Contemporary outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in high-risk anatomic and physiologic patients

ObjectiveCurrent guidelines state that the acceptable 30-day postoperative stroke/death rate after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is <3% for asymptomatic patients and <6% for symptomatic patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has identified certain high-risk characteristics used to define patients at highest risk for CEA for whom carotid artery stenting would be reimbursed. We evaluated the impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physiologic and anatomic high-risk criteria on major adverse event rates after CEA in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CEA from 2011 to 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular targeted database. Patients with high-risk anatomic or physiologic characteristics were identified by a predefined variable and were compared with normal-risk patients. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death, stratified by symptom status.ResultsWe identified 25,788 patients undergoing CEA, of whom 60% were treated for asymptomatic carotid disease. Among all patients, high-risk physiology or anatomy was associated with higher rates of 30-day stroke/death compared with normal-risk patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 3.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]). Patients who met criteria for high-risk physiology or anatomy also had higher rates of cardiac events (physiologic risk, 3.1% vs 1.6% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.3% vs 1.6% [P < .01]), but only patients with high-risk anatomy had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (physiologic risk, 2.4% vs 2.5% [P = .81]; anatomic risk, 4.3% vs 2.5% [P < .001]). Asymptomatic patients with high-risk physiology or anatomy had higher rates of 30-day stroke/death, especially in the physiologic high-risk group (physiologic risk, 4.7% vs 1.5% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.6% vs 1.5% [P < .01]), compared with normal-risk patients. However, among symptomatic patients, differences in stroke/death were seen only with high-risk anatomic patients and not with high-risk physiologic patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 3.4% [P = .12]; anatomic risk, 4.8% vs 3.4% [P = .01]).ConclusionsAs currently selected, contemporary real-world outcomes after CEA in asymptomatic carotid disease patients meeting high-risk physiologic criteria show an unacceptably high 30-day stroke/death rate, well above the 3% threshold. These results suggest the need for better selection of patients and preoperative optimization before elective CEA.     

In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveOutcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.ResultsOf the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).ConclusionsMore than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.     

颈动脉内膜切除术治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄

目的:回顾性总结应用颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的早期效果和经验。方法:对82例(男66例,女16例,年龄48～84岁,平均68.6岁)症状性颈动脉狭窄病人行CEA。全组均经颈部血管多普勒超声和数字减影血管造影术(DSA)确诊颈动脉粥样斑块形成、颈动脉狭窄。手术采用气管内插管全身麻醉39例,颈丛麻醉43例。术中放置动脉临时转流管56例,其中全麻应用39例,颈丛麻醉17例。结果:全组无死亡病例,脑缺血症状明显改善者65例,症状好转者14例,术后并发脑梗死2例,颈动脉内血栓形成1例。结论:CEA是治疗症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效方法。     

In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers.MethodsWe compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death.ResultsA total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes.ConclusionsDespite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄60例临床分析

目的 探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄的疗效及安全性.方法 回顾性分析新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院血管外科2009年1月-2013年12月行颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄的60例患者的临床资料.结果 本组无围手术期死亡病例.术后出现脑出血1例,脑梗死2例,轻度伸舌偏移2例.结论 颈动脉内膜剥脱术是一种安全有效的治疗颈动脉狭窄的手术方式.颈动脉内膜剥脱术关键在于严格掌握手术适应证,提高手术技巧和有效防治并发症.     

颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗的围术期管理

背景 脑卒中是造成人类死亡的主要原因之一.15％～20％的缺血性脑血管病归因于颈动脉狭窄或闭塞,颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉血管腔内球囊成形及支架植入术(carotid angioplasty and stenting,CAS)对预防缺血事件发生有效,但围手术期卒中、死亡等并发症对围术期管理提出挑战. 目的 对颈动脉狭窄手术及介入治疗围术期管理进行综述. 内容 重点阐述CEA和CAS围术期危险因素控制、术前评估、麻醉方法与管理、术中神经功能监测和脑保护. 趋向 积极谨慎的围术期管理是保证颈动脉狭窄患者围术期脑氧供需平衡、降低围术期并发症的有效措施.     

