A comparison of results with eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative and the Mid-America Vascular Study Group

Interventions in Carotid Artery Surgery: An Overview of Current Management and Future Implications

Atherosclerotic carotid artery disease has been well studied over the last half-century by multiple randomized controlled trials attempting to elucidate the appropriate modality of therapy for this disease process. Surgical techniques have evolved from carotid artery endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting to the development of hybrid techniques in transcarotid artery revascularization. In this article, the authors provide a review of the available literature regarding operative and medical management of carotid artery disease.

Does the eversion technique have a lower early postoperative stroke rate than the conventional technique in carotid endarterectomy?

A best evidence topic has been constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In carotid surgery, Does the eversion technique (ECEA) has an early postoperative lower stroke rate, As compared to conventional carotid endarterectomy (CCEA)? The outcome assessed was the stroke rate in the early potoperative period (30 days) in the two techniques. The best evidence confirmed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECEA and CCEA regarding the early postoperative stroke incidence.

•

Eversion technique and conventional endarterectomy are the main surgical endarterectomy techniques in carotid artery disease.

•

There is no difference between the Eversion and conventional endarterectomy techniques in early postoperative stroke rates.

•

Lack of randomised controlled trials that compare the two techniques.

Unplanned Shunting Is Associated with Higher Stroke Risk after Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Shunting during eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA) may be technically challenging. Whether shunting practice patterns modify perioperative stroke risk after eCEA is unclear. We aimed to compare eCEA outcomes based on shunting practice.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative (2011-2019) was queried for eCEAs performed for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Univariable and multivariable analyses compared outcomes based on whether shunting was routine practice, preoperatively-indicated, intraoperatively-indicated, or not performed.

RESULTS

There were 13,207 eCEAs identified. Average age was 71.4 years and 59.4% of patients were male sex. Ipsilateral carotid stenosis was >80% in 45.6% and there was severe contralateral carotid stenosis in 8.6%. Early ipsilateral symptoms within 14 days of eCEA were transient ischemic attack in 5.6% and stroke in 7%. The majority of cases were performed under general anesthesia (82.7%). Electroencephalogram monitoring and stump pressures were utilized in 30.9% and 14.7%, respectively. Shunting was routine (25.4%), preoperatively-indicated (1.9%), intraoperatively-indicated (4.7%), or not implemented (68%). Preoperatively-indicated shunting was more often performed in patients with early symptomatic carotid stenosis or severe contralateral carotid stenosis. After routine shunting, preoperatively-indicated shunting, intraoperatively-indicated shunting, and no shunting, median operative duration was 110, 101, 112, and 97 min, respectively (P < 0.001), and ipsilateral perioperative stroke prevalence was 0.6%, 1.2%, 1.9%, and 0.7%, respectively (P = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, longer operative time was associated with routine shunting (MR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15-1.19, P < 0.001), preoperatively-indicated shunting (MR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, P < 0.001), and intraoperatively-indicated shunting (MR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09-1.16, P < 0.001) compared with no shunting. Compared with no shunting, routine shunting (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54-1.54, P = 0.74) and preoperatively-indicated shunting (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.47-4.99, P = 0.48) were not associated with stroke; however, intraoperatively-indicated shunting was associated with increased stroke (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.41-5.3, P = 0.003). Shunting type was not associated with perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperatively-indicated shunting during eCEA was associated with longest operative duration and increased perioperative stroke risk. Surgeon familiarity with shunting and planning to shunt in advance may permit more expeditious shunting and prevent stroke.

Literature review of primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure

BACKGROUND

Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies.

RESULTS

The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure.

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.

Presentation and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in active smokers

OBJECTIVE

Smoking is a significant modifiable risk factor in the pathogenesis of carotid artery disease and has been shown to be a predictor of worse outcomes after vascular surgery. However, the effect of active smoking on outcomes of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy is unknown. This study analyzed the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy by smoking status in a large national database.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted carotid endarterectomy files (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified according to smoking status, and outcomes were compared using propensity score matching (1:1) based on preoperative characteristics.

