Safety and Efficacy of Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Stenosis: 20-Year Experience

[Meta-analysis of the results of eversion carotid endarterectomy and endarterectomy with patch plasty]

AIM

The study was aimed at comparing the results of eversion carotid endarterectomy and carotid endarterectomy with patch plasty in the immediate and remote postoperative periods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature was retrieved by means of electronic databases, with the dates of publications ranging from 1970 to 2019. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria we selected the literature making it possible to carry out a meta-analysis in the immediate and remote postoperative periods. The results were obtained with the help of the Stata 14 software package. Eventually, we retrieved and analysed a total of 2139 articles. Of these, ten were included into the study and contained 3568 patients subjected to 3672 operations (eversion carotid endarterectomy - 1718 and carotid endarterectomy with a patch - 1954). The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: the mean time of carotid artery cross-clamping for eversion carotid endarterectomy was shorter than that for carotid endarterectomy with a patch (4.1±2.9 min); the frequency of using intraoperative temporary bypass in eversion carotid endarterectomy turned out to be significantly less compared with carotid endarterectomy with patch plasty - 13.5% (91/672) and 62.0% (492/793), OR=0.183, 95% CI: 0.136-0.254, p<0.001; the incidence rate of ischaemic stroke in the immediate and remote postoperative periods was significantly lower after eversion carotid endarterectomy than that after carotid endarterectomy with patch plasty - OR=0.452, 95% CI: 0258-0.792, p=0.005 and OR=0.300, 95% CI; 0.155-0.579, p=0.000. The development of restenosis in the immediate and remote postoperative periods was observed less often for eversion carotid endarterectomy compared with carotid endarterectomy with patch plasty - OR=0.604, 95% CI: 0.422-0.864, p=0.006.

CONCLUSION

Eversion carotid endarterectomy was associated with shorter time of carotid artery cross-clamping, lower frequency of intraoperative temporary bypass, lower number of cases of ischaemic stroke in the immediate and remote postoperative periods, as well as those of restenosis in the long-term postoperative period.

Temporal Trends in Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy for Carotid Atherosclerosis: Single-Center Experience with 5,034 Patients

The aim of this article is to review our experience in surgical treatment of carotid atherosclerosis using eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) in 5,034 patients, with particular attention to temporal changes in patients' characteristics, diagnostic approach, surgical technique, medical therapy, and outcome in the early (group A, 1991–1997) versus late (group B 1998–2004) period of ECEA. From January 1991 to December 2004, 5,034 primary ECEAs were performed for high-grade carotid stenosis. Patients treated for restenosis after previous carotid surgery were excluded from the analysis. Group A consisted of 1,714 patients who underwent surgery between 1991 and 1997, and group B consisted of 3,320 patients who underwent surgery between 1998 and 2004. Follow-up included routine clinical evaluation and noninvasive surveillance, with duplex scanning at 1 month after surgery, after 6 months, and annually afterward. Only 3% of patients in group A and 0.6% in group B were asymptomatic, with 23% and 47% of them having preoperative stroke, respectively. In group A, angiography was used for the final diagnosis in 78% of patients. In group B, duplex scanning was performed in 82% of patients and angiography in only 18% ( p < .001). Clamping time was shorter in the latter group (12.4 ± 3.1 vs 14.5 ± 4.1 min, p < .01). Introperative shunting and regional anesthesia were rarely performed in both groups (1.4% vs. 0.4%, p < .01, and 2% vs 0.3%, p < .001). Total and neurologic morbidity was significantly higher in group A than in group B (6.41% ± 0.47% vs 4.81% ± 0.53%, p < .001, and 2.14% ± 0.31% vs 1.23% ± 0.29%, p < .001, respectively). Total mortality was also higher in group A than in group B (1.92% ± 0.24% vs 1.36% ± 0.50%, p < .05), but although there was a trend toward lower neurologic mortality, it did not reach statistical significance (1.04% ± 0.5% vs 0.57% ± 0.25%, p = .074). There was a lower rate of nonsignificant restenosis (< 50%) in group B (2% vs 5%, p < .01), but the incidence of restenosis ≥ 50% was identical between the groups (5.5% for both). Our data show that ECEA is a reliable surgical technique for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid disease. Temporal trends in our patients demonstrated a decline in periopertive mortality and morbidity, despite a higher incidence of preoperative stroke.

Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

Background

There is significant variation in the indications for intervention in patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to describe these indications in a contemporary cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the indications for carotid intervention in patients with recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) that were published between 1990 and 2012.

Results

There were 50 studies reporting on a total of 3524 patients undergoing a carotid procedure; of these, 3478 underwent CEA as the initial intervention. Reintervention was by CEA in 2403 patients and by CAS in 1121. Only 54·7 per cent of the patients were treated for any symptoms and, importantly, just 444 (23·1 per cent of 1926 symptomatic patients) underwent intervention for documented ipsilateral symptoms. None of the studies reported whether the patients were evaluated for other sources of emboli. The remaining 45·3 per cent of patients had asymptomatic restenosis and in the majority of the studies were treated when the degree of stenosis exceeded 80 per cent. The time to repeat intervention was significantly longer in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis, in asymptomatic patients and in patients undergoing CEA.

Conclusion

The reported criteria for retreatment of carotid stenosis were not rigorous and there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the indications for intervention.

Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.

Prospective Randomized Trials of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: An Appraisal of the Current Literature

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as a treatment alternative in patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Recent technological advances in catheter-based intervention have both facilitated the procedure and possibly improved the clinical outcome of this percutaneous intervention. The reduction in device profile of introducer sheaths and stents, as well as the ubiquitous use of neuroprotection devices, has resulted in a greater application of this treatment modality in patients with carotid bifurcation disease. The efficacy of carotid artery stenting must be carefully evaluated against carotid endarterectomy in a prospective randomized manner, as the latter treatment has long been considered the standard treatment of carotid occlusive disease. Several recent clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy have yielded mixed results with regard to the efficacy of this percutaneous intervention. This article analyzed the results of these prospective randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy. Critical appraisal of these trials, as well as relevant methodological issues of these investigations, is discussed in this article.

Techniques in carotid artery surgery

✓The major objective in carotid endarterectomy is to achieve safe and complete removal of intimal plaque and provide lasting, nonstenotic closure. Controversy exists as to which technical variation best achieves this. In this paper, the authors review the operative nuances and outcomes with conventional and eversion endarterectomy, with a focus on the latter. The views expressed reflect specific neurosurgical and vascular perspectives in the context of a multi-disciplinary stroke unit, where carotid stenosis is managed with all available open and endovascular means. The neurosurgical approach was almost entirely conventional endarterectomy with primary repair, while the vascular surgeons used the eversion method with few exceptions.