Laura Renon

Carotid endarterectomy with patch closure versus carotid eversion endarterectomy and reimplantation: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND Although carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) has obtained consensus providing excellent early and late results, conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patching continues to be considered the gold standard surgical procedure. The few studies published to date comparing CEE with CEA in a small series of patients have failed to show substantial advantages of one technique over the other, and further randomized comparative studies are still required. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of CEA with routine patch closure (CEAP) with that of CEE and reimplantation (CEER) of the internal carotid artery in the common carotid artery. METHODS Three hundred thirty-six primary CEAs performed in 310 patients were randomized into 2 groups, 167 CEAPs and 169 CEERs. Surviving patients underwent duplex ultrasound scan control at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and every postoperative year thereafter. The mean follow-up was 34 months (range, 1 to 69 months). Demographic characteristics, risk factors, associated diseases, and indications for surgery were comparable in the 2 groups. RESULTS Although the rate of intraoperative electroencephalogram changes was comparable in the 2 groups, the incidence of shunting was statistically higher in the CEAP group (28.1% vs 1.2%, P < .00001). The carotid cross-clamping time was significantly lower in the CEER group (P = .01). Although all deaths were in the CEAP group, the overall perioperative death and stroke-related death rates were comparable in the 2 groups. The perioperative stroke rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group (2.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Although the recurrent stenosis rate was comparable in the 2 groups (1.2% vs 0%), the CEAP group had a statistically higher rate of combined recurrent stenoses and occlusions (4.9% vs 0%, P = .003). The late mortality rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Although the outcome of CEAP in this series is consistent with that of the main reported trials, the CEER procedure is less likely than CEAP to cause perioperative stroke and death and seems superior in reducing the incidence of recurrent stenosis and late occlusive events.

A prospective randomized study on bilateral carotid endarterectomy: patching versus eversion.

OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical outcome and restenosis incidence of patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (CEAP) on one side and carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) on the other. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Although a few investigators have compared the results of CEAP versus CEE, no reports have compared the outcome of CEAP versus CEE in the same patient. METHODS Eighty-six patients were randomly selected for sequential surgical treatment involving either CEAP/CEE or CEE/CEAP. All patients underwent postoperative duplex ultrasound study and clinical follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. Various factors were analyzed to ascertain any association with restenosis, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of restenosis. RESULTS Demographic and clinical data were similar in the CEAP and CEE groups. The selective shunting rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group. There were no perioperative deaths. Although the incidence of perioperative ipsilateral stroke was not significant, CEAP patients had a rate of combined transient ischemic attacks and strokes that approached statistical significance. The mean follow-up was 40 months. CEAP patients had a significantly higher incidence of restenosis and combined occlusive events and restenoses. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CEE had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than CEAP and that freedom from restenoses at 24 and 36 months was 87% and 83% for CEAP and 98% and 98% for CEE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS CEE is less likely to cause perioperative neurologic complications and restenoses than CEAP. The significantly higher rate of unilateral recurrence suggests that local factors play a more important role than systemic factors in the occurrence of restenosis.

Early and late outcomes of young patients after carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Carotid atherosclerotic disease in young adults is uncommon but may be more virulent and diffuse than in older patients. Although few studies have well established that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is of benefit for high-grade asymptomatic lesions and for moderate- and high-grade symptomatic lesions, the safety and durability of CEA in the young remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare CEA outcome in young people with outcome in an older control group. METHODS Thirty-five patients up to 50 years old (mean 46.5 +/- 0.5 years) and undergoing 42 CEAs were compared with a randomly selected group of 50 patients more than 60 years old (mean 68.7 +/- 0.4 years) and undergoing 55 CEAs during the same period. Data were obtained on demographics, atherosclerotic risk factors, indications for surgery, perioperative outcome, recurrent stenosis and symptoms, late stroke, and survival. RESULTS Smoking (P < .001), alcohol consumption (P < .001), and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = .02) were more prevalent in the young patients, who were also more likely to be symptomatic at presentation (P < .001) with a higher incidence of stroke (P = .01) and contralateral carotid occlusion (P = .04). The perioperative stroke risk and mortality rates were nil for the young group. During a mean follow-up of 47 +/- 40 months, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in survival, symptom recurrence, stenosis recurrence, and reoperation rates. Young patients had a higher incidence of contralateral disease requiring surgery (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS These findings show that CEA may be performed in young adults with an excellent perioperative outcome; recurrence, late stroke, and survival rates do not differ significantly from those observed among their older counterparts.