Early carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients is associated with poorer perioperative outcomes

ObjectiveThe optimal timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after ipsilateral hemispheric stroke is controversial. Although early studies suggested that an interval of about 6 weeks after a completed stroke was preferred, more recent data have suggested that delaying CEA for this period of time is not necessary. With these issues in mind, we reviewed our experience to examine perioperative outcome with respect to the timing of CEA in previously symptomatic patients.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all CEAs performed at our institution from 1992 to 2003 showed that 2537 CEA were performed, of which 1158 (45.6%) were in symptomatic patients. Patients who were operated on emergently ≤48 hours of symptoms for crescendo transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) or stroke-in-evolution were excluded from analysis (n = 25). CEA was considered “early” if performed ≤4 weeks of symptoms, and “delayed” if performed after a minimum of a 4-week interval following the most recent symptom.ResultsOf nonurgent CEAs in symptomatic patients, in 87 instances the exact time interval from symptoms to surgery could not be precisely determined secondary to the remoteness of the symptoms (>18 months), and these were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 1046 cases, 62.7% had TIAs and 37.3% had completed strokes as their indication for surgery. Among the entire cohort, patients who underwent early CEA were significantly more likely to experience a perioperative stroke than patients who underwent delayed CEA (5.1% vs 1.6%, P = .002). Patients with TIAs alone were more likely to be operated on early rather than in a delayed fashion (64.3% vs 46.7%, P < .0001), likely reflecting institutional bias in selecting delayed CEA for stroke patients. However, even when examined as two separate groups, both TIA patients (n = 656) and CVA patients (n = 390) were significantly more likely to experience a perioperative stroke when operated upon early rather than in a delayed fashion (TIA patients, 3.3% vs 0.9%, P = .05; CVA patients, 9.4% vs 2.4%, P = .003). There were no significant differences in demographics or other meaningful variables between patients who underwent early CEA and those who underwent delayed CEA.ConclusionsIn a large institutional experience, patients who underwent CEA ≤4 weeks of ipsilateral TIA or stroke experienced a significantly increased rate of perioperative stroke compared with patients who underwent CEA in a more delayed fashion. This was true for both TIA and stroke patients, although the results were more impressive among stroke patients. On the basis of these results, we continue to recommend that waiting period of 4 weeks be considered in stroke patients who are candidates for CEA

Carotid endarterectomy in female patients: Are the concerns of the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study valid?

AbstractObjectives: Although the results of the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study clearly demonstrated the benefit of surgical over medical management of severe carotid artery stenosis, the results for women in particular were less certain. This was to some extent because of the higher perioperative complication rate observed in the 281 women (3.6% vs 1.7% in men). The objective of this study was to review a large experience with carotid endarterectomy in female patients and to determine whether the perioperative results differed from those of male patients. Methods: A review was conducted of a prospectively compiled database on all carotid endarterectomies performed between 1982 and 1997. Operations performed in 991 female patients were compared with those performed in 1485 male patients. Results: Female patients had a significantly lower incidence of diabetes, coronary artery disease, and contralateral carotid artery occlusion than did male patients. Female patients had a significantly higher incidence of hypertension. There were no significant differences in the age, smoking history, anesthetic route, shunt use, or clamp tolerance between the two groups. Of 991 female patients, 659 (66.5%) had preoperative symptoms, whereas 332 (33.5%) cases were performed for asymptomatic stenosis. Among 1485 male patients, 1041 (70.1%) had symptoms, and 444 (29.9%) were symptom free before surgery. There were no significant differences noted in the perioperative stroke rates between men and women overall (2.3% vs 2.4%, P =.92), or when divided into symptomatic (2.5% vs 3.0%, P =.52) and asymptomatic (2.0% vs 1.2%, P =.55) cases. Conclusions: Carotid endarterectomy can be performed with equally low perioperative stroke rates in men and women in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. In this series, symptom-free female patients had the lowest overall stroke rate. The concerns of the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study regarding the benefit of carotid endarterectomy in female patients should therefore not prevent clinicians from recommending and performing carotid endarterectomy in appropriately selected symptom-free female patients. (J Vasc Surg 2001;33:236-41.

Immediate reexploration for the perioperative neurologic event after carotid endarterectomy: Is it worthwhile?

