Mehdi H Shishehbor1, Sridhar Venkatachalam2, Zhiyuan Sun3, Jeevanantham Rajeswaran3, Samir R Kapadia2, Christopher Bajzer2, Heather L Gornik2, Bruce H Gray4, John R Bartholomew2, Daniel G Clair5, Joseph F Sabik6, Eugene H Blackstone7. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: shishem@ccf.org. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Greenville Hospital System, Greenville, South Carolina. 5. Department of Vascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was a comparison of risk-adjusted outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the open heart surgery (OHS) population. BACKGROUND: Without randomized clinical trials, the best approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains uncertain. Staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonly used. A recent alternative is carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, 350 patients underwent carotid revascularization within 90 days before OHS at a tertiary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS. The primary composite endpoint was all-cause death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Staged CAS-OHS patients had higher prevalence of previous stroke (p = 0.03) and underwent more complex OHS. Therefore, the propensity score adjusted multiphase hazard function models with modulated renewal to account for staging, and competing risks were used. RESULTS: Using propensity analysis, staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS had similar early hazard phase composite outcomes, whereas staged CEA-OHS incurred the highest risk driven by interstage MI. Subsequently, staged CAS-OHS patients experienced significantly fewer late hazard phase events compared with both staged CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and combined CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.70; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS are associated with a similar risk of death, stroke, or MI in the short term, with both being better than staged CEA-OHS. However, the outcomes significantly favor staged CAS-OHS after the first year.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was a comparison of risk-adjusted outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the open heart surgery (OHS) population. BACKGROUND: Without randomized clinical trials, the best approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains uncertain. Staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonly used. A recent alternative is carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, 350 patients underwent carotid revascularization within 90 days before OHS at a tertiary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS. The primary composite endpoint was all-cause death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Staged CAS-OHSpatients had higher prevalence of previous stroke (p = 0.03) and underwent more complex OHS. Therefore, the propensity score adjusted multiphase hazard function models with modulated renewal to account for staging, and competing risks were used. RESULTS: Using propensity analysis, staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS had similar early hazard phase composite outcomes, whereas staged CEA-OHS incurred the highest risk driven by interstage MI. Subsequently, staged CAS-OHSpatients experienced significantly fewer late hazard phase events compared with both staged CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and combined CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.70; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS are associated with a similar risk of death, stroke, or MI in the short term, with both being better than staged CEA-OHS. However, the outcomes significantly favor staged CAS-OHS after the first year.
Authors: Fernando Bassan; Vitor M P Azevedo; Ana Angélica Alves Pimenta Santos; Renan Bernardes de Mello; Annelise de Almeida Verdolin; Roberto Bassan Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: David L McDonagh; Miles Berger; Joseph P Mathew; Carmelo Graffagnino; Carmelo A Milano; Mark F Newman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Christian Weimar; Konstantinos Bilbilis; Jan Rekowski; Torulv Holst; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Martin Breuer; Manfred Dahm; Anno Diegeler; Arne Kowalski; Sven Martens; Friedrich W Mohr; Jiri Ondrášek; Beate Reiter; Peter Roth; Ralf Seipelt; Markus Siggelkow; Gustav Steinhoff; Anton Moritz; Mathias Wilhelmi; Gerhard Wimmer-Greinecker; Hans-Christoph Diener; Heinz Jakob; Claudia Ose; Andre Scherag; Stephan C Knipp Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 7.914