Noncardiac surgery in patients with aortic stenosis: a contemporary study on outcomes in a matched sample from the Danish health care system

Pre-Procedural Assessment of the Femoral Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Comparison of a Non-Contrast Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography Protocol with Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Source Computed Tomography Angiography

Background: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a non-contrast time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) protocol for the pre-procedural access route assessment of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in comparison with contrast-enhanced cardiac dual-source computed tomography angiography (CTA). Methods and Results: In total, 51 consecutive patients (mean age: 82.69 ± 5.69 years) who had undergone a pre-TAVI cardiac CTA received TOF-MRA for a pre-procedural access route assessment. The MRA image quality was rated as very good (median of 5 [IQR 4-5] on a five-point Likert scale), with only four examinations rated as non-diagnostic. The TOF-MRA systematically underestimated the minimal effective vessel diameter in comparison with CTA (for the effective vessel diameter in mm, the right common iliac artery (CIA)/external iliac artery (EIA)/common femoral artery (CFA) MRA vs. CTA was 8.04 ± 1.46 vs. 8.37 ± 1.54 (p < 0.0001) and the left CIA/EIA/CFA MRA vs. CTA was 8.07 ± 1.32 vs. 8.28 ± 1.34 (p < 0.0001)). The absolute difference between the MRA and CTA was small (for the Bland-Altman analyses in mm, the right CIA/EIA/CFA was -0.36 ± 0.77 and the left CIA/EIA/CFA was -0.25 ± 0.61). The overall correlation between the MRA and CTA measurements was very good (with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.87 (p < 0.0001) for the right CIA/EIA/CFA and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9 (p < 0.0001) for the left CIA/EIA/CFA). The feasibility agreement between the MRA and CTA for transfemoral access was good (the right CIA/EIA/CFA agreement was 97.9% and the left CIA/EIA/CFA agreement was 95.7%, Kohen's kappa: 0.477 (p = 0.001)). Conclusions: The TOF-MRA protocol was feasible for the assessment of the access route in an all-comer pre-TAVI population. This protocol might be a reliable technique for patients at an increased risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Adverse outcomes after noncardiac surgery in patients with aortic stenosis

Whether aortic stenosis (AS) increases perioperative risk in noncardiac surgery remains controversial. Limited information is available regarding adequate anesthetic techniques for patients with AS. Using the reimbursement claims data of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance, we performed propensity score matching analyses to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with or without AS undergoing noncardiac surgery between 2008 and 2013. We also compared the perioperative risk of AS patients undergoing general anesthesia or neuraxial anesthesia. Multivariable logistic regressions were applied to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for postoperative mortality and major complications. The matching procedure generated 9741 matched pairs for analyses. AS was significantly associated with 30-day in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03–1.67), acute renal failure (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12–1.79), pneumonia (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.33), stroke (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.29), and intensive care unit stay (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27–1.49). Compared with neuraxial anesthesia, general anesthesia was associated with increased risks of acute myocardial infarction (aOR 3.06, 95% CI 1.22–7.67), pneumonia (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.32–2.46), acute renal failure (aOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11–2.98), and intensive care (aOR 4.05, 95% CI 3.23–5.09). The findings were generally consistent across subgroups. AS was an independent risk factor for adverse events after noncardiac surgery. In addition, general anesthesia was associated with greater postoperative complications in AS patients compared to neuraxial anesthesia. This real-world evidence suggests that neuraxial anesthesia should not be contraindicated in patients with AS.

Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis and Noncardiac Surgery

The patient with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis presenting for elective noncardiac surgery poses a unique challenge. These patients are not traditionally offered surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement given their lack of symptoms; however, they are at increased risk for postsurgical complications given the severity of their aortic stenosis. The decision to proceed with elective noncardiac surgery should be based on individual and surgical risk factors. However, severity of aortic stenosis is not accounted for in current surgical risk factor assessment scoring; therefore, extensive communication with patients and surgical teams is necessary to minimize a patient's risk. A clear intraoperative plan should be designed to manage the unique hemodynamics of these patients, and a discussion should address postoperative placement.

Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Perioperative Outcomes Following Major Noncardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events and death among severe aortic stenosis patients with and without aortic valve replacement (AVR) before noncardiac surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 491 severe aortic stenosis patients undergoing non-emergency/non-urgent elevated-risk noncardiac surgery between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, including 203 patients (mean age, 74±10 years, 63.5% men) with previous AVR and 288 patients (mean age, 77±12 years, 55.6% men) without prior AVR.

RESULTS

The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in the AVR group (5.4% vs 20.5%; P<.001), primarily because of the lower incidence of new or worsening heart failure (2.5% vs 17.7%; P<.001), compared with the non-AVR group. No significant differences were observed between the groups with and without AVR in the incidence of death (2.5% vs 3.5%; P=.56), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs 1.4%; P=.48), ventricular arrhythmia (0.0% vs 0.7%; P=.51), or stroke (0.0% vs 0.7%; P=.51) at 30-days. At a median follow-up of 4.2 (interquartile range,1.3-7.5) years, overall mortality was significantly worse in patients without versus with AVR (5-year rate: 57.0% vs 32.7%; P<.001). Symptomatic patients without AVR (n=35) had the worst outcomes overall, including increased 30-day and overall mortality rates, compared with the AVR-group and asymptomatic non-AVR patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, AVR before noncardiac surgery was associated with decreased incidence of heart failure after noncardiac surgery and improved overall survival without differences in 30-day survival, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, or stroke. Preoperative AVR should be considered in symptomatic patients for whom the benefit of AVR is greatest.