RESULTS

During the study period, 26,293 patients underwent carotid endarterectomy, with 19,282 (73.34%) nonsmokers and 7011 (26.66%) smokers. Smokers were more likely to be younger, to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to have a symptomatic presentation, and to have higher anatomic risk (P < .05). Smokers were also more likely to have emergent surgery, to have general anesthesia, and to be reintubated (P < .05). After propensity matching, 5354 nonsmokers were matched with 5354 smokers who underwent carotid endarterectomy. Smokers were at significantly higher risk for death, with an odds ratio of 1.93 (confidence interval, 1.18-3.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers are at increased risk for death after carotid endarterectomy compared with matched counterparts. Smoking should be considered an important risk factor for worse outcomes, and patients should be strongly counseled on the importance of smoking cessation before undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

The Role of Carotid Stump Pressure in Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This review evaluates the carotid stump pressure (CSP)’s role as a single parameter at any given pressure as an indicator for selective shunting, or vice versa, in carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A systematic review of literature in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from 1969 to 2019 was conducted. The primary end point was set at 0 to 30-day mortality, ischemic stroke (IS), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and a secondary point at recognition of an optimal CSP pressure. The data was subjected to meta-analytics. The odds ratio (OR) was reported at 95% confidence interval (CI). This study has been registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019119851. The pooled analysis on the primary endpoint of IS demonstrated higher incidence of stroke in shunted CEAs solely based on CSP measurement alone (OR, 0.14, 95%CI: 0.08–0.24, I²=48%, p<0.001). Sub group analysis demonstrated similar patterns at 25 mmHg (OR, 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01–0.5, p<0.01), 30 mmHg (OR, 0.07, 95%CI: 0.01–0.63, p=0.02) and 40 mmHg (OR, 0.23, 95%CI: 0.09–0.57, p<0.01). This effect on end points of mortality and TIA demonstrated no benefit in either direction. CSP, as a single criterion, is not a reliable parameter in reduction of TIA, mortality, and IS at any given pressure range.

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.

Early hemodynamic characteristics of eversion and patch carotid endarterectomies

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently the gold standard in the operative management of carotid artery stenosis. While eversion and patch CEAs vary greatly in technique, various studies have determined equivalence with regard to clinical outcomes. However, the hemodynamic differences following each procedure are not known. This study aimed to investigate any early hemodynamic differences between eversion and patch CEAs.

METHODS

All CEAs performed at our institution from March 2012 to June 2018 were aggregated in a retrospective database by querying the 35301 CPT code from the electronic medical record system. Variables collected included gender, age, laterality of CEA, type of procedure, and pre- and post-operative duplex ultrasound (DUS) date and quantitative findings. Exclusion criteria included any procedure with incomplete data, a post-operative DUS > 90 days following the procedure, CEAs with concomitant bypass(es), isolated external carotid artery (ECA) endarterectomies, and re-do CEAs.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-one CEAs were performed in 161 unique patients. There were 101 males and 60 females, with an average age of 69.7 (38-96; ± 9.36). 63 CEAs were excluded from analysis: 51 due to incomplete data, eight with a > 90 day post-operative DUS, 2 isolated ECA endarterectomies, 1 CEA with a carotid-subclavian bypass, and 1 re-do CEA secondary to an infected patch. Twenty-seven eversion and 81 patch CEAs were included in analysis. There was no difference in procedure laterality or gender between the two cohorts (p > 0.05); however, patients who received an eversion CEA were older on average (73.3 vs 67.5; p = 0.002). Pre-operative peak systolic velocities (PSV) of the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA), distal ICA, and distal common artery (CCA) were all similar (p > 0.05). Post-operative DUS was performed at 17.0 and 12.9 days in the eversion and patch CEA cohorts, respectively (p = 0.12). Post-operative PSV and change in PSV were similar for all three aforementioned segments (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although eversion and patch CEAs vary greatly in technique and post-procedure anatomy, there was no significant difference in post-operative PSV or change in PSV at or around the carotid bifurcation.