Bilateral severe carotid stenosis or occlusion and computed tomographic scan positive hemispheric stroke with neurologic deficit: Immediate contralateral carotid endarterectomy

In the last 10 years, 13 patients presented with acute, hemispheric, computed tomographic scan-positive stroke; neurologic deficit; and bilateral carotid stenosis greater than 90% (N=9) or ipsilateral occlusion with contralateral stenosis greater than 90% (N=4). To improve ipsilateral flow without elevation of pressure to levels causing hemorrhagic infarction, all patients underwent carotid endarterectomy on the side contralateral to the hemispheric stroke from two to 10 days (average 6.6 days) from onset of symptoms. Those with fluctuating deficits stabilized to the initial fixed deficit and all 13 improved over the next six months. Four patients with ipsilateral internal carotid occlusion and one with ipsilateral severe siphon stenosis were discharged on antiplatelet therapy; of the remaining eight patients, seven underwent subsequent ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy from 42 to 111 days (average 58.4 days) from onset of symptoms. Mortality and stroke rate were 0. The four patients with internal carotid occlusion and the one with severe siphon stenosis filled both hemispheres from the contralateral carotid artery arteriographically in four and by oculoplethysmography in one. One patient demonstrated preferential flow from contralateral to the ipsilateral hemisphere, but not the reverse; one patient demonstrated pericallosal collaterals. Immediate endarterectomy of the severely diseased carotid artery contralateral to a hemisphere with a computed tomographic scan-positive stroke causing neurologic deficit resulting from a severe carotid stenosis is a safe treatment option and may be beneficial in those with fluctuating neurologic deficits.Presented at the New England Society for Vascular Surgery, September 14, 1990, Newport, Rhode Island.     

Eversion endarterectomy of the internal carotid artery combined with open endarterectomy of the common carotid artery

The author presents a technique for endarterectomy and reconstruction of the carotid bifurcation in difficult cases when the plaque extends high into the internal carotid artery. The technique combines the aspects of the 2 most commonly performed procedures: carotid endarterectomy after a longitudinal arteriotomy extending from the common carotid artery into the internal carotid artery and eversion endarterectomy in which the plaque is removed from the internal carotid artery sectioned from the common carotid artery and everted. The author suggests applying this technique selectively in patients in whom the atherosclerotic plaque extends very high into the internal carotid artery. The technique offers the advantages of removing the plaque into the common carotid artery under direct vision and leaving the original dimensions and geometry of the internal carotid artery, theoretically decreasing the probability of early thrombosis and recurrent carotid disease. For routine cases, the author prefers and recommends standard carotid bifurcation endarterectomy with patch closure when the size of the arteries is reduced like in women and selected male patients.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术抑或颈动脉支架术: 颈动脉狭窄手术治疗的金标准之争

脑卒中是当今第三大致死病因,是成年人致残的首要原因。颈动脉狭窄是导致缺血性卒中事件发生的最常见原因。20世纪80～90年代已有多个随机对照试验证实颈动脉内膜剥脱术相比于内科药物治疗对于预防卒中具有明显优势。近年来,随着介入技术和器材的不断进步,血管腔内介入治疗愈发成熟,其安全性及有效性正在为一些大规模的临床随机对照试验所证实,腔内介入治疗颈动脉狭窄正在挑战着外科内膜剥脱术的＂金标准＂地位。     

Insurance status is associated with urgent carotid endarterectomy and worse postoperative outcomes