Percutaneous Aortic Valve Intervention in Patients Scheduled for Noncardiac Surgery: A Japanese Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of preexisting severe aortic stenosis (AS) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (non-CS) remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous aortic valve intervention (PAVI) in patients with AS before non-CS.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled data within a multicenter Japanese registry from 118 patients with severe AS who underwent PAVI before non-CS. Sixty patients underwent percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and 58 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The groups' baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality and midterm mortality after non-CS were compared.

RESULTS

The postprocedural mean pressure gradient was higher in the BAV group than in the TAVR group (35.0 ± 11.5 mmHg vs. 11.5 ± 4.8 mmHg, p < 0.001). The non-CS operation risk did not differ between the groups (p = 0.69). One patient in each group experienced a noncardiac death (p = 0.74), and the 30-day mortality rate after non-CS was 1.7%. Heart failure occurred in 2 patients in each group (p = 0.68). One patient in the TAVR group experienced a non-disabling stroke, and no myocardial infarctions occurred. Consequently, the combined adverse events were 5.0% and 6.9% in the 2 groups (p = 0.48). The bleeding rates during the non-CS were similar in both groups (33.3% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.25). There were no differences between the groups regarding midterm mortality (p = 0.60), whereas 53.3% of the patients in the BAV group required invasive treatment of their AS during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe AS, PAVI before non-CS reduces the AS severity and may contribute to procedural safety during non-CS.

Aortic Stenosis: What Risks Do the Stresses of Noncardiac Surgery or Pregnancy Pose and How Should They Be Managed?

Studies suggest that patients with aortic stenosis have increased risk in pregnancy and delivery and during anesthesia and surgery, although there are significant degrees of uncertainty as to the exact risks and best way to manage such patients. This article reviews current literature regarding impact of aortic stenosis on pregnancy and anesthesia during noncardiac surgery. There are shortcomings in the scientific evidence. Most of the available studies are observational and often retrospective and therefore there is a great deal of bias. This leads to difficulty in drawing conclusions in terms of how to apply the published information to clinical management.

Outcome in elderly patients with aortic stenosis undergoing hip fracture surgery. Results may suggest a different postoperative strategy?

Background

Five to ten percent of patients with hip fracture have severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the impact of AS on early and long-term outcome after surgery for hip fracture.

Methods

145 patients with AS and 283 consecutive patients without AS (control group) aged >70 years referred to Azienda Ospadaliera Universitaria (AOU) Careggi for hip fracture were included in the study. The endpoints were incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction, 30-day and 1-year mortality, and a composite endpoint (30-day mortality + myocardial infarction).

Results

66 patients had mild, 47 moderate and 32 severe AS according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. 30-day mortality was 6.2% in AS and 3.1% in controls. Postoperative non-fatal myocardial infarction and composite endpoint were more frequent in AS than in the control group (8.3% vs 1.1%, p<0.001 and 14.5% vs 4.2%, p<0.001, respectively). The risk was significantly higher for patients with severe AS (28.1%). 1-year mortality in patients with moderate/severe AS was 46% in comparison with 16% in mild AS or in the control group (p<0.001). Coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, age, and aortic gradient were independent predictors of mortality in AS.

Discussion

AS significantly affects postoperative outcome after surgery for hip fracture. Since not infrequently AS is incidentally diagnosed during hospitalization after trauma, which should be the management in these patients after hip surgery? How many might benefit from surgical valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement? A heart team evaluation may be suggested before discharge for most of these patients.

Level of evidence

IV.

An observational study of perioperative risk associated with aortic stenosis in non-cardiac surgery

This prospective multicentre observational study investigated the risk of non-cardiac surgery in patients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS). Patients with AS undergoing non-cardiac surgery in five New Zealand hospitals between August 2011 and September 2015 were studied. Preoperative variables were analysed for a significant association with postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 30-day mortality. Of the 147 patients recruited, 13 (9%) died within 30 days and 33 (22%) had a MACE. Using univariate analysis, patients with severe AS had four times higher 30-day mortality than patients with moderate AS (16% versus 4%, <i>P</i>=0.007). Other factors associated with increased 30-day mortality included having a smaller aortic valve area, smaller dimensionless severity index, concomitant mitral regurgitation, and higher overall surgical risk. Patients with symptoms attributable to AS had a higher incidence of MACE compared to patients without symptoms (36% versus 16%, <i>P</i>=0.011). Variables significantly associated with both 30-day mortality and MACE were age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, emergency surgery, New York Heart Association classification, preoperative albumin level, frailty, and history of congestive heart failure. Using multivariate analysis, emergency surgery, symptoms attributable to AS, preoperative albumin level, and AVA remained significantly associated with adverse outcome. While these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of the study, limited power and multiple simultaneous comparisons, they suggest that patients with severe AS have a higher risk of adverse outcome after non-cardiac surgery than patients with moderate AS.

Hip Hemiarthroplasty in Two Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Ethical Questions from an Anesthesiologist's Perspective

As the population ages, geriatric patients with preexisting cardiac disease are presenting for noncardiac surgery in escalating numbers. The decision to proceed with surgery in such patients often is multifactorial. With this in mind, we describe 2 patients with severe aortic stenosis who required hip operations: one urgent and one elective. Both patients had different anesthetic plans and did well intraoperatively. However, both patients died postoperatively because of their comorbidities. Although published guidelines are sparse, we hope this report will increase awareness and discussion about caring for geriatric patients with severe aortic stenosis.