These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of results of carotid stenting followed by open heart surgery versus combined carotid endarterectomy and open heart surgery (coronary bypass with or without another procedure).
    Author: Ziada KM, Yadav JS, Mukherjee D, Lauer MS, Bhatt DL, Kapadia S, Roffi M, Vora N, Tiong I, Bajzer C.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 2005 Aug 15; 96(4):519-23. PubMed ID: 16098304.
    Abstract:
    We compared a novel strategy of carotid stenting (CS) followed by open heart surgery (OHS) to the combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and the OHS approach in patients requiring coronary and carotid revascularization. Between 1997 and 2002, CS as a prelude to OHS was performed in 56 patients, and 111 patients underwent combined CEA+OHS. Adverse events included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and their combinations. At baseline, the CS+OHS group had more unstable/severe angina (52% vs 27%, p = 0.002), severe left ventricular dysfunction (20% vs 9%, p = 0.05), symptomatic carotid disease (46% vs 23%, p = 0.002), and the need for repeat OHS (32% vs 9%, p = 0.0002). Severe contralateral carotid disease was more prevalent in the CEA+OHS group (28% vs 11%, p = 0.01). At 30 days, CS+OHS patients had a significantly lower incidence of stroke or MI (5% vs 19%, p = 0.02). A propensity score was created for each patient to account for baseline differences. In a final logistic regression model that included the propensity score, CS+OHS was associated with a trend toward reduced stroke or MI (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 1.09, p = 0.06) and reduced death, stroke, or MI (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.27, p = 0.12). In conclusion, despite a higher baseline risk profile, patients who underwent CS+OHS had significantly fewer adverse events than those undergoing CEA+OHS. CS may be a safer carotid revascularization option for this challenging patient population.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]