Should the aortic valve be replaced in patients with mild aortic stenosis admitted for coronary surgery?
GROUND: The question whether the aortic valve in patients with mild aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be replaced or left alone is still controversial. METHODS: Between 01/1995 and 03/2004, 38 patients (30 male, 8 female, mean age 70.9 +/- 7.8 years) required redo AVR 7.1 +/- 4.8 years after primary CABG, while 202 patients (125 male, 77 female, mean age 72.7 +/- 7.8 years) underwent combined AVR and CABG (1.9 +/- 0.8 grafts/patient). To evaluate the different approaches, the data of the redo-AVR group were compared with the data of a propensity-score matched group of AVR + CABG patients. RESULTS: All patients survived the procedure; the 30-day survival was 94.7 % in both groups. The 1- and 5-year survival rates were 94.7 % and 83.8 % in the AVR after CABG group, and 94.7 % and 86.9 % in the AVR + CABG group, respectively. The late mortality was 28.9 % in the AVR after CABG and 25 % in the AVR + CABG group. Statistically, significant differences r
