Percutaneous coronary intervention and carotidal endarterectomy: hospital and long-term outcomes of hybrid interventions and predictors of complications

Goal. Analysis of hospital and long-term results with the identification of predictors of complications after combined interventions on the coronary and carotid arteries in the volume of percutaneous coronary intervention + carotid endarterectomy (PCI + CEE). Materials and methods. From 2010 to 2016, 64 patients underwent hybrid revascularization of the brain and myocardium in the volume of PCI + CEE. Initially, PCI was performed, then the patient was transported to the vascular operating room, where he underwent CEE was performed according to the classical technique with modeling the reconstruction zone with a patch made of diepoxy-treated xenopericardium. Brain protection was achieved by invasive measurement of retrograde pressure. After CEE, the patient received a loading dose of clopidogrel 600 mg. The average follow-up period in the long-term period was 53.04 ± 17.1 months. Results. In the hospital period, only hemorrhagic complications were noted (n = 3; 4.68 %) while taking double antiplatelet therapy (acetylsalicylic acid + clopidogrel) and intraoperative heparin. In the long-term period, the leading position was occupied by a lethal outcome (n = 9; 16.6 %). Despite taking double antiplatelet therapy, in 6 (11.1 %) cases, stroke development was noted, in 1 (1.8 %) — MI. In 3 (5.5 %) patients, repeated unplanned revascularization was performed — CABG as a result of restenosis in the stent. The combined endpoint (death + stroke + myocardial infarction) was 29.6 % (n = 16). Significant risk factors for the development of complications in the hospital postoperative period were chronic renal failure (OR 3.7165; 95 % CI 1.2032–11.4800), III–IV functional class of angina (OR 21.9; 95 % CI 2.29–208, 8), a history of stroke (OR 6.82; 95 % CI 1.04–44.7). In the long term, the predictors of adverse events were bleeding (OR 2.02; 95 % CI 1.15–3.55), ejection fraction less than 50 % (OR 2.9; 95 % CI 1.47–5.7) and lesion trunk of the left coronary artery and more than three additional coronary arteries (OR 2.67; 95 % CI 1.27–5.59), and two or less affected coronary arteries (OR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.19–0.62). Conclusion. The efficiency and safety of hybrid revascularization in the volume of PCI + CEE has been proven in view of the minimum number of complications at different stages of follow-up.

[1]  Ihab Ali,et al.  Assessment of carotid artery stenosis and lower limb peripheral ischemia before coronary artery bypass grafting operations: a non-randomized clinical trial , 2020, Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery.

[2]  S. Goldberg,et al.  Coexisting Coronary and Carotid Artery Disease – Which Technique and in Which Order? Case Report and Review of Literature , 2020, Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology.

[3]  K. Paraskevas Carotid endarterectomy is not indicated for most patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting. , 2020, Journal of vascular surgery.

[4]  C. Schlensak,et al.  Carotid endarterectomy versus conservative management of the asymptomatic carotid stenosis before coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective study , 2020, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.

[5]  R. Tarasov,et al.  [Hybrid revascularization of the brain and myocardium: risk stratification for in-hospital complications]. , 2020, Angiologiia i sosudistaia khirurgiia = Angiology and vascular surgery.

[6]  T. Machinis,et al.  "Synchronous versus Staged Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) for Patients with Concomitant Severe Coronary and Carotid Artery Stenosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". , 2020, Annals of vascular surgery.

[7]  L. Olivere,et al.  Simultaneous transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal and coronary artery bypass grafting: A novel hybrid technique , 2019, Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques.

[8]  Н. Г. Карапетян,et al.  Мультидисциплинарный подход в определении частоты выявления ишемической болезни сердца и стратегии лечения у пациентов с патологией аорты и периферических артерий , 2019 .

[9]  M. Eagleton,et al.  The effect of clinical coronary disease severity on outcomes of carotid endarterectomy with and without combined coronary bypass. , 2019, Journal of vascular surgery.

[10]  T. Machinis,et al.  Synchronous Carotid Endarterectomy and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) versus staged Carotid Artery Stenting and CABG for Patients with Concomitant Severe Coronary and Carotid Stenosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, Annals of vascular surgery.

[11]  R. Tarasov,et al.  [In-hospital outcomes of transcutaneous coronary intervention and carotid endarterectomy in hybrid and staged regimens]. , 2019, Angiologiia i sosudistaia khirurgiia = Angiology and vascular surgery.

[12]  Yu. V. Belov,et al.  Surgical approach in patients with bilateral carotid lesion and multiple-vessel coronary artery disease , 2018 .

[13]  A. Gusev,et al.  [Staged treatment of a multilevel lesion of brachiocephalic arteries in combination with coronary and valvular pathology of the heart]. , 2018, Angiologiia i sosudistaia khirurgiia = Angiology and vascular surgery.

[14]  A. A. Shiryaev,et al.  Непосредственные результаты одномоментной операции коронарного шунтирования и каротидной эндартерэктомии , 2017 .

[15]  A. Chernyavskiy,et al.  Hybrid technologies in surgical treatment of patients with concomitant atherosclerotic lesions of carotid and coronary arteries , 2015 .

[16]  Александр Михайлович Чернявский,et al.  ГИБРИДНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ ПРИ ХИРУРГИЧЕСКОМ ЛЕЧЕНИИ СОЧЕТАННОГО АТЕРОСКЛЕРОТИЧЕСКОГО ПОРАЖЕНИЯ КОРОНАРНЫХ И СОННЫХ АРТЕРИЙ , 2015 .