ObjectiveUnderinsured patients can experience worse preoperative medical optimization. We aimed to determine whether insurance status was associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) urgency and postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy dataset from January 2012 to January 2021. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to analyze the differences across the insurance types for the primary outcome variable: CEA urgency. The analyses were limited to patients aged <65 years to minimize age confounding across insurers. We also examined differences in preoperative medical optimization and symptomatic disease and postoperative outcomes. A secondary analysis was performed to examine the effect of CEA urgency on the postoperative outcomes.ResultsA total of 27,331 patients had undergone first-time CEA. Of these patients, 4600 (17%) had Medicare, 3440 (13%) had Medicaid, 17,917 (65%) had commercial insurance, and 1374 (5%) were uninsured. The Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher rates of urgent operation compared with Medicare (20.0% and 34.7% vs 14.4%; P < .001), with no differences in the commercial group vs the Medicare group. Additionally, Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower rates of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (93.6% and 93.5% vs 95.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of symptomatic disease (42.1% and 57.6% vs 36.2%; P < .001) compared with Medicare patients. The rate of perioperative stroke/death was higher for the Medicaid and uninsured patients than for the Medicare patients (1.63% and 1.89% vs 1.02%; P = .017 and P = .01, respectively), with no differences in the commercial group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured status were associated with increased odds of an urgent operation (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5; and OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7, respectively), symptomatic disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5, respectively), and perioperative stroke/death (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; and OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0, respectively) and a decreased odds of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; and OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99, respectively). Additionally, the rates of perioperative stroke/death were higher for patients who had required urgent surgery compared with elective surgery (2.8% vs 1.0%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of perioperative stroke/death for patients who had required urgent surgery (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1).ConclusionsMedicaid and uninsured patients were more likely to require urgent CEA, in part because of poor preoperative medical optimization. Additionally, urgent operation was independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes. These results highlight the need for improved preoperative follow-up for underinsured populations.     

��������Ĥ�г�������­�⾱�����ض�Ӳ������խ59������

目的　探讨颈动脉内膜切除术 (CEA)治疗颅外颈动脉硬化性狭窄病变中的地位和疗效。方法　对1993年 5月至 2 0 0 3年 10月 5 9例 6 1次颈动脉内膜切除术的临床资料进行回顾性分析。早期 4 6例 4 7次CEA采用颈丛麻醉下通过阻断试验结合返流压力测定选择性应用转流管 ,近期 13例 14次手术在全麻并常规应用转流管下进行。结果　早期手术组颈动脉平均阻断时间 (2 0± 6 )min ,近期手术组颈动脉平均缺血时间 (4 2± 0 7)min ,P <0 0 1。术后 30d内无死亡和脑卒中。术后 2年和 5年神经系统症状发生率分别为 4 7%和 14 8%。结论　本组颈动脉内膜切除术取得满意的近远期疗效。采用全麻合并术中转流可以显著减少同侧脑缺血时间     

Outcome after carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

Objective: To compare the long-term outcome in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) among those treated with carotid endarterectomy (CE) or medical therapy.

Background: Until randomized trials are completed, treatment of ACS will depend on identification of subgroups likely to benefit from CE.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done on 215 patients with ACS: 107 underwent CE, and 108 were treated medically (MED). A neurologist reviewed medical records and performed a telephone interview to detect outcome (stroke and death). Mean follow-up was 3.8 years; only 4% were lost to follow-up.

Results: Among CE patients, there was a 4.7% risk of postoperative ipsilateral stroke within 30 days. Four of five postoperative strokes occurred among patients with prior contralateral symptoms. There was no significant difference between CE and MED in the cumulative lifetable 5-year risk of ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, or survival free of any stroke. Among diabetics, however, there were no ipsilateral strokes at 5 years after CE compared to 20% in MED (p = 0.03). Excluding postoperative complications, the 5-year risk of ipsilateral stroke was reduced among CE patients who “ever smoked” (CE 1%, MED 8%, p = 0.03) and the 5-year risk of any stroke was reduced among CE patients who had no prior myocardial infarction (CE 6%, MED 16%, p=0.02). Among those with prior contralateral carotid territory symptoms, the 5-year risk of any stroke was worse in the MED patients (CE 5% MED 32%, p=0.004). Among CE patients, a Cox proportional hazards model determined that the independent predictors of worse long-term outcome were: a history of myocardial infarction; admission systolic blood pressure greater than 160 mm Hg; and age greater than 65.