AbstractPurpose: When managing a new neurologic deficit after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), the surgeon is often preoccupied with determining the cause of the problem, requesting diagnostics tests, and deciding whether the patient should be surgically reexplored. The goal of this study was to analyze a series of perioperative neurologic events and to determine if careful analysis of their timing and mechanisms can predict which cases are likely to improve with reoperation. Methods: A review of 2024 CEAs performed from 1985 to 1997 revealed 38 patients who manifested a neurologic deficit in the perioperative period (1.9%). These cases form the focus of this analysis. Results: The causes of the events included intraoperative clamping ischemia in 5 patients (13.2%); thromboembolic events in 24 (63.2%); intracerebral hemorrhage in 5 (13.2%); and deficits unrelated to the operated artery in 4 (10.5%). Neurologic events manifesting in the first 24 hours after surgery were significantly more likely to be caused by thromboembolic events than by other causes of stroke (88.0% vs 12.0%, P <.002); deficits manifesting after the first 24 hours were significantly more likely to be related to other causes. Of 25 deficits manifesting in the first 24 hours after surgery, 18 underwent immediate surgical reexploration. Intraluminal thrombus was noted in 15 of the 18 reexplorations (83.3%); any technical defects were corrected. After the 18 reexplorations, in 12 cases there was either complete resolution of or significant improvement in the neurologic deficit that had been present (66.7%). Conclusions: Careful analysis of the timing and presentation of perioperative neurologic events after CEA can predict which cases are likely to improve with reoperation. Neurologic deficits that present during the first 24 hours after CEA are likely to be related to intraluminal thrombus formation and embolization. Unless another etiology for stroke has clearly been established, we think immediate reexploration of the artery without other confirmatory tests is mandatory to remove the embolic source and correct any technical problems. This will likely improve the neurologic outcome in these patients, because an uncorrected situation would lead to continued embolization and compromise. (J Vasc Surg 2000;32:1062-70.

Non-Reversed and Reversed Great Saphenous Vein Graft Configurations Offer Comparable Early Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Infrainguinal Bypass

OBJECTIVE: Data on the efficacy of non-reversed and reversed great saphenous vein bypass (NRGSV and RGSV) techniques are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing open infrainguinal revascularisation using NRGSV and RGSV from a multi-institutional database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypasses using NRGSV and RGSV for symptomatic occlusive disease from January 2003 to February 2021. The primary outcome measures included primary and secondary patency at discharge and one year. Secondary outcomes were re-interventions at discharge and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of graft configuration on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 7 123 patients, 4 662 and 2 461 patients underwent RGSV and NRGSV, respectively. At one year, the rates of primary patency (78% vs. 78%; p = .83), secondary patency (90% vs. 89%; p = .26), and re-intervention (16% vs. 16%; p = .95) were similar between the RGSV and NRGSV cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on outflow bypass target and indication for revascularisation did not show differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Multivariable analysis confirmed that RGSV (NRGSV as the reference) configuration was not independently associated with increased risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 - 1.13; p = .80), secondary patency loss (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81 - 1.10; p = .44), and re-intervention (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 - 1.16; p = .67) at follow up. CONCLUSION: The study shows that RGSV and NRGSV grafting techniques have comparable peri-operative and one year primary and secondary patency and re-intervention rates. This effect persisted when stratified by outflow targets and indication for revascularisation. Therefore, optimal selection of vein grafting technique should be guided by the patient\u27s anatomy, vein conduit availability, and surgeon\u27s experience

Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Bypass Using In-Situ and Reversed Great Saphenous Vein Graft Techniques

OBJECTIVE: Autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) is considered the conduit of choice for lower extremity bypass (LEB). However, the optimal configuration remains the source of debate. We compared outcomes of patients undergoing LEB using in-situ and reversed techniques. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients undergoing LEB with a single-segment GSV in in-situ (ISGSV) and reversed (RGSV) configurations for symptomatic occlusive disease from 2003 to 2021. Patient demographics, procedural detail, and in-hospital and follow-up outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measures included primary patency at discharge or 30 days and one year. Secondary outcomes were secondary patency, and reinterventions at discharge or 30 days and one year. Cox proportional hazards models were created to determine the association between bypass techniques and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 8234 patients undergoing LEBs, in-situ and reversed techniques were used in 3546 and 4688 patients, respectively. The indication for LEBs was similar between the two cohorts. ISGSV was performed more frequently from the common femoral artery and to more distal targets. RGSV bypass was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperatively, ISGSV cohort had higher rates of reinterventions (13.2 vs 11.1%; = 0.004), surgical site infection (4.2 vs 3%; = 0.003), and lower primary patency (93.5 vs 95%; = 0.004) but a comparable rate of secondary patency (99 vs 99.1%; = 0.675). At 1 year, in-situ bypasses had a lower rate of reinterventions (19.4% vs 21.6%; =0.02), with similar rates of primary (82.6 vs 81.8%; = 0.237) and secondary patency (88.7 vs 88.9%; = 0.625). After adjusting for significant baseline differences and potential confounders, in-situ bypass was independently associated with decreased risks of primary patency loss (HR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; = 0.016) and reinterventions (HR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.8-0.97; = 0.014) but a similar risk of secondary patency loss (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.16; = 0.985) at follow-up, compared to reversed bypass. A subgroup analysis of bypasses to crural targets showed that in-situ and reversed bypasses had similar rates of primary patency loss and reinterventions at 1 year. Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, in-situ bypass was associated with a decreased risk of reinterventions but similar rates of primary and secondary patency and major amputations at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LEBs using the GSV, in-situ configuration was associated with more perioperative reinterventions and lower primary patency rate. However, this was offset by decreased risks of loss of primary patency and reinterventions at 1 year. A thorough intraoperative graft assessment with adjunctive imaging may be performed to detect abnormalities in patients undergoing in-situ bypasses to prevent early failures. Furthermore, closer surveillance of reversed bypass grafts is warranted given the higher rates of reinterventions

Outcomes of Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Transcarotid Artery Revascularization for Restenosis After Prior Ipsilateral Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE: Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P \u3c .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P \u3c .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P \u3c .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention