Modified Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy (mECEA): Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes

Partial Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy versus Conventional Techniques for Significant Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcomes of patients who were submitted to partial carotid endarterectomy (P-CEA) to those of patients who underwent standard conventional CEA with patch closure (C-CEA) and eversion CEA (E-CEA) for a significant carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Data of patients who consecutively underwent CEA from January 2014 to December 2018 for a significant carotid stenosis were retrospectively collected. Primary outcomes included mortality and the occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, both at 30 days and during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of perioperative local complications (i.e. cranial nerve injuries, hematomas) and restenosis during follow-up. P values < 0.5 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Three-hundred twenty-seven patients (241 males, 74%) underwent CEA for carotid stenosis (28.6% symptomatic). P-CEA was performed in 202 patients (61.8%), while C-CEA and E-CEA were performed in 103 and 22 cases respectively. At 30 days, neurologic complications were not significantly different among the 3 groups (2.8% in the group of C-CEA, 2.4% after P-CEA and 0% in E-CEA patients, P = 0.81), neither during follow-up. Perioperative local complications also were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

P-CEA had similar outcomes if compared to C-CEA and to E-CEA in terms of perioperative mortality, occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, and occurrence of local complications. Also, in the long-term, P-CEA, C-CEA, and E-CEA were burdened by similar rates of mortality, neurologic, and cardiologic complications and restenosis.

Long-term outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy in an average-volume community hospital

BACKGROUND

Long-term benefit of carotid endarectomy has not yet been fully investigated in average volume centers. Thus our purpose is to evaluate long-term results of carotid endarterectomies at a medium-volume hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of carotid artery stenosis operated between 2008 and 2017 in a community hospital was done. Demographic and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in short and long-term by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

167 procedures in 159 patients were included. Average age was 72 years, and 65% were men. Twenty-nine percent of the patients were symptomatic and the rest asymptomatic. Median hospitalization was 3 (IQR 3-4) days and the mean follow-up was 56 months. No hospital mortality was recorded. At 120-month follow-up, freedom of stroke was 97.4%, death 97.3%, restenosis, 98.7% and all combined events 92.9% (log rank p = .042) Combined event-free survival was 84.4% in symptomatic patients, and 96.1% in asymptomatic patients (log rank p = .025).

CONCLUSIONS

In a medium-volume hospital combined event-free survival was 84.4% in symptomatic patients and 96.1% in asymptomatic at a 10-year follow-up.

Frequency and Significance of Maneuvers to Dissect the Distal Internal Carotid Artery During Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency, factors associated with, and significance of surgical dissection maneuvers of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information in patients undergoing CEA, we recorded information on demographics, risk factors and comorbidities, dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA, other operative variables and neurological outcome measures.

RESULTS

During the period July 2008 and February 2020 inclusive, 218 consecutive patients (180 males, median age 69.5 years) underwent 240 CEAs. In 117 (48.8%) of them, CEA was performed for a symptomatic stenosis. Dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA were required in 77 cases (32.1%), including division and ligation of the sternocleidomastoid vessels in 66 cases (27.5%), mobilization of the XII cranial nerve in 69 cases (28.7%, with concomitant transection of the superior root of the ansa cervicalis in 11 cases, 4.6%) and division of the posterior belly of the digastric muscle in 8 cases (3.3%). Styloid osteotomy was not required in any case. Smoking was the single predictive factor associated with the use of an adjunctive dissection maneuver (odds ratio 2.23, p = 0.009). The use of a patch was more common in smokers (16% vs 7.1% in non-smokers, odds ratio 2.48, p = 0.05). Perioperative stroke and/or death rate was 0%, not allowing testing for associations with maneuver performance. Two patients (0.8%) developed a transient ischemic attack and 4 patients (1.7%) a cranial nerve injury (CNI), including 2 patients with recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, diagnosed on routine laryngoscopy during planning of a contralateral CEA. There was no association between CNI and dissection of the distal ICA using an operative adjunct (p = 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Several surgical maneuvers are often required to accomplish dissection of the distal ICA beyond the point of atherosclerotic disease. When dictated by operative findings, such maneuvers are deemed safe.

Carotid Endarterectomy with Modified Eversion Technique: Results of a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a wide range of approaches based on personal expertise and preference. We evaluated our outcome with CEA with modified eversion technique (meCEA) under local anesthesia and whether the surgeon's experience could influence it.

METHODS

at our Institution, 837 patients underwent CEA across 8 years. Although the surgical technique was standardized, 2 groups were considered further: meCEA performed by a single Senior Operator (Group A) and meCEA performed by 4 young Consultants (Group B).

RESULTS

A selective shunting policy was needed in 5.1%, together with general anesthesia. Overall operative time was 63.9 ± 15.1 minutes (61.4 ± 12.5 and 66 ± 16.9 minutes in Group A and Group B respectively; P < 0.001) and cross-clamp time 19.3 ± 2.9 minutes (19.0 ± 3.2 vs. 19.5 ± 2.8, P = 0.009). At 30 days, 0.7% TIA and 0.8% strokes were recorded. No differences (p = N.S.) between the 2 study groups in terms of postoperative neurological complications, with postoperative ipsilateral strokes always < 1%. At a median imaging follow-up of 22.5 months, the overall percentage of restenosis was 3.7%, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.954). Twenty-two patients (2.6%) underwent reintervention for significant restenosis, and none of them had an ipsilateral stroke or TIA. Freedom from reintervention for restenosis at 24 months was 97.9% in Group A and 95.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.14). At the median survival follow-up of 37 months, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 97.9%in Group A, and 97.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, CEA with a modified technique is safe and achieves comparable outcomes to those of other established techniques. The reported short cross-clamp time, also in less experienced hands, is an additional strength.

Outcome differences between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, and in-hospital mortality

Objective: We study whether the carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) differ from each other in postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, along with neurological complications (perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack), in-hospital mortality, and estimated medical cost. Methods: This study used data of patients with carotid artery stenosis from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2011-2014) from the United States of America. Based on the procedure that patients received, individuals were categorized into groups of CAS and CEA. Multilevel analyses were conducted to examine the difference in the following outcomes: postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and medical costs between CAS and CEA. The patient age, gender, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, primary payer, emergency department service record, bed size of hospital, region of the hospital, and location of the hospital were adjusted in each model. In addition, preexisting cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) were adjusted for when predicting postoperative ventricular arrhythmia; postoperative CVDs were adjusted for in the model of in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 127,321 carotid artery stenosis hospitalizations were included in our analyses (n = 17,074 in CAS, n = 110,247 in CEA). Multivariate logistic regressions showed that compared with patients underwent CAS, those with CEA had a lower odds of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.66-0.98]), less neurological complications (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.51-0.59] in general; OR = 0.63, 95% CI: [0.57-0.69] in ischemic stroke; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: [0.20-0.32] in hemorrhagic stroke; and OR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.47-0.71] in transient ischemic attack), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: [0.42-0.64]). Generalized linear model indicated patients undergoing CEA had lower medical cost (β = -4329.99, 95% CI: [-4552.61, -4107.38]) than patients undergoing CAS. Conclusions: In short-term outcomes, CEA was associated with a lower risk of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and lower cost as compared with CAS.

Carotid Body Baroreceptor Preservation and Control of Arterial Pressure in Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy

The technique of the eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA), as an alternative to the conventional endarterectomy with primary or patch angioplasty, is an established technique for managing internal carotid artery stenoses and recently its application has been upgraded through the European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines (Recommendation 55: Class 1, Level A). However, the typical eversion method has been associated with postoperative hypertension due to loss of the baroreceptor reflex; the standard oblique transection at the bulb performed in the eversion endarterectomy interrupts either the baroreceptor sensoring tissue, which is mostly located in the adventitia at the medial portion of the proximal internal carotid artery, or even the proper Hering nerve, a branch of the glossopharyngeal nerve. These actions deregulate the natural negative feedback of the carotid baroreceptor. Guided by the anatomical location of the baroreceptor sensor we have elaborated a slight modification of the classical ECEA to maintain as much as possible of the viable carotid baroreceptor sensoring surface. By extending the oblique incision distal to the carotid bifurcation in the medial part of the internal carotid artery stem, an eyebrow-like part of the proximal internal carotid artery is maintained and the axis from the sensoring tissue to the nerve of Hering is protected and following the endarterectomy, postoperative arterial blood pressure levels are lower than in the classical ECEA due to the maintenance of the efficiency of the baroreceptor reflex. During the period from September 2016 to November 2018, carotid endarterectomy was performed in 57 patients. Twenty-eight of them underwent the typical ECEA and 29 patients had the modified eyebrow eversion carotid endarterectomy (me-ECEA). The changes of blood pressure baseline during the postoperative course in ECEA and me-ECEA group were analyzed and compared. Postoperative hypertension was defined as an elevation of systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mm Hg. Patients who underwent typical ECEA had significantly higher postoperative blood pressure values compared with those who underwent me-ECEA. Actually, the mean postoperative SBP was 172.67 ± 24.59 mm Hg in the typical ECEA group compared with 160.86 ± 12.83 mm Hg in the me-ECEA group ( p  = 0.023). The mean diastolic blood pressure in the ECEA group was 65.42 ± 11.39 mm Hg compared with 58.06 ± 9.06 mm Hg in the me-ECEA group ( p  = 0.009). Our proposed me-ECEA technique seems to be related to lower rates of postoperative hypertension compared with the typical ECEA, probably due to the sparing of the main mass of the baroreceptor apparatus; this improved modification (me-ECEA) of the typical eversion procedure could represent an alternative ECEA technique with its inherent advantages.

Outcomes following Eversion versus Conventional Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Database

BACKGROUND

Although the majority of vascular surgeons perform conventional carotid endarterectomy (c-CEA), others prefer eversion CEA (e-CEA). Despite several randomized controlled trials and single center studies, the advantage of one technique over the other is still not clearly defined. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes and durability of c-CEA versus e-CEA in a nationally representative cohort.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018. Patients with prior ipsilateral carotid intervention (CEA and carotid artery stenting) and those undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Multivariable logistic and Cox-regression analyses were used to compare risk-adjusted perioperative and 1-year outcomes (stroke, death, and high-grade restenosis [>70%]) between c-CEA (using direct closure or patch angioplasty) and e-CEA.

RESULTS

A total of 95,726 CEA cases were included, of which 12,050 (12.6%) were e-CEA and the remaining (87.4%) were c-CEA. Patch angioplasty was used in 94.9% of c-CEA compared with 49.7% of e-CEA (P < 0.001). On univariable analysis, no difference in perioperative outcomes was noted between the 2 approaches except for higher rates of in-hospital dysrhythmia (1.5% vs. 1.3%) and postprocedural hemodynamic instability (27.3% vs. 24.3%) after c-CEA compared with e-CEA (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, e-CEA patients were more likely to return to the operating room for bleeding (1.3% vs. c-CEA: 0.9%, P < 0.001). The outcomes of e-CEA did not differ if the common carotid artery was closed primarily or with a patch. After adjusting for potential confounders and stratifying with respect to patch use, there was no significant difference in outcomes between e-CEA and c-CEA when a patch is used in both procedures. However, when no patching was performed, e-CEA was associated with lower stroke/death at 30 days (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.95, P = 0.02) and at 1 year (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Both e-CEA and c-CEA are safe and durable techniques with similar stroke/death and restenosis rates up to 1-year of follow up, as long as c-CEA is performed with patch angioplasty. However, e-CEA is superior to c-CEA without patch angioplasty and is associated with 28% and 25% reduction in 30-day and 1-year stroke/death, respectively.

Brachiocephalic artery stenting through the carotid artery: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

As the population ages and people’s living standards gradually improve, the incidence of cerebrovascular disease in China is increasing annually, posing a serious threat to people’s health. The incidence of brachiocephalic artery stenosis in ischemic cerebrovascular disease is relatively low, accounting for 0.5% to 2% of patients, but its consequences are very serious. Herein, we report a case of brachiocephalic artery stenting through the carotid artery.

CASE SUMMARY

The patient was a 66-year-old man. He came to our hospital because of repeated dizziness and was diagnosed with ischemic cerebrovascular disease (stenosis at the beginning of the brachiocephalic artery). Cerebral angiography suggested that the stenosis of the brachiocephalic artery had almost occluded it. Contrast agent threaded a line through the stenosis, and there was reversed blood flow through the right vertebral artery to compensate for the subclavian steal syndrome in the right subclavian artery. To improve the symptoms, we placed an Express LD (8 mm × 37 mm) balloon expanding stent in the stenosis section. After the operation, the patient’s dizziness significantly improved. However, after 6 mo, the patient was re-admitted to the hospital due to dizziness. A computed tomography scan of the head revealed multiple cerebral infarctions in bilateral basal ganglia and the right lateral ventricle. An auxiliary examination including computerized tomography angiography of the vessels of the head and cerebral angiography both showed severe stenosis in the brachiocephalic artery stent. During the operation, the guidewire and catheter were matched to reach the opening of the brachiocephalic artery. Therefore, we decided to use a right carotid artery approach to complete the operation. We sutured the neck puncture point with a vascular stapler and then ended the operation. After the operation, the patient recovered well, his symptoms related to dizziness disappeared, and his right radial artery pulsation could be detected.

CONCLUSION

In patients with brachial artery stenosis, when the femoral artery approach is difficult, the carotid artery is an unconventional but safe and effective approach. At the same time, the use of vascular suturing devices to suture a carotid puncture point is also commendable. Although it is beyond the published scope of the application, when used cautiously, it can effectively avoid cerebral ischemia caused by prolonged artificial compression, and improper suturing can lead to stenosis of the puncture site and improper blood pressure, resulting in the formation of a hematoma. Finally, satisfactory hemostasis can be achieved.

Reduced Facial Swelling and Incision Numbness After Q-Modified Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with Severe Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy, especially eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA), is a standard treatment of carotid artery stenosis but continues to have deficiencies. We have described a modified ECEA technique that focuses on the quality of life (QoL), called Q-modified eversion carotid endarterectomy (QCEA). The modifications mainly include the skin incision, surgical approach, and arterial anastomosis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of QCEA and the QoL of patients after QCEA.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 109 patients were had undergone ECEA or QCEA from October 2016 to December 2017. The data from all interventions were prospectively collected in a dedicated database. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death through the 1-year follow-up period. The secondary endpoint was the QoL of patients after ECEA or QCEA on the seventh postoperative day, including incision hematoma, incision numbness, facial swelling, and scar length.

RESULTS

QCEA was performed in 41 patients and ECEA in 45 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in operating or clamping time between the 2 groups. The incidence of facial swelling (4.9% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.040) and incision numbness (4.9% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.011) in the QCEA group was significantly lower than that in the ECEA group. The average scar length of the QCEA group was significantly shorter than that of the ECEA group (5.1 ± 1.4 cm vs. 7.6 ± 2.1 cm; P < 0.001). No transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality occurred in either group during the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that QCEA can reduce incision numbness, facial edema, and scar length, thereby improving the QoL of patients.

Surgical Pitfalls in Carotid Endarterectomy: A New Step-By-Step Approach

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical intervention that may prevent stroke in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Our aim was to examine the microsurgical anatomy of carotid artery and other related neurovascular structures to summarize the CEA that is currently applied in ideal conditions. The upper necks of 2 adult cadavers (4 sides) were dissected using ×3 to ×40 magnification. The common carotid artery, external carotid artery (ECA), and internal carotid artery were exposed and examined. The surgical steps of CEA were described using 3-D cadaveric photos and computed tomography angiographic pictures obtained with help of OsiriX imaging software program. Segregating certain neurovascular and muscular structures in the course of CEA significantly increased the exposure. The division of facial vein allowed for internal jugular vein to be mobilized more laterally and dividing the posterior belly of digastric muscle resulted in an additional dorsal exposure of almost 2 cm. Isolating the ansa cervicalis that pulls hypoglossal nerve inferiorly allowed hypoglossal nerve to be released safely medially. The locations of the ECA branches alter depending on their anatomical variations. The hypoglossal nerve, glossopharyngeal nerve, and accessory nerve pierce the fascia of the upper part of the carotid sheath and they are vulnerable to injury because of their distinct courses along the surgical route. Surgical exposure in CEA requires meticulous dissection and detailed knowledge of microsurgical anatomy of the neck region to avoid neurovascular injuries and to determine the necessary surgical maneuvers in cases with neurovascular variations.