Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Sep;70(3):815-823. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.12.026. Epub 2019 Mar 6.
Management of significant carotid stenosis in those with symptomatic coronary disease remains controversial. Staged and combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with coronary artery bypass grafting has been described. Yet, an understanding of the additive risks of these approaches is poor. This study sought to assess outcomes in patients with clinically relevant coronary disease undergoing either isolated CEA (ICEA) or combined CEA and coronary artery bypass (concurrent coronary artery bypass [CCAB]).
All CEAs in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed. CCABs were identified, as were ICEAs in patients with unrevascularized stable angina, unstable angina, or myocardial infarction (MI) within 6 months of operation. CCABs were compared with ICEAs as well as with a risk-matched cohort of ICEAs. Primary outcomes included perioperative stroke, all-cause death, MI, and these as composite (SDM). Univariate analysis and logistic regression were performed.
There were 4042 patients identified, including 2582 ICEA patients (64%) and 1460 CCAB patients (36%); 61% were male, 91% were white, and 39% had symptomatic carotid disease. Overall stroke was 3.5%, death 1.8%, and SDM 6.0%. ICEA had higher rates of postoperative MI (1.9% vs 0.9%; P = .01) but lower rates of stroke (2.8% vs 4.7%; P = .002), death (1.0% vs 3.0%; P < .001), and SDM (5.1% vs 7.5%; P = .002). After regression, predictors of SDM were congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.4; P < .001), urgent operation (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2; P = .001), and CCAB (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.01-1.7; P = .04). After propensity matching, ICEA continued to have higher rates of perioperative MI (2.6% vs 1.0%; P = .01) and lower rates of death (1.0% vs 3.0%; P = .001). However, there were no longer differences in stroke (3.2% vs 4.6%; P = .10) or SDM (6.3% vs 7.8%; P = .18). Within the matched cohort, predictors of SDM included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .01), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5; P = .01), and symptomatic carotid disease (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.03-2.1; P = .03). CCAB was not significant (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8; P = .18).
In patients with unrevascularized, clinically relevant coronary disease, CCAB reduces operative MI but increases risk of stroke and death. After risk adjustment, MI remains higher in ICEA, but differences in 30-day stroke and SDM between ICEA and CCAB are no longer appreciated. These data suggest that CEA risk undertaken in patients with unrevascularized coronary disease is not inconsequential, and outcomes are similar to those of CCAB.
对于有症状的冠状动脉疾病患者,处理显著颈动脉狭窄仍然存在争议。已经描述了分期和联合颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与冠状动脉旁路移植术。然而,对于这些方法的附加风险的理解很差。本研究旨在评估在接受单纯 CEA(ICEA)或联合 CEA 和冠状动脉旁路移植术(同时冠状动脉旁路移植术 [CCAB])的有临床相关冠状动脉疾病的患者中的结局。
回顾了 2003 年至 2017 年血管质量倡议中的所有 CEA。确定了 CCAB,并在手术前 6 个月内有未经血运重建的稳定型心绞痛、不稳定型心绞痛或心肌梗死(MI)的患者中确定了 ICEA。将 CCAB 与 ICEA 以及与 ICEA 的风险匹配队列进行比较。主要结局包括围手术期卒中、全因死亡、MI 和这些作为复合终点(SDM)。进行了单变量分析和逻辑回归。
共确定了 4042 例患者,包括 2582 例 ICEA 患者(64%)和 1460 例 CCAB 患者(36%);61%为男性,91%为白人,39%有症状性颈动脉疾病。总卒中发生率为 3.5%,死亡率为 1.8%,SDM 为 6.0%。ICEA 术后 MI 发生率较高(1.9%比 0.9%;P =.01),但卒中发生率较低(2.8%比 4.7%;P =.002),死亡率较低(1.0%比 3.0%;P <.001),SDM 发生率较低(5.1%比 7.5%;P =.002)。回归后,SDM 的预测因素包括充血性心力衰竭(比值比 [OR],1.7;95%置信区间 [CI],1.3-2.4;P <.001)、紧急手术(OR,1.6;95% CI,1.2-2.2;P =.001)和 CCAB(OR,1.3;95% CI,1.01-1.7;P =.04)。在倾向匹配后,ICEA 仍有较高的围手术期 MI 发生率(2.6%比 1.0%;P =.01)和较低的死亡率(1.0%比 3.0%;P =.001)。然而,在卒中(3.2%比 4.6%;P =.10)或 SDM(6.3%比 7.8%;P =.18)方面不再存在差异。在匹配队列中,SDM 的预测因素包括慢性阻塞性肺疾病(OR,1.6;95% CI,1.1-2.2;P =.01)、充血性心力衰竭(OR,1.7;95% CI,1.1-2.5;P =.01)和症状性颈动脉疾病(OR,1.5;95% CI,1.03-2.1;P =.03)。CCAB 无统计学意义(OR,1.3;95% CI,0.9-1.8;P =.18)。
在未血运重建的有临床相关冠状动脉疾病的患者中,CCAB 降低了手术相关的 MI,但增加了卒中的风险和死亡。在风险调整后,ICEA 中 MI 仍然较高,但 ICEA 和 CCAB 之间 30 天卒中和 SDM 的差异不再明显。这些数据表明,在未血运重建的冠状动脉疾病患者中进行的 CEA 风险并非微不足道,并且结局与 CCAB 相似。