Does surgical technique influence the postoperative hemodynamic disturbances and neurological outcomes in carotid endarterectomy?

INTRODUCTION

The carotid endarterectomy is already well established in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative blood pressure changes, stroke rate and postoperative complications following eversion carotid endarterectomy (E-CEA) and conventional carotid endarterectomy (C-CEA).

METHODS

From 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2017 consecutive patients admitted to our department with symptomatic or asymptomatic ICA stenosis were included in this retrospective study. During the 7-year period, 175 CEAs were performed in 166 consecutive patients (25 females, 141 males; mean age 70.6 ± 14.4 years; range 47 to 92 years).

RESULTS

The mean operative and cross-clamping time were shorter for E-CEA (72 ± 14.3 minutes vs. 115 ± 17.4 minutes, p < .001), (22 ± 7.7 vs 34 ± 6.3, p < .001) respectively. No significant difference was noted between the groups for the occurrence of perioperative stroke (p = .501). No significant difference was noted for postoperative blood pressure difference on the 6th hour and the 24th hour after surgery between E-CEA and C-CEA (p = .130).

CONCLUSIONS

E-CEA was associated with significant reduction in operative time and cross-clamping time however, increases postoperative bleeding. No difference was noted for postoperative stroke and blood pressure distortion between E-CEA and C-CEA.

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.

Hybrid Surgery for Nontaper or Nonstump Lesions in Symptomatic Subacute or Chronic Internal Carotid Occlusion: A Better Solution

BACKGROUND

Internal carotid artery occlusion (ICAO) causes transient ischemic attack and cerebral infarction. ICAO management remains clinically challenging. We discuss a hybrid treatment combining carotid endarterectomy and endovascular intervention (E-I) for patients with nontaper or nonstump lesions of symptomatic ICAO.

METHODS

We treated 32 patients with consecutive nontaper or nonstump ICAO with neurological symptoms with hybrid treatment or E-I. We analyzed the epidemiology, symptoms, angiographic morphology, technical success rate, and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients, 17 were treated with hybrid surgery and 15, E-I. The demographic data and lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The overall recanalization success rate was 71.9%. The rate for hybrid surgery was better than that for E-I (88.2% vs. 53.3%). The postoperative cerebral hyperperfusion rate showed no difference between the 2 groups (11.8% vs. 6.7%). Ipsilateral cerebral perfusion improved after treatment. The mean transition time and time to peak were greater than normal (normal values, <6 seconds and <8 seconds, respectively). Both increased significantly after treatment (mean transition time, 11.30 seconds vs. 7.25 seconds; time to peak, 19.30 seconds vs. 15.50 seconds). The incidence of perioperative complications from hybrid surgery was less than that with E-I (5.9% vs. 40.0%). Recurrent cerebrovascular events (5.9% vs. 13.3%) and the 3-month modified Rankin scale score (2.76 ± 0.66 vs. 2.93 ± 0.70) did not differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recanalization of nontaper or nonstump ICAO with hybrid treatment was more successful than that with E-I, with fewer perioperative complications. The carotid endarterectomy procedure enables easier wire crossing across the occlusion and reduces potential technology-related complications by requiring a shorter lesion and fewer dissections and minimizing the effect of calcification.

Carotid stenosis - basing treatment on individual patients' needs. Optimal medical therapy alone or accompanied by stenting or endarterectomy

Though carotid artery stenosis is a known origin of stroke, risk assessment and treatment modality are not yet satisfactorily established. Guideline updates according to latest evidence are expected shortly. Current clinical weakness concerns in particular the identification of "at-risk" patients. Beside the symptomatic status and the degree of stenosis, further signs of unstable plaque on carotid and cerebral imaging should be considered. Moreover, medical and endovascular therapy are continuously improving. Randomized trials and meta-analyses have shown similar long-term results for protected carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy. However, endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased 30-day rate of minor strokes. Newly developed embolic protection devices could possibly compensate for this disadvantage. Furthermore, high-level optimal medical therapy alone is currently being evaluated comparatively. We assume that a comprehensive evaluation of plaque vulnerability, serious consideration of advanced embolic protection, and more space for optimal medical therapy alone according to latest evidence, will benefit patients with carotid stenosis.

