Carotid Interventions in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Narrative Review

Simultaneous carotid artery stenosis (CS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common condition among patients with several cardiovascular risk factors; however, its optimal management still remains under investigation, such as the assumption that carotid disease is causally related to perioperative stroke and that preventive carotid revascularization decrease the risk of this complication. Synchronous surgical approach to both conditions, performing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) during the same procedure, should still be considered in selective patients, in order to reduce the risk of perioperative stroke during coronary cardiac surgery. For the same purpose, staged approaches, such as CEA followed by CABG or CABG followed by CEA during the same hospitalization or a few weeks later have been described. Hybrid approach with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and CABG can also be an option in selected cases, offering a minimally invasive procedure to treat CS among patients whom CABG cannot be postponed. When carotid intervention is indicated in patients with concomitant CAD requiring CABG, a personalized and tailored approach is mandatory, especially in asymptomatic patients, in order to define the ideal surgical strategy. The aim of this paper is to summarize the current "state of the art" of the different approaches to carotid artery diseases in patients undergoing CABG.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the Management of Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review.

METHODS

We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing 5 questions: medical management vs. carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs. CAS in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible.

RESULTS

Medical management compared to carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in MI compared to CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs. CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using pre-planned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that over the long-term, CEA has superior outcome than transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from PAD, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared to a combined carotid intervention and CABG, had better outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated evidence summary will support the SVS clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2-14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

SOCIETY FOR VASCULAR SURGERY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF EXTRACRANIAL CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were published. Since that publication, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been published, and the role of medical management has been re-emphasized. The current publication updates and expands the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: is carotid endarterectomy recommended over maximal medical therapy in low risk patients; is carotid endarterectomy recommended over trans-femoral carotid artery stenting in low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; timing of carotid Intervention in patients presenting with acute stroke; screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and optimal sequence for intervention in patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, as has been done with other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate in symptomatic patients with greater than 50% stenosis and is recommended and performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely before 14 days of onset of symptoms. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients who are at increased risk for carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis 50-99%, who require both CEA and CABG, we suggest CEA before or concomitant with CABG to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on clinical presentation and institutional experience.

Can ABCD score predict the need for in-hospital intervention in patients with transient ischemic attacks?

Background

The ABCD² score is increasingly being used to triage patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Whether the score can predict the need for in-hospital intervention (IHI), other than initiation of antiplatelets and statins, is unknown.

Aims

The ability of the ABCD² score to predict IHI would strengthen the rationale to use it as a decision-making tool. We thus conducted this study to investigate the relationship between the ABCD² score and IHI.

Methods

We analyzed prospectively collected data from consecutive TIA patients over 12 months. We determined ABCD² upon admission and collected the results of in-hospital evaluation, treatments initiated during hospitalization, and follow-up status. We defined IHI as arterial revascularization or anticoagulation required during admission. We used chi-square for trend to examine the association between ABCD² and IHI.

Results

We studied 121 patients. Fourteen (12%) had small infarcts on diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; 38 (31%) had a new risk factor recognized during admission [hyperlipidemia (n = 9), hypertension (1), diabetes (1), carotid stenosis ≥ 50% (16), other arterial occlusive lesions (7), and potential cardioembolic source (4)]. Their percentages increased with higher ABCD² scores. However, among 12 patients (10%) with IHI, ABCD² score categories were equally distributed (10% in 0–3, 9% in 4–5, and 10% in 6–7; p = 0.8). One patient (0.8%) worsened during hospitalization; none had a stroke during follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients with an ABCD² score ≤ 3 had an equal chance of requiring IHI as those with a score of 4–7. The decision to admit TIA patients based on the ABCD² score alone is not supported by our experience and requires further study.