Search

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is among the most commonly performed vascular procedures. Some have suggested worse outcomes with contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. We compared patients with and patients without contralateral ICA occlusion using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database., Methods: Deidentified data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients with prior ipsilateral or contralateral CEA, carotid stenting, combined CEA and coronary artery bypass graft, or <1-year follow-up were excluded, yielding 1737 patients with and 45,179 patients without contralateral ICA occlusion. Groups were compared with univariate tests, and differences identified in univariate testing were entered into multivariate models to identify independent predictors of outcomes and in particular whether contralateral ICA occlusion is an independent predictor of outcomes., Results: Patients with contralateral ICA occlusion were younger and more likely to be smokers; they were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative neurologic symptoms (56% vs 47%), nonelective CEA (16% vs 13%), and shunt placement (75% vs 53%; all P < .001). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk was 1.3% with vs 0.7% without contralateral ICA occlusion (P = .004). The 30-day and 1-year survival estimates were 99.0% ± 0.5% and 94.1% ± 1.1% with vs 99.6% ± 0.1% and 96.0% ± 0.2% without contralateral ICA occlusion (log-rank, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis identified prior neurologic event (P = .046), nonelective surgery (P = .047), absence of coronary artery disease (P = .035), and preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (P = .029) to be associated with 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk, but contralateral ICA occlusion remained an independent predictor in that model (odds ratio, 2.29; P = .026). However, after adjustment for other factors (Cox proportional hazards), risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) during follow-up was not significantly greater with contralateral ICA occlusion (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .32). Results comparing propensity score-matched cohorts mirrored those from the larger data set., Conclusions: This study demonstrates likely clinically insignificant differences in early stroke or death in comparing CEA patients with and those without contralateral ICA occlusion. After adjustment for other factors, contralateral ICA occlusion was not associated with a greater risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) in longer follow-up. Mortality was greater with contralateral ICA occlusion, and this difference was more pronounced at 1 year despite younger age of the contralateral ICA occlusion group. CEA risk remains low even in the presence of contralateral ICA occlusion and appears to be explained at least in part by other factors. CEA should still be considered appropriate in the face of contralateral ICA occlusion., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is among the most common procedures performed in the United States. However, consensus is lacking regarding optimal preoperative imaging, carotid duplex ultrasound criteria, and ultimately, the threshold for surgery. We sought to characterize national variation in preoperative imaging, carotid duplex ultrasound criteria, and threshold for surgery for asymptomatic CEA., Methods: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was used to identify all CEA procedures performed for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis between 2003 and 2014. VQI currently captures 100% of CEA procedures performed at >300 centers by >2000 physicians nationwide. Three analyses were performed to quantify the variation in (1) preoperative imaging, (2) carotid duplex ultrasound criteria, and (3) threshold for surgery., Results: Of 35,695 CEA procedures in 33,488 patients, the study cohort was limited to 19,610 CEA procedures (55%) performed for asymptomatic disease. The preoperative imaging modality used before CEA varied widely, with 57% of patients receiving a single preoperative imaging study (duplex ultrasound imaging, 46%; computed tomography angiography, 7.5%; magnetic resonance angiography, 2.0%; cerebral angiography, 1.3%) and 43% of patients receiving multiple preoperative imaging studies. Of the 16,452 asymptomatic patients (89%) who underwent preoperative duplex ultrasound imaging, there was significant variability between centers in the degree of stenosis (50%-69%, 70%-79%, 80%-99%) designated for a given peak systolic velocity, end diastolic velocity, and internal carotid artery-to-common carotid artery ratio. Although 68% of CEA procedures in asymptomatic patients were performed for an 80% to 99% stenosis, 26% were performed for a 70% to 79% stenosis, and 4.1% were performed for a 50% to 69% stenosis. At the surgeon level, the range in the percentage of CEA procedures performed for a <80% asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is from 0% to 100%. Similarly, at the center level, institutions range in the percentage of CEA procedures performed for a <80% asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis from 0% to 100%., Conclusions: Despite CEA being an extremely common procedure, there is widespread variation in the three primary determinants-preoperative imaging, carotid duplex ultrasound criteria, and threshold for surgery-of whether CEA is performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Standardizing the approach to care for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis will mitigate the significant downstream effects of this variation on health care costs., (Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed with eversion (ECEA) or conventional (CCEA) technique. Previous studies report conflicting results with respect to outcomes for ECEA and CCEA. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes for ECEA and CCEA., Methods: Deidentified data for CEA patients were obtained from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI) database for years 2003 to 2013. Second (contralateral) CEA, reoperative CEA, CEA after previous carotid stenting, or CEA concurrent with cardiac surgery were excluded, leaving 2365 ECEA and 17,155 CCEA for comparison. Univariate analysis compared patients, procedures, and outcomes. Survival analysis was also performed for mortality. Multivariate analysis was used selectively to examine the possible independent predictive value of variables on outcomes., Results: Groups were similar with respect to sex, demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative neurologic symptoms, except that ECEA patients tended to be older (71.3 vs 69.8 years; P < .001). CCEA was more often performed with general anesthesia (92% vs 80%; P < .001) and with a shunt (59% vs 24%; P < .001). Immediate perioperative ipsilateral neurologic events (ECEA, 1.3% vs CCEA, 1.2%; P = .86) and any ipsilateral stroke (ECEA, 0.8% vs CCEA, 0.9%; P = .84) were uncommon in both groups. ECEA tended to take less time (median 99 vs 114 minutes; P < .001). However, ECEA more often required a return to the operating room for bleeding (1.4% vs 0.8%; P = .002), a difference that logistic regression analysis showed was only partly explained by differential use of protamine. Life-table estimated 1-year freedom from any cortical neurologic event was similar (96.7% vs 96.7%). Estimated survival was similar comparing ECEA with CCEA at 1 year (96.7% vs 95.9%); however, estimated survival tended to decline more rapidly in ECEA patients after ∼2 years. Cox proportional hazards modeling confirmed that independent predictors of mortality included age, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking, but also demonstrated that CEA type was not an independent predictor of mortality. The 1-year freedom from recurrent stenosis >50% was lower for ECEA (88.8% vs 94.3%, P < .001). However, ECEA and CCEA both had a very high rate of freedom from reoperation at 1 year (99.5% vs 99.6%; P = .67)., Conclusions: ECEA and CCEA appear to provide similar freedom from neurologic morbidity, death, and reintervention. ECEA was associated with significantly shorter procedure times. Furthermore, ECEA obviates the expenses, including increased operative time, associated with use of a patch in CCEA, and a shunt, more often used in CCEA in this database. These potential benefits may be reduced by a slightly greater requirement for early return to the operating room for bleeding., (Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)