Derek Klarin1, Virendra I Patel2, Shuaiqi Zhang3, Ying Xian3, Andrzej Kosinski3, Babatunde Yerokun4, Vinay Badhwar5, Vinod H Thourani6, Thoralf M Sundt7, David Shahian8, Serguei Melnitchouk7. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Fla. 2. Division of Cardiac, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: vp2385@cumc.columbia.edu. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 5. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 6. Department of Cardiac Surgery, MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 7. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. 8. Department of Surgery and Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The timing of operative revascularization for patients with concomitant carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease remains controversial. We examined the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to evaluate the association of combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: All patients undergoing CABG with known carotid stenosis of >80% were identified from 2011 to 2016. Individuals were stratified by use of cardiopulmonary bypass and whether a concomitant CEA was performed at the time of CABG. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of combined CABG and CEA. The resulting propensity scores were used to match individuals on the basis of clinical and operative characteristics to evaluate primary (30-day mortality and in-hospital transient ischemic attack and stroke) and secondary (STS morbidity composite events and length of stay) end points, with P < .05 required to declare statistical significance. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 994 off-pump CABG patients (497 CABG only and 497 CABG-CEA) and 5952 on-pump CABG patients (2976 CABG only and 2976 CABG-CEA) were identified. For patients who received on-pump operations, those undergoing CABG-CEA had no observed difference in rate of in-hospital stroke (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.21; P = .6), higher incidence of STS morbidity composite events (OR, 1.15, 95% CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03), longer length of stay (7.0 [interquartile range, 5.0-9.0] days vs 6.0 [interquartile range, 5.0-9.0] days; P < .005), and no observed difference in 30-day mortality (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97-1.69; P = .08) compared with those undergoing CABG only. For off-pump procedures, CABG-CEA patients had no observed difference in rate of in-hospital stroke (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.37-1.69; P = .56) compared with those undergoing CABG only. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the differences are relatively small, these data suggest that a combined CABG-CEA approach is unlikely to provide significant stroke reduction benefit compared with CABG only. However, comparison with staged approaches merits further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: The timing of operative revascularization for patients with concomitant carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease remains controversial. We examined the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to evaluate the association of combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: All patients undergoing CABG with known carotid stenosis of >80% were identified from 2011 to 2016. Individuals were stratified by use of cardiopulmonary bypass and whether a concomitant CEA was performed at the time of CABG. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of combined CABG and CEA. The resulting propensity scores were used to match individuals on the basis of clinical and operative characteristics to evaluate primary (30-day mortality and in-hospital transient ischemic attack and stroke) and secondary (STS morbidity composite events and length of stay) end points, with P < .05 required to declare statistical significance. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 994 off-pump CABG patients (497 CABG only and 497 CABG-CEA) and 5952 on-pump CABG patients (2976 CABG only and 2976 CABG-CEA) were identified. For patients who received on-pump operations, those undergoing CABG-CEA had no observed difference in rate of in-hospital stroke (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.21; P = .6), higher incidence of STS morbidity composite events (OR, 1.15, 95% CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03), longer length of stay (7.0 [interquartile range, 5.0-9.0] days vs 6.0 [interquartile range, 5.0-9.0] days; P < .005), and no observed difference in 30-day mortality (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97-1.69; P = .08) compared with those undergoing CABG only. For off-pump procedures, CABG-CEA patients had no observed difference in rate of in-hospital stroke (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.37-1.69; P = .56) compared with those undergoing CABG only. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the differences are relatively small, these data suggest that a combined CABG-CEA approach is unlikely to provide significant stroke reduction benefit compared with CABG only. However, comparison with staged approaches merits further investigation.