Lessons learned during a 30-year experience with simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting

Objective: A simultaneous operative approach to patients with significant carotid and coronary disease has been suggested as a safe, lower cost, and more convenient alternative to a staged approach. During the last three decades, spanning the career of our senior author, our group has pursued simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in limited circumstances. We previously reported on our results in series from 1984 to 1994 and 1994 to 1999. Based on these prior results and the current literature, we liberalized our inclusion criteria. We are now reporting on a contemporary cohort of 91 patients operated on from 2006 to 2018. Methods: All patients who underwent combined CEA/CABG in 2006 to 2018 were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative database. We compared the current series of 91 patients (group 3) with the 74 patients (group 2) from 1994 to 1999 and the 100 patients (group 1) from 1984 to 1994 who also underwent combined CEA/CABG. We examined demographic and comorbid factors, presence of cerebrovascular symptoms, degree of contralateral carotid stenosis, perioperative stroke, and death. Statistical comparison was made with chi(2) analysis. Results: The groups had similar demographics and comorbidities. Significant differences were noted in the preoperative diagnosis of hyperlipidemia (42%, 51%, 75%; P = .005) and the proportion of patients requiring urgent operations (24%, 47%, 56%; P = .002) during successive time periods. Patients in group 3 were much less likely to have preoperative symptoms from carotid stenosis before operation (55%, 31%, 4.4%; P < .001). Correspondingly, patients in group 3 were more likely to have asymptomatic unilateral carotid stenosis (20%, 55%, 78%; P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate remained stable compared with the first interval (8%, 3%, 2.2%; P = .11). Likewise, the overall stroke rate decreased in the later periods compared with the first series (9%, 1.4%, 2.2%; P = .016). Of the two perioperative strokes recorded for group 3, only one event was ipsilateral to the carotid artery operated on compared with the four ipsilateral strokes of nine total reported in group 1 and no ipsilateral stroke reported in group 2. Conclusions: Based on the favorable results of the previously reported series of CEA/CABG from our group, we continued to liberalize selection criteria for the combined procedure to essentially mirror the standard recommendations for CEA in patients without coronary disease. The current series using this treatment algorithm demonstrates the safety of this approach, with stroke and death rates equivalent to those of CABG alone. These excellent results were achieved in the face of increasingly urgent cardiac procedures. The fact that the majority of the perioperative strokes were contralateral to the carotid artery operated on reinforces the safety of our approach but underscores the significant burden of atherosclerosis in these patients.