Similar long-term outcomes for venous, bovine pericardial, and polyester patches for primary carotid endarterectomy

Background: Currently, the type of patch used for carotid endarterectomy closure depends on the preference of the operating surgeon. Various materials are available, including autologous venous patches, bovine pericardial patches (BPP), and synthetic patches. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent primary carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty using a venous, bovine, or polyester patch between 2010 and 2020 at two high-volume medical centers were included in this retrospective analysis on largely prospectively collected data. Study endpoints included long-term ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident, restenosis, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to assess the effect of patch type to each outcome. Results: In total, 1481 CEAs were performed with a follow-up of 32 (13–65) months. Venous patch was used in 309 patients (20.9%), BPP in 1000 patients (67.5%), and polyester patch in 172 patients (11.6%). A preoperative symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50% was observed in 91.9% (n = 284) of the patients who received a venous patch, 92.1% (n = 921) of the patients who received BPP, and 90.7% (n = 156) of the patients who received a polyester patch (p = 0.799). Only in selected patients with an asymptomatic stenosis of >70% surgery was considered. Multivariable analyses showed no significant differences between the three patch types regarding long-term outcomes after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions: In patients undergoing primary carotid endarterectomy, the use of venous, bovine pericardial, or polyester patches seems equally safe and durable in terms of comparability in long-term outcomes

Safety of Switching from a Vitamin K Antagonist to a Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant in Frail Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the FRAIL-AF Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity whether frail patients with atrial fibrillation managed with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) should be switched to a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial. Older patients with atrial fibrillation living with frailty (≥75 years of age plus a Groningen Frailty Indicator score ≥3) were randomly assigned to switch from international normalized ratio-guided VKA treatment to an NOAC or to continued VKA treatment. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate <30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2or with valvular atrial fibrillation were excluded. Follow-up was 12 months. The cause-specific hazard ratio was calculated for occurrence of the primary outcome that was a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes included thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and June 2022, a total of 2621 patients were screened for eligibility and 1330 patients were randomly assigned (mean age 83 years, median Groningen Frailty Indicator score 4). After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm and 1 patient in the continue-with-VKA arm were excluded due to the presence of exclusion criteria, leaving 662 patients switched from a VKA to an NOAC and 661 patients continued VKAs in the intention-to-treat population. After 163 primary outcome events (101 in the switch arm, 62 in the continue arm), the trial was stopped for futility according to a prespecified futility analysis. The hazard ratio for our primary outcome was 1.69 (95% CI, 1.23-2.32). The hazard ratio for thromboembolic events was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.60-2.61). CONCLUSIONS: Switching international normalized ratio-guided VKA treatment to an NOAC in frail older patients with atrial fibrillation was associated with more bleeding complications compared with continuing VKA treatment, without an associated reduction in thromboembolic complications. REGISTRATION: URL: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu; Unique identifier: 2017-000393-11. URL: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu; Unique identifier: 6721 (FRAIL-AF study)