Conclusion: The approach to patients with ACS will await completion of large, randomized clinical trials, now in progress. Even if these studies are negative, there may remain specific subgroups of patients who show clear benefit from carotid endarterectomy.     

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BackgroundMicroembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.MethodsPatients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.ResultsA total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.ConclusionsPatients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.     

Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is safe in octogenarians

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard to prevent a recurrent stroke in symptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. However, in the modern era, the benefit of CEA in asymptomatic octogenarian patients has come into question. This study investigates real-world outcomes of CEA in asymptomatic octogenarians.MethodsPatients who underwent CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program CEA-targeted database from 2012 to 2017. They were stratified into two groups: octogenarians (≥80 years old) and younger patients (<80 years old). The 30-day outcomes evaluated included mortality and major morbidities such as stroke, cardiac events, pulmonary, and renal dysfunction. Multivariable logistic regression was used for data analysis.ResultsWe identified 13,846 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent an elective CEA including 2509 octogenarians and 11,337 younger patients. Octogenarians were more likely to be female and less likely to be diabetic or smokers compared with younger patients. There was no difference in preoperative use of statins or antiplatelet therapy. Examination of 30-day outcomes revealed that octogenarians had slightly higher mortality (1.2% vs 0.5%; odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.4; P < .01), and a higher risk of return to the operating room (3.3% vs 2.3%; odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9; P = .01). However, there was no difference between octogenarians and younger patients in adverse cardiac events or pulmonary, renal, or wound complications. Twenty-five octogenarian and 138 younger patients suffered from periprocedural stroke at a similar rate (1.0% vs 1.2%; P = .54). Stroke/death occurred for 51 of 2509 patients (2.0%) in the older group and 184 of 11,337 patients (1.6%) in the younger group, a difference that was not significant (P = .15).ConclusionsThe 30-day outcomes of CEA in octogenarians are comparable with those in younger patients. Although the octogenarians had slightly higher mortality than younger patients, the absolute risk of mortality was still low at 1.2%. Therefore, CEA is safe in asymptomatic carotid stenosis in octogenarians. Overall life expectancy and preoperative functional status, rather than age, should be the major determinants in the decision to operate.     

The effect of clinical coronary disease severity on outcomes of carotid endarterectomy with and without combined coronary bypass

ObjectiveThe management of patients with carotid stenosis and symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging. This study assessed the impact of clinical coronary disease severity on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with and without combined coronary artery bypass (CCAB).MethodsUsing the Vascular Quality Initiative, patients with symptomatic CAD who underwent CCAB or isolated CEA (ICEA) from 2003 to 2017 were identified. Patients were stratified by CAD severity: stable angina (SA) and recent myocardial infarction/unstable angina (UA). Primary outcomes, including perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke/death/MI (SDM), were assessed between procedures within each CAD cohort.ResultsThere were 9098 patients identified: 887 CCAB patients (215 [24%] SA, 672 [76%] UA) and 8211 ICEA patients (6385 [78%] SA, 1826 [22%] UA). Overall, CCAB patients had higher rates of stroke (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .002) and SDM (7.3% vs 3.5%, P < .001) but similar rates of MI (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = .12) compared with ICEA patients. In SA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.2% vs CCAB 1.9%; P = .36), MI (1.3% vs 1.4%; P = .95), or SDM (2.9% vs 4.7%; P = .13). In UA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.6% vs CCAB 2.8%; P = .06), but ICEA patients had higher rates of MI (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .01) and CCAB patients had higher rates of SDM (8.2% vs 5.5%; P = .01). After logistic regression in the UA cohort, predictors of MI included ICEA (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.0; P = .04) and carotid symptomatic status (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .01); carotid symptomatic status also predicted stroke (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6; P = .03), but CCAB did not.ConclusionsIn patients with symptomatic CAD, both clinical CAD severity and operative strategy affect outcomes. In SA patients, CCAB does not increase perioperative morbidity. However, CCAB in UA patients prevents MI while not appreciably increasing stroke risk. This suggests that coronary revascularization before or concomitant with CEA should be considered in UA patients but that prioritizing coronary intervention is less important in SA patients.     