Outcomes of mini-incision eversion carotid endarterectomy combined with nontouch isolation technique of the internal carotid artery

OBJECTIVE

We developed a mini-incision eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedure (the Jikei method CEA) to prevent perioperative embolic stroke. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze perioperative and midterm outcomes after the Jikei method CEA.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with the Jikei method CEA at our institution between January 2006 and June 2014. The primary end point was a major adverse event, which included death, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and myocardial infarction, within 30 days of CEA. Secondary end points were postoperative ipsilateral stroke and restenosis.

RESULTS

We retrospectively studied 120 lesions in 110 patients. The mean age was 72.2 ± 8.0 years. With regard to the 120 lesions, 56 lesions (46.7%) were symptomatic and 73 lesions (60.8%) showed ≥90% severe stenosis. The mean length of the skin incision was 3.2 ± 0.5 cm. The mean operative time, volume of blood loss, and internal carotid artery clamp time were 171.0 ± 50.7 minutes, 161.6 ± 110.8 mL, and 35.7 ± 10.8 minutes, respectively. There were three perioperative major adverse events (2.5%), including two strokes (1.7%) and one intracranial hemorrhage (0.8%) resulting from hyperperfusion syndrome. The median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (range, 2-303 days). The mean follow-up was 3.9 ± 2.2 years. There was no case of ipsilateral stroke during the follow-up period. The freedom from ipsilateral stroke at 5 years was 98.3%. Three lesions (2.5%) developed restenosis. The freedom from restenosis was 97.2% at 5 years. The freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 99.0% because carotid artery stent placement was necessary in one patient with severe restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The Jikei method CEA was safe and effective in preventing perioperative and midterm stroke.

Comparison of Direct and Less Invasive Techniques for the Treatment of Severe Aorto-Iliac Occlusive Disease

BACKGROUND

Severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) is traditionally treated with aorto-bifemoral bypass (ABF) or aorto-unifemoral bypass (AUF). However, cross-femoral bypass (CFB) and hybrid femoral endarterectomy and patch angioplasty with iliac stenting (EPS) have gained popularity as less invasive options. We sought to compare 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation rates between open surgical (ABF and AUF) and 2 less invasive reconstruction techniques (CFB and EPS) using a large, multicenter cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent either ABF/AUF or CFB/EPS for AIOD between 2006 and 2013 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry. Baseline patient and periprocedural variables were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to predict the likelihood of more invasive repair. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models were performed for 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation.

RESULTS

1872 patients underwent procedures for AIOD, including 1,133 ABF/AUF and 739 CFB/EPS, during the study period. Indication was critical limb ischemia in 47.3% (n = 886). Median follow-up time was 305 days (range, 10-406). After PSM, the matched cohort included 1,094 ABF/AUF and 711 CFB/EPS patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that patient factors and procedure indication were significant predictors of 1-year mortality and major amputation, but not procedure type. ABF/AUF was associated with improved primary patency over CFB/EPS at 1 year (94.1% ± 1.1% vs. 92.3% ± 1.5%, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.94; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched cohort from a multicenter vascular surgery registry, a direct approach to AIOD (ABF/AUF) demonstrated better 1-year primary patency than commonly used less invasive strategies. However, treatment approach was not a predictor of 1-year survival or limb salvage, suggesting that patient factors and procedure indication have a greater impact on outcome.

Carotid Endarterectomy in the Southern California Vascular Outcomes Improvement Collaborative

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to examine the variation in practice patterns and associated outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the Southern California Vascular Outcomes Improvement Collaborative (So Cal VOICe), a regional quality group of the Vascular Quality Initiative.

