Search

Objective: Several studies suggest that females have higher perioperative adverse events and decreased benefit from carotid artery revascularization with transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared to males. However, there are limited data of sex-based outcomes for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively maintained system-wide TCAR databases was performed between December 2015-January 2022. Patients who underwent TCAR were stratified based on sex. Relevant demographics, medical conditions, anatomical characteristics, intra- and postoperative courses, and adverse events were captured. Results: 729 patients underwent TCAR, 486 (66.6%) male and 243 (33.3%) female. Males were more likely to be diagnosed with coronary artery disease (56.9% vs 47.7%, P<.01) and were active smokers (30.4% vs 21.4%, P <.01). Age, symptomatic status, BMI, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of myocardial infarction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction <30%, end-stage renal disease and Charlson Comorbidity Index were similar. In the perioperative period, there was no significant difference in reintervention rates (1.6% vs 1.2%, P =.75), cranial nerve palsy (.6% vs.4%, P >.99), ipsilateral stroke (1.9% vs 3.3%, P =.29), stent thrombosis (.4% vs.8%, P >.99), myocardial infarction (0% vs 0%, P >.99) and death (1.2% vs 1.2%, P >.99). In follow-up, no significant difference was found in reintervention, ipsilateral stroke, contralateral stroke, myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis >50%, stent thrombosis, and death. Conclusions: Males and females did not have a statistically significant difference in outcomes when comparing ipsilateral stroke, in-stent thrombosis, conversion to CEA, and death after TCAR. However, our cohort comprised predominantly male patients and may conceal statistical significance as the females in our cohort did have a higher tendency toward developing complications. Future studies with a larger female cohort should be conducted to determine whether there is a true disparity of outcomes between the males and females undergoing TCAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) was presented by carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial as a minimally invasive approach with less risk of postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) when compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Our study aimed to compare the postoperative MI rate for CAS with CEA under general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA). A retrospective study was conducted at our institution comparing CAS with CEA under LA and CEA under GA. Thirty-day postoperative MI and strokes were evaluated for the different subgroups. A total of 1127 procedures were included in the analysis: 421 CEAs under GA, 611 CEAs under LA, and 95 CAS. No significant difference in postoperative MI was encountered between CAS and CEA under LA (0.2% vs 1.1%, P = .25). The CEA under GA was found to have a statistically significant higher risk of MI compared to LA (1.2% vs 0.2%, P = .044). Our evidence suggests that CEA under LA does not have an increased risk of MI compared to CAS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: It remains controversial whether patients with concomitant carotid and coronary disease should undergo operative repair separately or in combination. Methods: Patients with documented cerebrovascular disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone were matched by propensity scoring with patients undergoing combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA)/CABG procedures and compared for the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and mortality. Results: Of the 4943 patients undergoing CABG, 908 had known cerebrovascular disease. Among these, 134 underwent concomitant CEA, and these were propensity matched with 134 patients undergoing CABG only. No differences were observed in the perioperative risks of stroke (4% vs 3%, odds ratio [OR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-5.5), MI (0.7% vs 0.7%, not significant [NS]), or combined cardiovascular events (6% vs 10%, OR 0.5, 95% CI [0.2-1.3]), although mortality (1% vs 8%, OR 0.2, 95% CI [0.04-0.8] was higher with CABG only. Discussion: Addition of CEA to CABG did not significantly alter the risk of perioperative stroke relative to propensity-matched patients undergoing CABG alone. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods: We prospectively recorded the data from patients who underwent CEA. A patient was considered diabetic when he reported the use of antidiabetic medication. De novo diagnosis of diabetes was defined as the first demonstration of a fasting glucose serum concentration >126 mg/dL or >200 mg/dL after glucose load. An early adverse outcome was defined as the occurrence of ipsilateral minor or major stroke and/or death during the 30-day postoperative period. Results: The stroke and death rate was significantly higher in diabetic patients (n = 380) compared to the controls (n = 971; 4.5% versus 1.5%, P = .002). Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between the presence of diabetes and 30-day stroke and death rate (OR 2.94, CI 1.46-5.97, P = .003). Conclusions: Diabetic patients are at greater risk for perioperative stroke and death. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The General Anesthesia vs. Local Anesthesia for Carotid Surgery (GALA) trial did not show a difference in 30-day postoperative stroke, myocardial infarction and death rates between patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) under local vs. general anesthesia. The present article discusses some limitations of the GALA trial. Firstly, the expected stroke and death rates following CEA is so low, that it was unlikely that the GALA trial would show any significant difference between local and general anesthesia. Secondly, preoperative statin use was not recorded. Thirdly, intraoperative shunt usage rates (a possible parameter for the development of stroke) varied considerably between the 2 groups (43% vs. 14%, for general vs. local anesthesia, respectively; P < .0001), as well as between UK and non-UK surgeons who always (73.6% vs. 20.8%, respectively; P < .0001), never (4.2% vs. 26%, respectively; P < .0002), or selectively (22.2% vs. 53.2%, respectively; P < .0001) used a shunt. Furthermore, no information was provided regarding the type of shunts used; for example, a traumatic shunts may be associated with lower perioperative stroke rates. These limitations could influence the interpretation of the results of the GALA trial. Due to lack of differences between the 2 groups and the presence of the above limitations, it seems likely that this trial will have little effect on clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]