Hybrid revascularization of the heart and brain: which carotid endarterectomy is preferable?

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse the inpatient and long-term results of hybrid surgery, incorporating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and different types of carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
 Materials and methods. A prospective, open-label cohort comparison study was conducted in 20182020 and included 363 patients with atherosclerosis of both the internal carotid artery (ICA) and coronary artery, who underwent hybrid revascularization of the brain and myocardium. All patients were divided into four groups based on the revascularization strategy: group 1 (n = 107; 29.5%) PCI + eversion CEA; group 2 (n = 98; 27%) PCI + classic CEA with patch angioplasty; group 3 (n = 72; 19.8%) PCI + glomus-sparing CEA according to R.A. Vinogradov; and group 4 (n = 86; 23.7%) PCI + glomus-sparing CEA according to A.N. Kazantsev. The follow-up period was 20.8 8.0 months.
 The patient received a loading dose of clopidogrel (300 mg) before the PCI, and the procedure was then performed in an endovascular operating room. A radial artery catheter was inserted, and the patient received 10,000 IU of intravenous heparin before the procedure. After the PCI, the patient was taken to the vascular operating room, where they underwent the CEA. The patient received 5,000 IU of intravenous heparin before artery clamping. Glomus-sparing CEA according to A.N. Kazantsev was performed as follows: an arteriotomy was conducted along the internal edge of the external carotid artery (ECA), adjacent to the carotid sinus and 23 cm above the ostium, and extending to the common carotid artery (CCA) (also 23 cm below the ECA ostium), depending on the size of the atherosclerotic plaque. The ICA was transected in the area bound by the ECA and CCA walls. Eversion CEA of the ICA was performed, followed by open CEA of the ECA and CCA. The ICA was implanted in its previous position in the preserved area.
 Results. No mortality was recorded during the inpatient follow-up period. All cases of myocardial infarction occurred after eversion and classic CEA: 3 in group 1 (2.8%) and 1 in group 2 (1.02%); р = 0.2. No ischaemic stroke was recorded only in patients who underwent CAE according to A.N. Kazantsev (р = 0.66); however, ischaemic stroke occurred in two patients in group 1 (1.8%), in two patients in group 2 (2.04%) and in one patient in group 3 (1.38%). The highest number of cardiovascular events occurred in group 1, due to carotid glomus injury, which led to poorly controlled hypertension during the inpatient stay. This tendency influenced the composite endpoints (death + myocardial infarction + ischaemic stroke), which were highest in group 1 (5 or 4.6%) compared to 3 (3.06%), 1 (1.38%) and 0 in groups 24, respectively (р = 0.18). The groups were comparable in the frequency of long-term complications. However, the incidence of ICA restenosis was lowest and no ECA thrombosis/occlusion was observed after glomus-sparing CEA according to R.A. Vinogradov and A.N. Kazantsev.
 Conclusion. A hybrid PCI + CEA for brain revascularization should be glomus-sparing. CEA according to A.N. Kazantsev was characterized by lack of procedural arteriotomy complications. This procedure enables blood pressure monitoring in the postoperative period, thus minimizing the risk of cardiovascular complications.