Combined mitral valve replacement (MVR) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures have been the norm for patients with concomitant mitral valve disease (MVD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) with no large-scale data on their safety and efficacy.
Methods
The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2002-2018) was queried to identify patients undergoing MVR and CABG. The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its components were compared using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR).
Results
A crude population of 6,145,694 (CABG-only 3,971,045, MVR-only 1,933,459, MVR+CABG 241,190), while a subset of matched cohort 724,237 (CABG-only 241,436, MVR-only 241,611 vs. MVR+CABG 241,190) was included in the PSM analysis. The combined MVR+CABG procedure had significantly higher adjusted odds of MACE (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.14 and OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.93-1.99) and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.31 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 2.05-2.14) compared with CABG and MVR-alone, respectively. Similarly, the risk of post-procedure bleeding, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, sepsis, need for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), mean length of stay (LOS) and total charges per hospitalization were significantly higher for patients undergoing the combined procedure. These findings remained consistent on yearly trend analysis favoring the isolated CABG and MVR groups.
Conclusion
Combined procedure (MVR+CABG) in patients with MVD and CAD appears to be associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, increased mortality and higher resource utilization compared with isolated CABG and MVR procedures. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the relative safety of these procedures in the full spectrum of baseline valvular and angiographic characteristics.