Impact of routine completion angiography on outcome after carotid endarterectomy

Objective

The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of completion digital subtraction angiography (cDSA) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on technical and early clinical results.

颈动脉狭窄血管内支架植入和内膜切除术治疗的临床选择

目的 探讨在不同条件下如何合理选择颈动脉狭窄的治疗方式.方法 回顾性分析经颈动脉血管内支架植入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)治疗的133例颈动脉狭窄患者的临床资料.其中46例患者行CAS,87例行CEA.观察两组患者的住院天数和治疗前后的美国国立卫生研究院卒中评分量表(NIHSS)评分、前向血流,治疗前和治疗后1-24个月狭窄处收缩期血流速度峰值及狭窄程度,以及治疗后死亡、脑卒中或心肌梗死等终点事件的发生率.结果 两组住院天数和治疗后NIHSS评分>20层次时差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组治疗前后的前向血流评定差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);多普勒频谱测定两组治疗前后颈动脉狭窄程度有显著性差异(P<0.05);两组治疗后30 d内,终点事件的累计发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);31 d～2年终点事件的累计发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);6个月后再狭窄发生率CAS组高于CEA组.结论 CAS和CEA对颈动脉狭窄的效果无显著差异,狭窄的部位、原因及对侧病变是选择CAS和CEA的重要因素.     

Results of carotid endarterectomy in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion from the Mid-America Vascular Study Group and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is among the most commonly performed vascular procedures. Some have suggested worse outcomes with contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. We compared patients with and patients without contralateral ICA occlusion using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database.MethodsDeidentified data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients with prior ipsilateral or contralateral CEA, carotid stenting, combined CEA and coronary artery bypass graft, or <1-year follow-up were excluded, yielding 1737 patients with and 45,179 patients without contralateral ICA occlusion. Groups were compared with univariate tests, and differences identified in univariate testing were entered into multivariate models to identify independent predictors of outcomes and in particular whether contralateral ICA occlusion is an independent predictor of outcomes.ResultsPatients with contralateral ICA occlusion were younger and more likely to be smokers; they were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative neurologic symptoms (56% vs 47%), nonelective CEA (16% vs 13%), and shunt placement (75% vs 53%; all P < .001). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk was 1.3% with vs 0.7% without contralateral ICA occlusion (P = .004). The 30-day and 1-year survival estimates were 99.0% ± 0.5% and 94.1% ± 1.1% with vs 99.6% ± 0.1% and 96.0% ± 0.2% without contralateral ICA occlusion (log-rank, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis identified prior neurologic event (P = .046), nonelective surgery (P = .047), absence of coronary artery disease (P = .035), and preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (P = .029) to be associated with 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk, but contralateral ICA occlusion remained an independent predictor in that model (odds ratio, 2.29; P = .026). However, after adjustment for other factors (Cox proportional hazards), risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) during follow-up was not significantly greater with contralateral ICA occlusion (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .32). Results comparing propensity score-matched cohorts mirrored those from the larger data set.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates likely clinically insignificant differences in early stroke or death in comparing CEA patients with and those without contralateral ICA occlusion. After adjustment for other factors, contralateral ICA occlusion was not associated with a greater risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) in longer follow-up. Mortality was greater with contralateral ICA occlusion, and this difference was more pronounced at 1 year despite younger age of the contralateral ICA occlusion group. CEA risk remains low even in the presence of contralateral ICA occlusion and appears to be explained at least in part by other factors. CEA should still be considered appropriate in the face of contralateral ICA occlusion.