Tomii Daijiro, Pilgrim Thomas, Borger Michael A, De Backer Ole, Lanz Jonas, Reineke David, Siepe Matthias, Windecker Stephan
Department of Cardiology (D.T., T.P., J.L., S.W.), Cardiovascular Center, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Germany (M.A.B.).
Circulation. 2024 Dec 17;150(25):2046-2069. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.070502. Epub 2024 Dec 16.
Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist and share pathophysiological mechanisms. The proportion of patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization varies widely because of uncertainty about best clinical practices. Although combined surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting has been the standard of care, management options in patients with AS and CAD requiring revascularization have expanded with the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Potential alternative treatment pathways include revascularization before TAVR, concomitant TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVR and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention or hybrid procedures. Selection depends on underlying disease severity, antithrombotic treatment strategies, clinical presentation, and symptom evolution after TAVR. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the addition of coronary artery bypass grafting has been associated with improved long-term mortality, especially if CAD is complex. although it is associated with higher periprocedural risk. The therapeutic impact of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with TAVR is less well-established. The multitude of clinical permutations and remaining uncertainties do not support a uniform treatment strategy for patients with AS and CAD. Therefore, to provide the best possible care for each individual patient, heart teams need to be familiar with the available data on AS and CAD. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of the evidence supporting the decision-making process between transcatheter and surgical approaches and the key elements of treatment selection in patients with AS and CAD.
主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)和冠状动脉疾病(CAD)常并存且具有共同的病理生理机制。由于最佳临床实践存在不确定性,需要血运重建的AS和CAD患者比例差异很大。尽管联合外科主动脉瓣置换术和冠状动脉旁路移植术一直是标准治疗方法,但随着经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的出现,需要血运重建的AS和CAD患者的治疗选择有所增加。潜在的替代治疗途径包括TAVR前血运重建、TAVR与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗同时进行、TAVR后经皮冠状动脉介入治疗以及延迟经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或杂交手术。选择取决于潜在疾病的严重程度、抗栓治疗策略、临床表现以及TAVR后的症状演变。在接受外科主动脉瓣置换术的患者中,增加冠状动脉旁路移植术与长期死亡率降低相关,尤其是在CAD复杂的情况下,尽管这与围手术期风险较高有关。TAVR患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的治疗效果尚不太明确。AS和CAD患者的多种临床情况及仍存在的不确定性并不支持采用统一的治疗策略。因此,为了为每一位患者提供尽可能最佳的治疗,心脏团队需要熟悉有关AS和CAD的现有数据。在此,我们对支持经导管和外科治疗方法决策过程的证据以及AS和CAD患者治疗选择的关键要素进行深入综述。