Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Nov 19;62(21):1948-1956. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.094. Epub 2013 Jul 31.

A direct comparison of early and late outcomes with three approaches to carotid revascularization and open heart surgery.

Author information

1
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: shishem@ccf.org.
2
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
3
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
4
Department of Vascular Surgery, Greenville Hospital System, Greenville, South Carolina.
5
Department of Vascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
6
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
7
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study was a comparison of risk-adjusted outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the open heart surgery (OHS) population.

BACKGROUND:

Without randomized clinical trials, the best approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains uncertain. Staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonly used. A recent alternative is carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS:

From 1997 to 2009, 350 patients underwent carotid revascularization within 90 days before OHS at a tertiary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS. The primary composite endpoint was all-cause death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Staged CAS-OHS patients had higher prevalence of previous stroke (p = 0.03) and underwent more complex OHS. Therefore, the propensity score adjusted multiphase hazard function models with modulated renewal to account for staging, and competing risks were used.

RESULTS:

Using propensity analysis, staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS had similar early hazard phase composite outcomes, whereas staged CEA-OHS incurred the highest risk driven by interstage MI. Subsequently, staged CAS-OHS patients experienced significantly fewer late hazard phase events compared with both staged CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and combined CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.70; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS:

Staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS are associated with a similar risk of death, stroke, or MI in the short term, with both being better than staged CEA-OHS. However, the outcomes significantly favor staged CAS-OHS after the first year.

KEYWORDS:

CABG; CAS; CEA; CI; CVIR; Cardiovascular Information Registry; HR; MI; NIS; National Inpatient Sample; OHS; SSDI; Social Security Death Index; carotid artery stenting; carotid endarterectomy; confidence interval; coronary artery bypass grafting; hazard ratio; myocardial infarction; open heart surgery

PMID:
23876675
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.094
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center