ArticleCardiovascular journal of Africa
A comparison of two different management plans for patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in Cardiovascular journal of Africa. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a prophylactic operation that is used to mitigate the risk of stroke caused by embolism of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid bifurcation. Previously, the large, multicentre, randomised, controlled GALA study found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated using general or local anaesthesia. While this study provided important insights into disease outcomes based on treatment modalities, it did not answer questions regarding the safety of CEA under local anaesthesia in patients at high risk for cardiovascular complications. Here, we examined the use of two different management plans in patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), in terms of their effects on hospital mortality.
methodsThirty-four patients consecutively operated on in our cardiovascular department were included in this analysis. The patients were divided into two groups based on the anaesthetic management plan. The first group consisted of patients who underwent CEA and CABG under general anaesthesia in the same session (GA group); the second group consisted of patients who initially underwent CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia in a separate session (CB-GA group). These two groups were compared in terms of postoperative complications and hospital mortality.
resultsThe incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction was higher in the CB-GA group, with four patients experiencing postoperative myocardial infarction, compared to no patients in the GA group.
conclusionsFor patients requiring CEA and CABG, performing both operations under general anaesthesia in the same session was safer than initially performing CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.