Concomitant carotid endarterectomy and cardiac surgery does not decrease postoperative stroke rates.

Journal Article (Journal Article;Multicenter Study)

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.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Klarin, D; Patel, VI; Zhang, S; Xian, Y; Kosinski, A; Yerokun, B; Badhwar, V; Thourani, VH; Sundt, TM; Shahian, D; Melnitchouk, S

Published Date

  • August 2020

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 72 / 2

Start / End Page

  • 589 - 596.e3

PubMed ID

  • 32067876

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1097-6809

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.10.072


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States