Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis:a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques. Methods: Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Results: We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Conclusions: This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality, < 30 days mortality, < 30 days stroke, or any other serious adverse events. These conclusions are based on data from 15 to 35 years ago, obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE, and should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, we suggest conducting new randomized clinical trials patch angioplasty versus primary closure in carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with an internal carotid artery stenosis of 50% or more. Such trials ought to be designed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement (Chan et al., Ann Intern Med 1:200–7, 2013) and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (Schulz et al., 7, 2010). Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to guidelines should not be abandoned. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42014013416. Review protocol publication 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026419

Carotid endarterectomy with primary closure versus patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis:protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

Introduction Use of patch angioplasty in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke. The objective is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis as well as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments comparing the benefits and harms of CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis.Methods and analysis The review shall be conducted according to this published protocol following the recommendations of the ` Cochrane' and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Randomised clinical trials comparing CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty (regardless of used patch materials) in human adults with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are symptomatic or asymptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and non-serious adverse events. We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the precision achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and dissemination The proposed systematic review will collect and analyse secondary data from published studies therefor ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences.</p

Eversion technique versus traditional carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty:a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis

Introduction: The use of an ‘eversion’ technique is not unequivocally proven to be superior to carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. An up-to-date systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of these two techniques. Methods: RCTs comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50 %) stenosis of the internal carotid artery were enrolled. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke and mortality rate, (a) symptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and adverse events not critical for decision making. Results: Four RCTs were included with 1272 surgical procedures for carotid stenosis; eversion technique n = 643 and carotid endarterectomy with patch closure n = 629. Meta-analysis comparing both techniques showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that eversion technique might decrease the number of patients with serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; p ≤ 0.01). However, no difference was found on the other outcomes. TSA demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Conclusions: This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of any difference between eversion technique and carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery. These conclusions are based on data obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to ESVS guidelines should not be abandoned.</p

Case Series about the Changed Antiplatelet Protocol for Carotid Endarterectomy in a Teaching Hospital:More Patients with Complications?

Introduction  In the Netherlands, clopidogrel monotherapy increasingly replaces acetylsalicylic acid and extended release dipyridamole as the first-choice antiplatelet therapy after ischemic stroke. It is unknown whether the risk of peri- and postoperative hemorrhage in carotid artery surgery is higher in patients using clopidogrel monotherapy compared with acetylsalicylic acid and extended release dipyridamole. We therefore retrospectively compared occurrence of perioperative major and (clinical relevant) minor bleedings during and after carotid endarterectomy of two groups using different types of platelet aggregation inhibition after changing our daily practice protocol in our center. Material and Methods  A consecutive series of the most recent 80 carotid endarterectomy patients (November 2015-August 2017) treated with the new regime (clopidogrel monotherapy) were compared with the last 80 (January 2012-November 2015) consecutive patients treated according to the old protocol (acetylsalicylic acid and dipyridamole). The primary endpoint was any major bleeding during surgery or in the first 24 to 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes within 30 days after surgery included minor (re)bleeding postoperative stroke with persistent or transient neurological deficit, persisting or transient neuropraxia, asymptomatic restenosis or occlusion, (transient) headache. Reporting of this study is in line with the 'Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology' statement. Results  Although statistical differences were observed, from a clinical perspective both patients groups were comparable. Postoperative hemorrhage requiring reexploration for hemostasis occurred in none of the 80 patients in the group of the clopidogrel monotherapy (new protocol) and it occurred in one of the 80 patients (1%) who was using acetylsalicylic acid and dipyridamole (old protocol). In three patients (4%) in the clopidogrel monotherapy and one patient (1%) in the acetylsalicylic acid and extended release dipyridamole protocol an ipsilateral stroke was diagnosed. Conclusion  In this retrospective consecutive series the incidence of postoperative ischemic complications and perioperative hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) seemed to be comparable in patients using clopidogrel monotherapy versus acetylsalicylic acid and extended release dipyridamole for secondary prevention after a cerebrovascular event. This study fuels the hypothesis that short- and midterm complications of clopidogrel and the combination acetylsalicylic acid and extended release dipyridamole are comparable

