Search

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic role of contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) in perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS). Materials and Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched up to September 2018 to identify observational or randomized studies that compared outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with vs without CCO. Forty-three studies (46 arms) comprising 96,658 patients were selected (75,857 CEA and 20,801 CAS). The CCO group included 9258 patients. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Higgins I2 test. I2>75% indicated significant heterogeneity. A random effects model was used to account for heterogeneity among studies. The results were reported as the odds ratios (ORs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression analysis examined potential confounders. Publication bias was quantified by the Egger method. Results: Carotid revascularization in patients with CCO was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.23, p<0.001; I2=0%), stroke (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.22, p<0.001; I2=46%), transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.27, p=0.001; I2=15%), and the composite endpoint of stroke/death (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.05, p<0.001; I2=0%). No difference was noted in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.31; p=0.388; I2=0%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that CEA in patients with CCO was associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.49, p<0.001; I2=14%), death (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.10, p<0.001; I2=0%), TIA (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.45, p<0.001; I2=13%), and stroke/death (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.10, p<0.001; I2=0%), whereas CCO patients who were treated with CAS were at an increased risk for death (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.60, p=0.023; I2=0%) but not stroke (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.47; p=0.080; I2=31%) or TIA (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.55; p=0.861; I2=43%). The meta-regression analysis did not find any significant association for any of the outcomes, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization outcomes are adversely affected by the presence of CCO. Patients with CCO have a significantly higher risk of periprocedural stroke, death, and TIA. CEA in patients with CCO is associated with an increased risk of perioperative stroke, death, TIA, and death/stroke, while CAS in the presence of a CCO is associated with an increased risk of periprocedural death but not stroke or TIA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of surgical resection of carotid body tumors with and without preoperative embolization. Methods: There were 31 patients who underwent surgical resection combined with preoperative embolization (SRE group), and 27 patients who underwent conventional surgical resection (SR group); all clinical data were included and reviewed. Results: There was no difference in the approach for carotid reconstruction in either group (P >.05). The mean surgical time (110.65 ± 35.77 minutes vs 188.33 ± 66.44 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss (140.32 ± 57.12 mL vs 396.43 ± 272.82 mL) were significantly less in the SRE group (P <.05). The volume of blood transfusions required (475 ± 301.18 mL vs 0 mL) and incidence rate of total complications (33.3% vs 9.7%) were higher in the SR group (P <.05). However, the length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (P >.05). Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that preoperative embolization of a carotid body tumor can reduce blood loss and complications and improve tumor excision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Anesthesia & Reanimation is the property of Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology & Reanimation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background The risk of early stroke recurrence amongst patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion with and without full collapse is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the 90-day risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischaemic stroke in patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion both with and without full collapse. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of the Additional Neurological SYmptoms before Surgery of the Carotid Arteries: a Prospective study ( ANSYSCAP). We prospectively analysed 230 consecutive patients with symptomatic 50-99% carotid stenosis or near-occlusion. Based on the combination of several imaging modalities, 205 (89%) patients were classified as having 50-99% carotid stenosis, and 10 (4%) and 15 (7%) as having near-occlusion with and without full collapse, respectively. The 90-day risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischaemic stroke was compared between these three groups. Only events that occurred before carotid endarterectomy were analysed. Results The 90-day risk of recurrent stroke was 18% [95% confidence interval ( CI) 12-25%; n = 29] for patients with 50-99% carotid stenosis, 0% for patients with near-occlusion without full collapse and 43% (95% CI 25-89%; n = 4) for patients with near-occlusion with full collapse ( P = 0.035, log-rank test). The increased risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischaemic stroke for patients with symptomatic near-occlusion with full collapse remained significant after multivariable adjustment for age, sex and type of presenting event. Conclusions Patients with symptomatic carotid near-occlusion with full collapse might have a very high risk of stroke recurrence. Carotid endarterectomy could be considered for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Gulhane Medical Journal is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The optimal method to protect the brain from hemodynamic ischemia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains controversial. This study reports our experience with induced arterial hypertension and selective etomidate cerebral protection in a cohort of patients who underwent CEA without shunting and continuous electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring. Methods: We reviewed retrospectively 102 consecutive CEAs performed in 102 patients with routine EEG monitoring and general anesthesia between March 1998 and October 2002. There were 65 (66%) symptomatic and 37 (34%) asymptomatic individuals. A protocol of induced arterial hypertension against EEG ischemic changes during carotid artery cross clamping was followed. Only patients with EEG changes refractory to induced hypertension went into etomidate-induced burst suppression. Results: EEG changes were classified as mild, moderate and severe. Twenty patients (19.6%) developed asymmetric EEG changes, of which the great majority were mild and moderate (75%, p< 0.05). Seven patients with moderate (n=3) and severe (n=4) EEG changes needed etomidate cerebral protection. There were no mortalities and only one stroke (0.98%) is reported in the series. The morbidity rate was 6.8% and included transient cranial nerve palsies (n=5) and wound hematoma (n=1). Conclusions: Carotid endarterectomy can be safely performed with EEG monitoring and selective induced arterial hypertension and etomidate cerebral protection. Our results suggest that this method may be a good alternative for shunting and its inherent risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]