Premium
Concomitant Carotid Endarterectomy and Coronary Bypass Surgery: Should Cardiopulmonary Bypass Be Used for the Carotid Procedure?
Author(s) -
Bonacchi Massimo,
Prifti Edvin,
Frati Giacomo,
Leacche Marzia,
Giunti Gabriele,
Proietti Piero,
Salica Andrea,
Papalia Ugo
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of cardiac surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.428
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1540-8191
pISSN - 0886-0440
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2001.tb01220.x
Subject(s) - medicine , carotid endarterectomy , cardiopulmonary bypass , concomitant , artery , surgery , incidence (geometry) , stenosis , bypass grafting , cardiology , carotid arteries , anesthesia , physics , optics
A bstract Background and Objectives: With the increasing age of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), a greater number have associated clinically significant carotid disease. This study determined the morbidity and mortality for combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA)/CABG using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for both procedures versus a combined approach using CPB only during CABG. Patients and Methods: Between 1993 and 2000, 65 patients (Group I) underwent combined CEA and CABG using CPB for both surgical procedures and 88 patients (Group II) underwent combined CEA and CABG using CPB only during CABG. The demographic, clinical, and carotid and coronary angiographic data were similar between groups. In Group I, 22 (33.8%) patients and 32 (36%) patients in Group II presented with contralateral carotid artery stenosis. Results: CPB time was significantly longer in Group I, 127 ± 21 minutes versus 98 ± 11 minutes in Group II patients (p = 0.001). The incidence of surgical revision for bleeding and deep sternal wound infection was higher in Group I patients, 2 (3%) versus 1 (1.1%) and 5 (7.7%) versus 2 (2.2%), respectively, but not significant. Hospital mortality in Group I was 6% (4 patients) versus 5.7% (5 patients) in Group II (p = ns). Neurologic complications occurred in 4 (6%) and 5 (5.7%) patients in Group I and II, respectively (p = ns). Postoperative renal dysfunction was more common in Group I patients (22 [33.8%]) then in Group II patients 16 (19%) (p = 0.04). Of these patients, (16 [19%]) 8 (12.3%) in Group I and 6 (6.8%) in Group II required postoperative ultrafiltration (p = ns). Infectious complications were more frequent in Group I patients, 5 (7.7%) versus 2 (2.3%), but not statistically significant (p = ns). Overall actuarial survival at 1, 3, and 5 years, including all deaths, was 92%, 88%, and 82% in Group I versus 93%, 86%, and 81% in Group II (p = ns). Overall freedom from stroke at 5 years was 87.5% in Group I and 86.4% in Group II. Conclusions: We conclude that combined CEA/CABG using CPB only during the myocardial revascularization procedure remains the technique of choice in patients with coronary and carotid artery disease, offering better outcome in terms of perioperative morbidity than a combined CEA/CABG using CPB for both procedures.