coronary bypass surgery, in comparison with similar indicators when replacing the aortic valve with a mechanical prosthesis with coronary artery bypass grafting, at the hospital stage.

Material and Methods. Patients operated in the clinic from June 2020 to November 2023. A retrospective observational comparison of the results of surgical treatment of two groups of patients was performed: Group 1 study group, which consisted of 60 patients who underwent open transaortic implantation of the prosthesis “MedLAB-CT” in combination with CABG. Group 2 control group, it included 99 patients who underwent AVR with a mechanical prosthesis and CABG. Using the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) pseudorandomization method, 60 patients were selected from the comparison group.

Results. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly less in the “MedLAB-CT” + CABG group – 57.4 ± 8.3 min (p = 0.003). A statistical difference in the time of aortic clamping was revealed: in the study group had a value of 43.2 ± 5.2 min, in the comparison group 75.4 ± 9.2 min (p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in the duration of surgery (p = 0.224), length of stay in the intensive care unit (p = 0.805) and hospitalization (p = 0.783).

Conclusion. The proposed method of open transaortic implantation of the MedLAB-CT prosthesis in combination with coronary bypass surgery can significantly reduce the time of cardiopulmonary bypass and myocardial ischemia, which has a positive effect on the course of the postoperative period.

1. Monteagudo-Vela M., Panoulas V., Kourliouros A., Krasopoulos G. Is the quality-of-life improvement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation equivalent to that achieved by surgical aortic valve replacement? Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2021;33(6):866–870. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivab186.

2. Wu J., Cong X., Lou Z., Zhang M. Trend and impact of concomitant CABG and multiple-valve procedure on in-hospital outcomes of SAVR patients. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021;8:740084. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.740084.

3. Ferlini M., Fortuni F., Di Giacomo C., Cornara S., Somaschini A., Oltrona Visconti L. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgery in low-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. J. Cardiovasc. Med. (Hagerstown). 2020;21(2):168–170. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000871.

4. Reardon M.J., Van Mieghem N.M., Popma J.J., Kleiman N.S., Søndergaard L., Mumtaz M. et al. Surgical or transcatheter aorticvalve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;376:1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1700456.

5. Hofer F., Hengstenberg C., Goliasch G., Grygier M., Mascherbauer J., Siller-Matula J.M. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2020;109(6):761–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-01901571-2.

6. Ferrari E., Pozzoli A., Klersy C., Toto F., Torre T., Cassina T. et al. Tenyear experience with transapical and direct transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement to address patients with aortic stenosis and peripheral vascular disease. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022;9(12):422. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9120422.

7. Tran Z., Hadaya J., Downey P., Sanaiha Y., Verma A., Shemin R.J. et al. Staged versus concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous coronary intervention: A national analysis. JTCVS Open. 2022;10:148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2022.02.019.

8. Fialka N.M., El-Andari R., Wang S., Dokollari A., Kent W.D.T., Fatehi Hassanabad A. The perceval sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valve: evolution of surgical valve technology. Innovations (Phila). 2024;19(2):125–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845241231989.

9. Bazylev V.V., Voevodin A.B., Slastin Ya.S., Kuznetsova A.A., Patel M.P. Mid-term results of open transaortic implantation of the «MedLAB-CT» prosthesis: prospective clinical study. Cardiosomatics. 2022;13(2):81– 86. https://doi.org/10.17816/CS109401.

10. Lang R.M., Bierig M., Devereux R.B., Flachskampf F.A., Foster E., Pellikka P.A. et al. American Society of Echocardiography's Nomenclature and Standards Committee; Task Force on Chamber Quantification; American College of Cardiology Echocardiography Committee; American Heart Association; European Association of Echocardiography, European Society of Cardiology. Recommendations for chamber quantification. Eur. J. Echocardiogr. 2006;7(2):79–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euje.2005.12.0146.

11. Gomes W.J., Kim K.B., Pinheiro B.B., Souza D.S.R. The no-touch saphenous vein graft in coronary artery bypass surgery. Towards a New Standard? Braz. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022;37(Spec 1):I–II. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2022-0955I.

12. Базылев В.В., Тунгусов Д.С., Воеводин А.Б., Раджабов Д.А. Сравнительная оценка проходимости шунтов к бассейну правой коронарной артерии от правой и левой внутренних грудных артерий в среднесрочном периоде. Грудная и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия. 2021;3(63):195–199. https://doi.org/10.24022/0236-2791-2021-63-3195-199.

13. Eltchaninoff H., Gilard M., Cribier A. TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution. EuroIntervention. 2022;18(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007.

14. Morello A., Corcione N., Ferraro P., Cimmino M., Pepe M., Cassese M. et al. The best way to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From standard to new approaches. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021;322:86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.036.

15. Heo M., Kim M.Y., Lee J.H., Chung S., Sung K., Kim W.S. et al. Aortic valve replacement and concomitant multi-vessel coronary artery bypass: The impact of using the bilateral internal thoracic arteries on early and late clinical outcomes. J. Chest. Surg. 2023;56(3):197–203. https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.22.122.

16. Biancari F., Martin M., Bordin G., Vettore E., Vinco G., Anttila V. et al. Basic data from 176 studies on the immediate outcome after aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass surgery. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2014;28(5):1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2013.07.020.

17. Chalmers J., Pullan M., Mediratta N., Poullis M. A need for speed? Bypass time and outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement surgery. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2014;19:21–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu102.

18. Tsaroev B.S., Bogachev-Prokofiev A.V., Sharifulin R.M., Afanasyev A.V., Chernyavsky A.M. Role of sutureless aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter valves. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2023;28(12):5714. https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-40712023-5714.

19. Fischlein T., Folliguet T., Meuris B., Shrestha M.L., Roselli E.E., McGlothlin A. et al. Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2021;161:920–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.162.

20. Ullah W., Sarvepalli D., Kumar A., Zahid S., Saleem S., Muhammadzai H.Z.U. et al. Trends and outcomes of combined percutaneous (TAVI+PCI) and surgical approach (SAVR+CABG) for patients with aortic valve and coronary artery disease: A National Readmission Database (NRD) analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2023;102(5):946–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30832.