Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026
Bilateral Common Carotid Artery Occlusion as an Adequate Preconditioning Stimulus to Induce Early Ischemic Tolerance to Focal Cerebral Ischemia
Published on: May 9, 2013
Utilization of coronary artery bypass grafting with combined or staged carotid revascularization in a national sample
Tomás Daviú-Molinari1, Jashank Sharma1, Claire Ferguson1
1Department of Surgery, State University of New York, Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY.
Insights
Concurrent carotid and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, including CEA and CAS, saw a significant decrease in utilization over two decades. This trend persisted regardless of whether procedures were staged or combined, impacting resource allocation and guideline planning.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Vascular Surgery
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Co-prevalent carotid and coronary artery disease often necessitates combined revascularization strategies.
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) alongside coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) are common treatment approaches.
- Uncertainty exists regarding the utilization frequency of these combined procedures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze trends in the volume of concurrent CABG and carotid revascularization (CEA/CAS) over a 20-year period.
- To identify factors influencing the utilization of staged versus combined CABG/CEA/CAS procedures.
- To describe changes in procedural volume over time and by hospital type.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a nationally representative cohort from the National Inpatient Sample (1998-2020).
- Included patients undergoing concurrent CABG with either CEA or CAS (staged or combined).
- Employed Poisson regression to identify predictors of procedure volume and analyzed trends.
Main Results:
- Analyzed 12,260 patients; 79.1% had staged and 20.9% had combined procedures.
- CEA was more frequent than CAS in both staged (97.5%) and combined (91.7%) groups (P < .001).
- Concurrent procedure volume decreased by 7% annually; increased in urban/teaching hospitals.
Conclusions:
- Utilization of concurrent CABG/CEA and CABG/CAS operations significantly decreased over the past two decades.
- The decline was consistent across both staged and combined procedural strategies.
- Findings necessitate consideration for resource allocation and future clinical guideline development.
Background:
Strategies to treat co-prevalent carotid and coronary artery disease include carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). There is uncertainty with respect to treatment utilization frequency. The objective of this study is to describe trends in the volume of CABGs performed concurrently with staged or combined CEA/CAS spanning a two-decade period and identify factors associated with utilization.
Methods:
A nationally representative cohort was developed using National Inpatient Sample data from 1998 to 2020, identifying patients who underwent concurrent CABG and carotid revascularization. We included patients who underwent either CABG/CEA or CABG/CAS. Sample-weighted volumes of both staged (CABG+CEA/CAS during the same admission) and combined (both procedures on the same day) strategies were used to describe trends. Poisson regression models were used to identify factors predicting increased procedure volume. Interactions between strategy and procedure year, and facility CABG volume and strategy were tested.
Results:
We analyzed 12,260 patients who underwent CABG with concurrent carotid revascularization, of whom 9702 (79.1%) were staged and 2558 (20.9%) were combined. In both the staged and combined groups, a significantly greater frequency of patients underwent CEA compared with CAS (97.5% and 91.7%, respectively; P < .001). In the multivariable model and as time progressed, concurrent volume decreased by 7% per year-a decrease observed across both staged and combined operations. Concurrent procedure volume significantly increased in urban relative to rural hospitals, with urban teaching hospitals reporting higher volume (urban nonteaching hospitals [incident rate ratio = 2.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.87, 2.27]; urban teaching hospitals [incident rate ratio = 3.01, 95% confidence interval: 2.73, 3.32]). Interactions between strategy, procedure year, and facility CABG volume were not statistically significant.
Conclusions:
In a recent 20-year period, utilization of concurrent CABG/CEA and CABG/CAS operations decreased significantly, independent of timing strategy (either staged or combined). Resource allocation and guideline planning should consider the relative frequency of these operations.
