This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Lois Nwakanma Ricardo Bello Ali Khoynezhad Douglas Smego Konstadinos A. Plestis Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nwakanma, L. Articles by Plestis, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nwakanma, L. Articles by Plestis, K. A. Related Collections Coronary disease

Early and late results of combined carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass versus isolated coronary artery bypass

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

*Corresponding author. Address: 15 Charles Plaza, #1703, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Tel./fax: +1-410-347-0836.

E-mail address: lnwakanma{at}aol.com (L. Nwakanma).

Objective: Optimal management of patients with combined coronary and carotid artery disease remains controversial. This study analyzed the outcomes between simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. isolated CABG. Methods: We reviewed the early and late follow-up data of 412 patients who underwent either combined CEA/CABG vs. CABG alone between August 1999 and October 2003. All patients undergoing CEA had at least 80% stenosis of one carotid artery. Data were obtained for pre-, intra-, and early postoperative variables. Late follow-up data (range 1.1 to 69.5 months postoperative, mean 42.4 months, median 42.7 months) included myocardial infarctions (MI), stroke and death. Differences between the two groups were investigated. Univariate and multivariate analysis were carried out to identify predictors of death, MI, and stroke in the entire group. Results: There were 27 patients (6.6%) in the CEA/CABG group and 385 patients in the CABG alone group. There was one patient (3.7%) in the CEA/CABG group who had a perioperative stroke versus six (1.6%) in the CABG group (P=0.38). There were no documented postoperative myocardial infarctions (MI) by EKG and CK-MB criteria in both groups. There were no deaths in the CEA/CABG group versus three in the CABG group (P=1.00). Within the follow-up period, strokes developed in 2 (7.4%) CEA/CABG patients and in 7 (2.3%) CABG patients (P=0.16). Three CEA/CABG patients (11.1%) developed MI versus 19 (6.1%) patients in the CABG group (P=0.40). There were 4 (14.8%) deaths in the CEA/CABG group versus 51 (13.4%) in the CABG group (P=0.77). Freedom from death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was not statistically different between the groups at 60 months (all P>0.05). Conclusions: The addition of CEA to CABG did not increase short- and long-term morbidity and mortality compared to isolated CABG in our group of patients. Combined CEA/CABG can be performed safely in this high-risk group of patients. Prospective randomized study is needed to further substantiate these findings.

Key Words: Coronary artery bypass; Carotid endarterectomy; Combined coronary artery bypass and carotid endarterectomy; Carotid stenosis; Stroke