Synchronous cardiac and carotid revascularisation: the devil is in the detail

Brazilian Angiology and Vascular Surgery Society Guidelines for the treatment of extracranial cerebrovascular disease

Extracranial cerebrovascular disease has been the subject of intense research throughout the world, and is of paramount importance for vascular surgeons. This guideline, written by the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), supersedes the 2015 guideline. Non-atherosclerotic carotid artery diseases were not included in this document. The purpose of this guideline is to bring together the most robust evidence in this area in order to help specialists in the treatment decision-making process. The AGREE II methodology and the European Society of Cardiology system were used for recommendations and levels of evidence. The recommendations were graded from I to III, and levels of evidence were classified as A, B, or C. This guideline is divided into 11 chapters dealing with the various aspects of extracranial cerebrovascular disease: diagnosis, treatments and complications, based on up-to-date knowledge and the recommendations proposed by SBACV.

Predicting early mortality following single-stage coronary artery or valve surgery and carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of coexisting cardiac disease and extra-cranial carotid artery disease is a controversial area of debate. Thus, in this challenging scenario, risk stratification may play a key role in surgical decision making.

AIM

To report the results of single-stage coronary/valve surgery (CVS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and to identify predictive factors associated with 30-day mortality.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study of prospectively maintained data from three academic tertiary referral hospitals. For this study, only patients treated with single-stage CVS, meaning coronary artery bypass surgery or valve surgery, and CEA between March 1, 2000 and March 30, 2020, were included. Primary outcome measure of interest was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were neurologic events rate, and a composite endpoint of postoperative stroke/death rate.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 386 patients who underwent the following procedures: CEA with isolated coronary artery bypass graft in 243 (63%) cases, with isolated valve surgery in 40 (10.4%), and combination of coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery in 103 (26.7%). Postoperative neurologic event rate was 2.6% (n = 10) which includes 5 (1.3%) transient ischemic attacks and 5 (1.3%) strokes (major n = 3, minor n = 2). The 30-day mortality rate was 3.9% (n = 15). Predictors of 30-day mortality included preoperative left heart insufficiency (odds ratio [OR]: 5.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63-18.17, p = .006), and postoperative stroke (OR: 197.11, 95% CI: 18.28-2124.93, p < .001). No predictor for postoperative stroke and for composite endpoint was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that postoperative stroke rate and mortality was acceptably low, single-stage approach is an effective option in such selected high-risk patients.

Carotid endarterectomy for critical stenosis prior to cardiac surgery: Should it be done? A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Stroke remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery affecting 2% of patients. Extra-cranial carotid artery disease has been implicated in the aetiology of post cardiac surgery stroke. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with or without staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

A 5 year retrospective study was performed. The primary endpoints were defined as peri-operative stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) with secondary outcome defined as death within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

In total 5924 cardiac procedures and 29 staged CEA's were performed. The rate of stroke and MI was significantly higher in patients undergoing staged CEA pre-cardiac surgery compared to patients undergoing cardiac surgery with confirmed or presumed normal carotid arteries (10.34% vs 1.43%; P = .008 and 13.79% vs 0.38%; P < .0001, respectively). There was no significant difference in the stroke and MI rate in those patients undergoing cardiac surgery with confirmed or presumed normal carotid arteries compared to those with significant carotid disease undergoing cardiac surgery with no prior carotid intervention (1.43% vs 3.16%; P > .05 and 0.38% vs 1.05%; P > .05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid disease is associated with an increased risk of stroke post cardiac surgery. Staged carotid intervention cannot be justified based on these results. Increased risk of stroke post cardiac surgery in patients with significant carotid disease needs to be accepted, as the risk of stroke and MI during carotid intervention pre cardiac surgery is significantly higher.

Does preoperative carotid stenosis screening reduce perioperative stroke in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?

A number of institutions routinely perform carotid artery ultrasound screening before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to identify carotid artery disease requiring revascularization before or during CABG, with the expectation of reducing perioperative neurologic events. The assumptions are that carotid disease is causally related to perioperative stroke and that prophylactic carotid revascularization decreases the risk of post-CABG neurologic events. Although carotid artery stenosis is a known risk factor for perioperative stroke in patients undergoing CABG, it might be a surrogate marker for diffuse atherosclerotic disease rather than a direct etiologic factor. Moreover, the benefit of prophylactic carotid revascularization in patients with asymptomatic unilateral carotid disease is uncertain. Therefore, we have reviewed the literature for evidence that preoperative carotid artery screening, by identifying patients with significant carotid artery stenosis and altering their management, reduces perioperative neurologic events in those undergoing CABG.

Perioperative management of combined carotid and coronary artery bypass grafting procedures

The objective of this review is to provide a high level overview on current thinking for treatment of patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease given that these patients are at higher risk of adverse cardiac events, stroke, and death. This review discusses (1) the current literature addressing perioperative stroke risk in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft, (2) the literature regarding different surgical approaches when both carotid and coronary revascularization are being considered, and (3) the data available to guide optimal management of this complex patient population to minimize complications regardless of the surgical approach taken.

Regional use of combined carotid endarterectomy/coronary artery bypass graft and the effect of patient risk

INTRODUCTION

Although carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease often coexist, many debate which patients are best served by combined concurrent revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA]/coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]). We studied the use of CEA/CABG in New England and compared indications and outcomes, including stratification by risk, symptoms, and performing center.

METHODS

Using data from the Vascular Study Group of New England from 2003 to 2009, we studied all patients who underwent combined CEA/CABG across six centers in New England. Our main outcome measure was in-hospital stroke or death. We compared outcomes between all patients undergoing combined CEA/CABG to a baseline CEA risk group comprised of patients undergoing isolated CEA at non-CEA/CABG centers. Further, we compared in-hospital stroke and death rates between high and low neurologic risk patients, defining high neurologic risk patients as those who had at least one of the following clinical or anatomic features: (1) symptomatic carotid disease, (2) bilateral carotid stenosis >70%, (3) ipsilateral stenosis >70% and contralateral occlusion, or (4) ipsilateral or bilateral occlusion.

RESULTS

Overall, compared to patients undergoing isolated CEA at non-CEA/CABG centers (n = 1563), patients undergoing CEA/CABG (n = 109) were more likely to have diabetes (44% vs 29%; P = .001), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (11% vs 5%; P = .007), and congestive heart failure (23% vs 10%; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA/CABG were also more likely to take preoperative beta-blockers (94% vs 75%; P < .001) and less likely to take preoperative clopidogrel (7% vs 25%; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA/CABG had higher rates of contralateral carotid occlusion (13% vs 5%; P = .001) and were more likely to undergo an urgent/emergent procedure (30% vs 15%; P < .001). The risk of complications was higher in CEA/CABG compared to isolated CEA, including increased risk of stroke (5.5% vs 1.2%; P < .001), death (5.5% vs 0.3%; P < .001), and return to the operating room for any reason (7.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001). Of 109 patients undergoing CEA/CABG, 61 (56%) were low neurologic risk and 48 (44%) were high neurologic risk but showed no demonstrable difference in stroke (4.9% vs 6.3%; P = .76), death, (4.9 vs 6.3%; P = .76), or return to the operating room (10.2% vs 4.3%; P = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

Although practice patterns in the use of CEA/CABG vary across our region, the risk of complications with CEA/CABG remains significantly higher than in isolated CEA. Future work to improve patient selection in CEA/CABG is needed to improve perioperative results with combined coronary and carotid revascularization.