JOURNAL ARTICLE

Impact of Adding Carotid Endarterectomy to Supra-Aortic Trunk Surgical Reconstruction

Linda J Wang, Sarah C Crofts, Thomas P Nixon, Bernadette J Goudreau, David C Chang, Mark F Conrad, Matthew J Eagleton, W Darrin Clouse
Annals of Vascular Surgery 2020 June 26
32599112

OBJECTIVES: Up to 20% of patients requiring open supra-aortic trunk reconstruction (SAT) have significant carotid artery stenosis. The addition of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to SAT has been described. Yet, additive risks are not well defined and controversy remains as to whether concomitant CEA increases stroke risk. This study assessed the perioperative effects of adding CEA to SAT.

METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), patients who underwent SAT from 2005-2015 were evaluated. SAT+CEA were identified. An isolated SAT cohort (ISAT) was created by removing patients who underwent concurrent secondary procedures. Non-occlusive indications were excluded. SAT+CEA were compared with ISAT as well as a propensity-matched ISAT cohort. Primary outcomes were 30-day stroke, death, and composite stroke/death/myocardial infarction (SDM). Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS: After review, 1,515 patients were identified: 1,245 (82%) ISAT and 270 (18%) SAT+CEA. Most were female (56%), 86% were Caucasian, and 24% were symptomatic. Average age was 65±12 years and SAT+CEA were older (69 vs 64 years, p<.001). CEA+SAT were more likely to be male (53% vs 42%, p<.001), have hypertension (86% vs 75%, p<.001), and diabetes (26% vs 20%, p=.04). SAT procedures included: carotid-subclavian bypass (68%), carotid-carotid bypass (16%), aorta to great vessel bypass (9%), and carotid-subclavian transposition (7%). ISAT were more likely to undergo carotid-subclavian bypass than SAT+CEA (71% vs 54%, p<.001). Overall stroke was 2.3%, death 1.4%, and SDM 4.6%. There were no differences in 30-day stroke (ISAT 2.0% vs SAT+CEA 3.7%, p=.09) or mortality (1.4% vs 1.5%, p=.88). SAT+CEA had higher rates of SDM (7% vs 4%, p=.03). On logistic regression, urgency was a predictor of SDM (OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.5-8.4, p=.003); addition of CEA was not predictive of stroke (OR 1.4, 95%CI 0.5-4.2, p=.52) or SDM (OR 1.5, 95%CI 0.6-3.6, p=.40). After propensity matching, there were no longer differences in demographics or primary endpoints between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS: Addition of CEA does not confer increased perioperative stroke or SDM risk over isolated SAT. Perioperative outcomes appear to be more affected by disseminated disease risk factors than the addition of CEA. In patients undergoing SAT, it is reasonable to consider performing combined CEA in populations with tandem carotid bifurcation disease and appropriate operative risk profile.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
32599112
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"