The Tilburg double blind randomised controlled trial comparing inguinal hernia repair according to Lichtenstein and the transinguinal preperitoneal technique

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anterior open treatment of the inguinal hernia with a tension free mesh has reduced the incidence of recurrence and direct postoperative pain. The Lichtenstein procedure rules nowadays as reference technique for hernia treatment. Not recurrences but chronic pain is the main postoperative complication in inguinal hernia repair after Lichtenstein's technique. Preliminary experiences with a soft mesh placed in the preperitoneal space showed good results and less chronic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The TULIP is a double-blind randomised controlled trial in which 300 patients will be randomly allocated to anterior inguinal hernia repair according to Lichtenstein or the transinguinal preperitoneal technique with soft mesh. All unilateral primary inguinal hernia patients eligible for operation who meet inclusion criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary endpoint will be direct postoperative- and chronic pain. Secondary endpoints are operation time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, costs, return to daily activities (e.g. work) and recurrence. Both groups will be evaluated.</p> <p>Success rate of hernia repair and complications will be measured as safeguard for quality.</p> <p>To demonstrate that inguinal hernia repair according to the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique reduces postoperative pain to <10%, with α = 0,05 and power 80%, a total sample size of 300 patients was calculated.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The TULIP trial is aimed to show a reduction in postoperative chronic pain after anterior hernia repair according to the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique, compared to Lichtenstein.</p> <p>In our hypothesis the TIPP technique reduces chronic pain compared to Lichtenstein.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 93798494</p

Emergency autologous vein graft reconstruction after using a vascular closure device Reconstrução de emergência de enxerto autólogo de veia após uso de dispositivo de fechamento vascular

An emergency operation for access related acute critical limb ischemia with signs of infection is described. Inguinal femoral reconstruction was performed with a bifurcated graft constructed from the ipsilateral saphenous vein.<br>Uma operação de emergência relacionada à isquemia aguda com sinais de infecção é descrita. Reconstrução femoral inguinal foi realizada com um enxerto bifurcado feito a partir da veia safena ipsilateral

Medicações referentes às complicações após correção de aneurisma da aorta abdominal endovascular

OBJETIVO: Este estudo observacional foi desenvolvido para pesquisar a influência dos medicamentos na ocorrência de complicações após correção endovascular de aneurismas da aorta abdominal. MÉTODO: Foram analisados retrospectivamente os dados clínicos referentes a 70 pacientes consecutivos submetidos à correção endovascular de aneurisma da aorta abdominal em dois centros cirúrgicos vasculares num período de 3 anos. As complicações eram classificadas de acordo com as recomendações do Comitê Designado de Padrões de Tratamento. Foi feita uma distinção entre complicações relacionadas ou não ao stent. Uma análise de regressão foi usada para avaliar a associação entre 12 grupos de medicamentos diferentes e o resultado da correção endovascular. RESULTADOS: Durante um acompanhamento de 70 pacientes-anos, foram relatadas 14 complicações leves (20%), 23 moderadas (33%) e sete graves (10%). Trinta pacientes (43%) que usaram cumarínicos tiveram significantemente menos complicações não relacionadas ao stent (OR. 0,21; 95% CI 0,05-0,90) comparados com os não usuários. Vinte pacientes (29%), tomando medicamentos antieméticos durante internação, mostraram quatro vezes mais complicações relacionadas ao stent (OR. 4,37; 95% CI 1,10-17,3) e o uso de analgésicos no hospital em 25 pacientes foi associado com mais complicações relacionadas ao stent (OR. 3,81; 95% CI 1,32-11,0). CONCLUSÃO: Medicações parecem estar associados com a ocorrência de complicações após terapia endovascular de aneurismas da aorta abdominal. Pacientes que usaram cumarínicos tiveram menos complicações não relacionadas ao stent. Pacientes que usaram agentes antieméticos durante internação mostraram um número quatro vezes maior de complicações não relacionadas ao stent. Pacientes usando analgésicos durante a internação eram associados com maiores complicações relacionadas ao stent

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

Introduction Traditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods and outcomes The review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses. Ethics and dissemination The proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019119361

Additional file 2 of Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

GRADE summary of findings tabl