A systematic review of patch angioplasty versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend routine patching after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on the basis of a lower restenosis rate and presumed lower procedural stroke rate than with primary repair. Underlying evidence is based on studies performed decades ago with perioperative care that significantly differed from current standards. Recent studies raise doubt about routine patching and have suggested that a more selective approach to patch closure (PAC) might be noninferior for procedural safety and long-term stroke prevention. The objective was to review the literature on the procedural safety and perioperative stroke prevention of PAC compared with primary closure (PRC) after CEA.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from January 1966 to September 2017. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, assessment of methodologic quality, and data extraction. Articles were eligible if they compared PAC and PRC after CEA, were published in English, included human studies, and had a full text available. Methodologic quality for nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score; randomized controlled trials were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Nonrandomized studies with a score ≤15 were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 30-day stroke risk. Secondary outcome measures were long-term restenosis (>50%) and postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria, 9 randomized studies and 20 nonrandomized studies, for a total of 12,696 patients and 13,219 CEAs. Overall 30-day stroke risk was higher in the PRC group (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.9). After exclusion of nonrandomized studies, this difference was not statistically significant anymore (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.8-3.9). The restenosis rate was higher after PRC (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). There were no differences in bleeding complications. Methodologic quality of the nonrandomized studies was moderate, and seven were excluded. Quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was moderate for restenosis, 30-day stroke, and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, on the basis of moderate-quality evidence, perioperative stroke rate was lower after PAC compared with PRC. The rate of restenosis was higher after PRC, although the clinical significance of this finding in terms of long-term stroke prevention remained unclear.

Patch Angioplasty or Primary Closure Following Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

Objectives  Guidelines recommend routine patching to prevent restenosis following carotid endarterectomy, mainly based on studies performed many years ago with different perioperative care and medical treatment compared with current standards. Aim of the present study was to compare primary closure (PRC) versus patch closure (PAC) in a contemporary cohort of patients. Methods  Consecutive patients treated by carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic stenosis between January 2006 and April 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was restenosis at 6 weeks and 1 year and occurrence of ipsilateral stroke. Secondary outcomes were mortality, complications, and reintervention rates. Results  Five hundred carotid artery endarterectomies were performed. Fifty-nine patients were excluded because eversion endarterectomy was performed or because they were asymptomatic. PRC was performed in 349 and PAC in 92 patients. Restenosis at 6 weeks was 6.0% in the PAC group versus 3.0% in the PRC group ( p  = 0.200). Restenosis at 1 year was 31.6 versus 14.1%, respectively ( p  = 0.104). No difference was found for stroke (3.4 vs 1.1%, p  = 0.319), death (1.1 vs 0.0%, p  = 0.584), or other complications (1.1 vs 0.0%, p  = 0.584), respectively. Conclusions  It remains unclear whether routine patching should be recommended for all patients. A strategy of selective patching compared with routine patching, based on internal carotid artery diameter and other patient characteristics, deserves further investigation.

Outcome of Surgical Treatment for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many publications report outcomes of surgical treatment for thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS); however, high-quality reviews and meta-analyses are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and compares the outcomes and major complications of the surgical procedures for the 3 types of TOS: arterial, venous, and neurogenic.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for papers published between January 1980 and February 2015, using the keywords thoracic outlet syndrome, and treatment and surgical. Articles were eligible for inclusion if the following criteria were met: studies describing outcomes of surgery for TOS, published in English, human studies, and available full-text. The exclusion criteria were case-series and case reports (n < 5), reviews, abstracts, and studies of endoscopic-assisted or robotic endoscopic-assisted transaxillary first rib resection.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers met our inclusion criteria and were finally included in this systematic review. All included articles showed improvement of complaints after surgical treatment. In our meta-analysis, improvement to Derkash's classification category excellent/good was achieved in 90% of the arterial and venous TOS groups. Preoperative and postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores show improvement of 28.3 points after operative treatment of neurogenic TOS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, surgical treatment of TOS seems to be beneficial in most patients and is relatively safe. The largest challenge remains the diagnosis of TOS, especially neurogenic TOS, because standardized diagnostic criteria are lacking. Future studies should focus on the diagnostic work-up of TOS.

Clarivein mechanochemical ablation of the great and small saphenous vein: Early treatment outcomes of two hospitals

OBJECTIVES

Mechanochemical endovenous ablation is a novel technique for the treatment of great saphenous vein and small saphenous vein incompetence which combines mechanical injury of the endothelium with simultaneous infusion of liquid sclerosant. The main objective of this study was to evaluate early occlusion.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who were eligible for the treatment with mechanochemical endovenous ablation were included. Inclusion period was from the introduction of the device in the hospitals (September 2011 and December 2011) until December 2012.

RESULTS

A total of 449 patients were included representing 570 incompetent veins. In 506 treated veins, duplex ultrasonography was performed at follow-up: 457 veins (90%) were occluded at a follow-up of 6 to 12 weeks. In univariate and multivariate analysis, failure of treated great saphenous vein was associated with saphenofemoral junction incompetence (OR 4; 95% CI 1.0-17.1, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The Clarivein device proves to be safe and had a high short-term technical effectiveness.