METHODS

All cases entered in the CEA registry by the So Cal VOICe were included in the study.

RESULTS

From September 2010 through September 2015, 1,110 CEA cases were entered by 9 centers in the So Cal VOICe. Six hundred seventy-seven patients (61%) were male with mean age of 73 years. Nine hundred eighty-eight (89%) were hypertensive, 655 (59%) were prior or current smokers, 389 (35%) were diabetics, and 233 (21%) had coronary artery disease. Eight hundred twenty-one (74%) patients were asymptomatic (no history of ipsilateral neurologic event). The percentage of asymptomatic patients varied across the 9 centers from 57% to 91%. Preoperatively, 344 (31%) underwent cardiac stress test, center variation 13-75%, 500 (45%) underwent only duplex, center variation 11-72%. Intraoperatively, 600 (54%) underwent routine shunting, whereas 67 (6%) were shunted for an indication, and 444 (40%) were not shunted. Wound drainage was used in 422 (38%) cases, center variation 2-98%. Completion imaging by duplex and/or angiogram was performed in 766 (69%) cases, center variation 0-100%. Postoperatively, 11 (1%) patients had a new ipsilateral postoperative neurologic event, center variation 0-1.3%, 6 (0.5%) had a postoperative myocardial infarction, center variation 0-1.3%, and 8 (0.7%) required return to operating room for bleeding, center variation 0-1.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite wide variation in practice patterns surrounding CEA in the So Cal VOICe, postoperative complications were uniformly low. Further work will focus on identifying practices that can be modified to improve cost-effectiveness while maintaining excellent outcomes.

Surgical Treatment of Residual Distal Intimal Flap during Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) is an effective surgical technique for the treatment of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. However, a residual distal intimal flap may determine a higher rate of neurological complications. The treatment of DIF may be challenging, and no definitive approach has been described. We describe a simple surgical option for the treatment of DIF.

METHODS

After internal ECEA has been performed, stitches are positioned at the side of intimal flap. Suture sequence is performed from internal-external-external-internal artery wall including the everted ICA, maintaining the suture thread inside the vessel. Once the ICA is correctly repositioned, the suture thread is pulled out. Once the standard carotid anastomosis has been performed, the flap is finally tacked.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients have undergone surgical repair of DIF with the modified technique. No patients developed neurological complications after the surgical procedure, and all patients are still alive at last follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple technique seems a safe and feasible surgical option to correct DIF, avoiding challenging surgical procedures that may increase operative and clamping time.

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

BACKGROUND

Several carotid endarterectomy techniques have been described, including conventional carotid endarterectomy (CCEA) performed with patch repair and eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) performed with transection of the internal carotid artery. We describe our simplified technique of modified eversion carotid endarterectomy (mECEA) with longitudinal arteriotomy limited to the carotid bulb, without transection of the internal carotid artery and present our analysis of its safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all carotid endarterectomies performed by 3 vascular surgeons over a 3-year period was completed. About 197 mECEA were performed during the study period. Follow-up data were obtained on 77.7% of patients. A comparison was made with the contemporary literature with respect to outcomes for both CCEA and ECEA.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2014, a total of 197 mECEA were performed. The perioperative stroke and death rates for those undergoing mECEA was 0.5% and 0.5%, respectively. Late stroke and death rates were 3.0% and 5.1%, respectively. Perioperative rate of myocardial infarction was 1.0%. Early restenosis rates of >70% occurred in 1.4%, whereas late restenosis of >70% occurred in 2.7%. Mean operating time for those undergoing mECEA was 57.9 min. Average costs savings for mECEA compared to CCEA were $5,835.

CONCLUSIONS

This simplified technique has comparable outcomes to those described in the contemporary literature for both CCEA and ECEA with respect to postoperative neurologic events as well as restenosis rates. In our institution, the short mean operative times with mECEA has led to reduced resource utilization.