Search

Introduction: Carotid bifurcation stenosis may co-exist simultaneously with more proximal common carotid artery (CCA) atherosclerotic plaquing, primarily at the vessel origin in the aortic arch. This scenario is relatively infrequent and its' management does not have quality randomized data to support medical vs surgical treatment. It is logical to treat any high grade common carotid lesions proximal to a carotid bifurcation endarterectomy (CEA) site both to prevent perioperative emboli or thrombosis as well as future embolization. Prior long-term investigations of the combined treatment paradigm have been low volume analysis. Further, prior studies focus on perioperative outcomes with respect to stroke prevention. The only prior VQI study investigating mid-term outcomes following simultaneous CEA with proximal CCA endovascular therapy provided data on less than 10 patients beyond 1.5 years. The long-term follow-up (LFTU) component initiative within VQI has been emphasized in recent years, now allowing for much more robust LTFU analysis. Methods: Four cohorts were created for perioperative outcome analysis and Kaplan Meier freedom from event analysis: CEA in isolation for asymptomatic disease; CEA in isolation for symptomatic patients; CEA with proximal CCA endovascular intervention for asymptomatic; and, CEA with proximal CCA intervention for symptomatic patients. Binary logistic multivariable regression was performed for perioperative neurological event and 90-day mortality risk determination and Cox multivariable regression analysis was performed for long term freedom from cumulative ischemic neurological event and long-term mortality analysis. Symptomatology and type of surgery (CEA with or without CCA intervention) were individual variables in the multivariable analysis. Neurological ischemic event in this study encompassed transient ischemic attack (TIA) and stroke combined. Results: We noted a statistically significant (P <.001) escalation in rates of perioperative neurological event, myocardial infarction (MI), carotid re-exploration, 90 day mortality and combined neurological event and 90 day mortality moving from: A) asymptomatic CEA in isolation to B) symptomatic CEA in isolation to C) asymptomatic CEA combined with proximal CCA intervention to D) symptomatic CEA in combination with proximal CCA intervention. The positivity rate for the combined outcome of perioperative ischemic neurological event and 90 day mortality was 2.2% amongst asymptomatic CEA in isolation, 4.1% amongst symptomatic CEA in isolation, 4.4% amongst asymptomatic CEA in combination with proximal CCA intervention; and 8.8% in patients with symptomatic lesions undergoing combined CEA with proximal CCA intervention. On multivariable analysis patients undergoing CEA with proximal CCA endovascular intervention experienced greater risk for perioperative neurological ischemic event (aOR 2.03, 1.43-2.90, P <.001), combined perioperative neurological ischemic event and 90 day mortality (aOR 2.13, 1.62-2.80, P <.001), long term mortality (HR 1.62, 1.12-2.29, P <.001), and cumulative neurological ischemic event in long term follow up (HR 1.62, 1.12-2.29, P =.007). Amongst 4395 cumulative ischemic neurological events in all study patients, 34% were TIA. Conclusions: Carotid bifurcation endarterectomy in combination with proximal endovascular common carotid artery intervention caries an over two fold higher perioperative risk of neurologic ischemic event and 90 day mortality relative to CEA in isolation for asymptomatic and symptomatic cohorts respectively. After surgery, freedom from cerebral ischemia and mortality for patients undergoing dual intervention is closely aligned with patients undergoing CEA in isolation. Despite high adverse perioperative event rates for the combined CEA and CCA treatment, there is likely long term stroke reduction and mortality benefit to this approach in symptomatic patients based on the event free rates seen herein after initial hospital discharge. The benefit of treating asymptomatic tandem ICA and CCA lesions remains vague but the 4.4% perioperative neurologic event and death rate suggests that these patients would be better managed with medical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objectives: Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are 2 effective treatment options for carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The long-term outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) reported similar stroke and death rate between the 2 procedures. This study presents the short- and long-term outcomes of CEA and CAS of all risk patients performed by a single vascular surgeon in a real-world setting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent CEA and CAS from September 2005 to June 2017 at our institute. Student t test, χ2, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare patient's characteristics. Multivariate logistic, cox regression models and survival analysis were used to compare postoperative and long-term outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: Over 2000 patients were evaluated for carotid artery stenosis during the study period, and 313 revascularization procedures were performed (CEA: 47%, CAS: 53%). Patients' age (Mean [95% confidence interval, CI] 68.8 [67.2-70.4] vs 69.7 [68.2-71.3], P = .40) was similar between CEA and CAS. Patients who underwent CAS had significantly higher comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], chronic heart failure [CHF], hyperlipidemia, and prior ipsilateral intervention, all P < .05). No difference was found in 30-day complications after CEA versus CAS including stroke (2.0% vs 1.2%), myocardial infarction (MI; 0.7% vs 1.2%), death (0% vs 1.2%) as well as combined major adverse events (stroke/death/MI; 2.7% vs 3.0%; all P > .05). Overall 7-year survival, stroke-free survival and restenosis-free survival were similar between the 2 groups (P > .5). Significant predictors of mortality were diabetes (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.15-5.08]), chronic kidney disease (HR [95% CI]: 4.89 [1.97-12.13]), and COPD (HR [95% CI]: 3.31 [1.43-7.71]; all P values <.05). Statin use was protective with 71% reduction in risk of mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.12-0.67], P = .004). Conclusion: Our experience showed comparable short- and long-term outcomes of CAS and CEA performed for carotid artery stenosis by vascular surgeon. There was no difference between single institutional long-term outcomes and CREST outcomes following CEA and CAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive and emotional outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting with embolic protection device (CAS + EPD) are not clear. Patients were entered prospectively into a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved single-center physician-sponsored investigational device exemption between 2004 and 2010 and received either CEA or CAS + EPD. Patients underwent cognitive testing preprocedure and at 6, 12, and 60 months postprocedure. Cognitive domains assessed included attention, memory, executive, motor function, visual spatial functioning, language, and processing speed. Beck Depression and anxiety scales were also compared. There were a total of 38 patients that met conventional indications for carotid surgery (symptomatic with ≥50% stenosis or asymptomatic with ≥70% stenosis)-12 patients underwent CEA, whereas 26 patients underwent CAS + EPD. Both CEA and CAS + EPD patients showed postprocedure improvement in memory and executive function. No differences were seen at follow-up in regards to emotional dysfunction (depression and anxiety), attention, visual spatial functioning, language, motor function, and processing speed. Only two patients underwent neuropsychiatric testing at 60 months-these CAS + EPD patients showed sustained improvement in memory, visual spatial, and executive functions. In conclusion, cognitive and emotional outcomes were similar between CEA and CAS + EPD patients. [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]

Objectives: To evaluate the transition process from conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) to eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA). Methods: Patients operated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA; 164 patients, 171 CEA) in 2002-2003 were retrospectively included. Results: In 2002, cCEA was applied in 64 (80%) and eCEA in 16 (20%) patients. There was an inversion on the preponderant surgical technique in 2003 (cCEA in 34 patients [37%] and eCEA in 57 patients [63%]). Perioperative stroke or death occurred in 3 patients (3.8%) in 2002 and 5 (5.5%) in 2003 (P ¼ .78). Perioperative myocardial infarction occurred in 2 patients (2.5%) in 2002 and 2 in 2003 (2.2%, P ¼ 1.00). Median follow-up was 83 (79-86) and 70 (67-74) months for the 2002 and 2003 cohorts, respectively, and there were no differences in survival or ipsilateral stroke between the groups. Conclusions: The transition from cCEA to eCEA is possible without significant changes in morbidity and mortality perioperatively and during follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]