Surgical strategies for severely atherosclerotic (porcelain) aorta during coronary artery bypass grafting

Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Synchronous Carotid Endarterectomy and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Patients requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be managed with staged (CEA before CABG), reverse staged (CABG before CEA) or synchronous treatment. This single-center retrospective study evaluated the outcomes in patients undergoing planned synchronous CEA and CABG.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2020 a total of 185 patients with symptomatic triple-vessel or left main coronary artery disease associated with 70-99% asymptomatic or 50-99% symptomatic uni- or bilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis underwent synchronous CEA and CABG at our institution. Study endpoints were defined as mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction at 30 days. Additionally, the composite endpoint of these events was investigated.

RESULTS

At 30 days, mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction rates were 5.9%, 8.1% (permanent [unresolved deficit at discharge] 5.4%) and 3.8%, respectively, and the composite endpoint was reached in 13.0% of patients. Patients suffering from a stroke more frequently had a contralateral 70-99% ICA stenosis (60.0% vs. 17.3%; p < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (73.3% vs. 38.9%; p = 0.013) and prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (mean 119 ± 62 min vs. 84 ± 29 min; p = 0.012). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (odds ratio [OR] 1.024; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002-1.046; p = 0.034), a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 5.097; 95% CI 1.161-22.367; p = 0.031) and peripheral artery disease (OR 5.814; 95% CI 1.231-27.457; p = 0.026) as independent risk factors for reaching the composite endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing synchronous CEA and CABG face an elevated risk of perioperative cardiovascular events, particularly an increased stroke risk in patients with symptomatic and bilateral ICA stenosis. Graphical Abstract available for this article.

Multivessel Coronary Disease and Severe Atherosclerotic Aorta: Real-World Experience

Background and Objectives: Surgical revascularisation of patients with atherosclerosis of the ascending aorta remains a challenge. Different surgical strategies have been described in coronary surgical patients to offer alternative revascularisation strategies other than the conventional surgical revascularisation in patients unsuitable for it. The aim of this study is to compare the real-world outcomes between two groups of patients who underwent off-pump surgery (left internal mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending artery) or a hybrid with a percutaneous revascularisation procedure at a later stage. Materials and Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective observational study. Between the years 2010 and 2021, 91/6863 patients (1.33%) were diagnosed with severe atherosclerosis of the ascending aorta. All the patients were treated with off-pump revascularisation (91 patients), and the cardiologist would decide at a later stage whether the rest of the vessels would be treated with percutaneous revascularisation (25 patients). Results: There was no statistical difference in the various preoperative characteristics, except for coronary artery left main disease (30.30% vs. 64%; p = 0.0043). The two groups had no statistical differences in the perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year mortality rates in the two groups were 6.1% vs. 0%, 59% vs. 80%, and 93.9% vs. 100%, respectively (off-pump vs. hybrid with percutaneous revascularisation procedure, p = 0.1958). Conclusions: Both strategies have high long-term comparable mortality. The off-pump surgery and the HCR procedure at a later stage may be solutions for these high-risk patients, but the target treatment should be complete HCR revascularisation during the index hospitalization.

Concomitant anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR for high-risk patients: A case series

BACKGROUND

Combined on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for concomitant severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention. Extensive aortic calcification and atheromatous disease may prohibit cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping. In these cases, anaortic off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) is a Class I (EACTS 2018) and Class IIA (AHA 2021) indication for surgical coronary revascularization. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has similar benefits when compared with SAVR for this population (Partner 2 & 3). Herewith we describe a case series of concomitant Anaortic OPCAB and TAVR via the transfemoral approach for patients with coronary artery and valve disease considered too high risk for traditional coronary artery bypass grafting and SAVR due to severe aortic disease.

METHODS/RESULTS

Eight patients underwent anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR during the same anesthetic in a hybrid operating room. Seven patients with multivessel disease had anaortic OPCAB via a sternotomy using composite grafts, one patient with LAD disease had anaortic OPCAB using a Da Vinci-assisted MIDCAB approach. All patients then had an Edwards Sapien 3 TAVR placed percutaneously via the common femoral artery. There was no 30 mortality or CVA in the series and all patients were discharged to home or a rehabilitation facility on Day 4-13.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR is a safe and feasible approach to treating concomitant extensive coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis. The aortic no-touch technique provides benefits in the elderly high-risk patients by reducing the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular stroke.

Porcelain aorta does not mean inoperability but needs special strategies

Porcelain aorta is not an absolute contraindication for aortic valve and/or coronary bypass grafting but it requires a special strategy and individualized approach to minimize the risk of embolic complications and technical problems during opening and/or closing the aortotomy.