Operative and long-term outcomes of combined and staged carotid endarterectomy and coronary bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal temporal surgical management of significant carotid stenosis and coronary artery disease remains unknown. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass (CABG) are performed concurrently (CCAB) or in a staged (CEA-CABG or CABG-CEA) approach. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Coordinated Registry Network-Medicare-linked dataset, this study compared operative and long-term outcomes after CCAB and staged approaches. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Coordinated Registry Network dataset was used to identify CEAs from 2011 to 2018 with combined CABG or CABG within 45 days preceding or after CEA. Patients were stratified based on concurrent or staged approach. Primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, stroke and death as composite (SD) and all as composite within 30 days from the last procedure as well as in the long term. Univariate analysis and risk-adjusted analysis using inverse propensity weighting were performed. Kaplan-Meier curves of stroke, MI, and death were created and compared. RESULTS: There were 1058 patients included: 643 CCAB and 415 staged (309 CEA-CABG and 106 CABG-CEA). Compared with staged patients, those undergoing CCAB had a higher preoperative rate of congestive heart failure (24.8% vs 18.4%; P = .01) and decreased renal function (14.9% vs 8.5%; P < .01), as well as fewer prior neurological events (23.5% vs 31.4%; P < .01). Patients undergoing CCAB had similar weighted rate of 30-day stroke (4.6% vs 4.1%; P = .72), death (7.0% vs 5.0%; P = .32), and composite outcomes (stroke and death, 9.8% vs 8.5%; P = .56; stroke, death, and MI, 14.7% vs 17.4%; P = .31), but a lower weighted rate of MI (5.5% vs 11.5%; P < .01) vs the staged cohort. Long-term adjusted risks of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.36; P = .51) and mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.36; P=.91) were similar between groups, but higher risk of MI long-term was seen in those staged (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.07-2.08; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CCAB or staged open revascularization for carotid stenosis and coronary artery disease, the staged approach had an increased risk of postoperative cardiac event, but the short- and long-term rates of stroke and mortality seem to be comparable. Adverse cardiovascular event risk is high between operations when staged and should be a consideration when selecting an approach. Although factors leading to staged sequencing performance need further clarity, CCAB seems to be safe and should be considered an equally reasonable option.

Need for Permanent Pacemaker After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Reduces Long-Term Survival.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation has been touted as an inconsequential complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement moves to lower risk patients, the long-term implications remain poorly understood; therefore, we evaluated the long-term outcomes of pacemaker for surgical aortic valve replacement patients. METHODS: A total of 2,600 consecutive patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement over the past 15 years were reviewed using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) institutional database and Social Security death records. Patients were stratified by placement of a PPM within 30 days of surgery. The impact of PPM placement on long-term survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and risk-adjusted survival by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (2.7%) required PPM placement postoperatively. Patients requiring PPM had more postoperative complications, including atrial fibrillation (43.1% versus 27.0%, p = 0.003), prolonged ventilation (16.7% versus 5.7%, p < 0.0001), and renal failure (12.5% versus 4.6%, p = 0.002). These led to greater resource utilization including longer intensive care unit stay (89 versus 44 hours, p < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay (9 versus 6 days, p < 0.0001), and higher inflation-adjusted hospital cost ($81,000 versus $47,000, p < 0.0001). Median follow-up was 7.5 years, and patients requiring PPM had significantly worse long-term survival (p = 0.02), even after risk adjustment with STS predicted risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.48, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The need for PPM after aortic valve replacement independently reduces long-term survival. The rate of PPM placement after surgical aortic valve replacement remains very low but dramatically increases resource utilization. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to low-risk patients, the impact of PPM placement on long-term survival warrants close monitoring.