Search

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure., Methods: We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies., Results: The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion)., Conclusions: Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options., Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study., Evidence Synthesis: Review of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations., Conclusions: Carotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute stroke, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established procedure with prospective randomized data demonstrating the benefit of stroke prevention. With the aging of the population, there are limited data published for nonagenarians, especially for asymptomatic stenosis. This study investigated 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as late survival in symptomatic and asymptomatic nonagenarians with severe carotid stenosis undergoing CEA., Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of a single vascular surgery group's registry involving multiple hospitals between November 1994 and June 2017 for all primary CEAs of patients ≥90 years old at the time of surgery. The exclusion criterion was redo surgery or bilateral CEAs. Demographic data, sex, symptoms, risk factors, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Survival analysis was conducted using SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for the specific end point 30-day morbidity or mortality and late survival., Results: There were 77 patients (44 male [57%]) who underwent CEA for symptomatic (44 [57%]) and asymptomatic (33 [43%]) internal carotid artery stenosis with a median age of 92 years; 23 women were symptomatic compared with 21 men, and 23 men were asymptomatic compared with 10 women. Symptomatic patients included amaurosis fugax (n = 3), stroke (n = 16), and transient ischemic attack (n = 25). CEAs were performed using the eversion technique under cervical block with selective shunting. The 30-day morbidity included one (2.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarction and one (2.3%) ischemic stroke in the symptomatic group compared with one (3%) patient having a nonfatal myocardial infarction and none with ischemic stroke in the asymptomatic group. One patient of the symptomatic group required return to the operating room for hematoma evacuation. The 30-day mortality was 2.3% in the symptomatic group compared with 6.1% in the asymptomatic group. There was no statistical difference in survival based on sex (P = .444). The symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had similar median survival of 27.7 months and 29.4 months (P = .987), respectively., Conclusions: The aging population adds increasing difficulty in decision-making for surgical intervention on carotid stenosis. CEA in nonagenarians is associated with reasonably low 30-day rates of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in our small study. However, enthusiasm for asymptomatic CEA in this population must be tempered by low survival rates., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Approaching tandem bifurcation and brachiocephalic disease using carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with ipsilateral proximal endovascular intervention (IPE) has been promulgated as safe and durable. There have been recent concerns about neurologic risk with this technique. The goal of this study was to define stroke and perioperative risk with this uncommon procedure across multiple centers., Methods: Between August 2002 and July 2016, patients who underwent CEA + IPE were identified by operative records at three institutions. Primary end points were perioperative stroke and death, restenosis, freedom from neurologic event, and need for reintervention. Factors related to these end points were analyzed., Results: There were 62 patients who underwent CEA + IPE. The average age was 69 ± 9 years. Most were female 34 (55%); 56 (90%) were taking a statin and at least one antiplatelet agent. Bilateral internal carotid stenosis (>50%) was present in 32 (52%); 26 (42%) patients were symptomatic and 12 (19%) had undergone prior ipsilateral CEA. Bifurcation operations included longitudinal CEA/patch (38 [61%]), eversion CEA (20 [32%]), bypass graft (3 [5%]), and CEA/primary repair (1 [2%]). CEA was performed first in 53 (85%). All IPEs included stenting, with a single stent used in 58 (94%). Balloon-expandable stents were placed in the majority of patients (51 [82%]). Proximal arteries treated included the innominate (20 [32%]), left common carotid (32 [52%]), right common carotid (8 [13%]) and both innominate and right common carotid (2 [3%]). IPE was protected by carotid cross-clamp in 48 (77%). Shunting occurred in 14 (23%). There were four (6.5%) perioperative ipsilateral strokes and two hyperperfusion events. There were three (4.8%) operative deaths, one from stroke and two cardiovascular. Combined stroke and death rate was 11.3% and was not different between centers. Mean clinical follow-up was 6 ± 4 years. Mean imaging follow-up was 3 ± 4 years. Restenosis ≥50% at either intervention occurred in 20 (34%). Reintervention was performed for five proximal and three bifurcation failures (14%). Symptomatic status, redo operation, carotid clamp protection, multiple stents, and procedural order were not associated with operative stroke. Carotid clamp protection was associated with less restenosis (P = .003). Redo operation (P = .04) and hyperlipidemia (P = .05) were associated with reintervention. The 5-year actuarial survival was 81%, whereas freedom from stroke and reintervention were 94% and 81%, respectively., Conclusions: Perioperative stroke and death with CEA + IPE are substantial and consistent across centers. It is strikingly different from isolated CEA or CEA added to open brachiocephalic reconstruction. Restenosis is frequent, and reintervention at either the proximal stent or bifurcation is common. This technical strategy should be used cautiously and selectively reserved for those who are symptomatic with hemodynamically relevant tandem lesions and unfit for open revascularization., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our objective in this article was to review the most recent literature on the status of carotid patching or primary carotid closure following carotid endarterectomy; to determine the best patch material if needed; and to clarify the place of eversion carotid endarterectomy in management of carotid artery atherosclerosis. In order to accomplish this, a literature review was performed of the Ovid, PubMed and MedLine databases using appropriate search terms. An evidence-based approach was taken; with all articles graded using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system (levels of evidence 1 to 5) and recommendations were made using an A to D system. Most weight was given to well-conducted, adequately powered, randomized control trials. After review of the literature, we were able to make the following Grade A recommendation: carotid patching is superior to primary closure, resulting in fewer postoperative strokes and a lower incidence of restenosis in most surgeons' hands. However, it was also concluded that, based on review of the literature, that the choice of patch material in 2007 has little impact; eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and conventional patch CEA have equivalent postoperative morbidity and similar incidences of long-term restenosis. In conclusion, the technique of CEA continues to evolve, but in most reported series, immediate and long-term outcomes are excellent. A variety of technical approaches are acceptable, but it appears that carotid patching remains superior to primary closure.

Purpose: Surgical treatment of hemodynamically significant carotid artery stenoses has been well documented, especially in the asymptomatic patient. However, in those patients presenting with hemodynamically significant asymptomatic carotid artery disease who are to undergo cardiac surgery, optimal treatment remains controversial. In this study, we analyze our experience with patients who underwent synchronous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass graft procedures (CABG) for hemodynamically significant (>70%) asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods: Demographics and outcomes of all patients undergoing synchronous CEA/CABG for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between April 1980 and January 2005 were reviewed from our vascular registry and patient charts. We included patients who underwent standard patching of their carotid artery and those undergoing eversion CEA. All neurologic events within the first 30 days that persisted >24 hours were considered a stroke. For purposes of comparison, we also reviewed outcomes for patients undergoing synchronous CEA/CABG for symptomatic carotid stenosis., Results: Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 702 patients (276 women and 426 men) undergoing 758 CEAs. In the asymptomatic group, 22 patients, of which 21 succumbed to cardiac dysfunction, and one died from a hemorrhagic stroke. The overall mortality rate was 3.1%. Seven permanent nonfatal neurologic deficits occurred in this series (1 woman, 6 men). The combined stroke mortality was 4.3%. This compares to a 30-day stroke mortality of 6.1% in 132 symptomatic combined CEA/CABG patients. The difference in stroke mortality in women compared with men was not significant., Conclusion: In this experience, patients presenting with hemodynamically significant (>70%) asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis can undergo synchronous CEA/CABG with low morbidity and mortality.

Current options for treating recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS) include standard longitudinal arteriotomy and patch angioplasty with or without carotid endarterectomy (s-PCEA), carotid-carotid bypass, or carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS). Eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) is an effective procedure for treating primary carotid stenosis, yet it has not been reported for treating RCS. We evaluated the feasibility and outcome of e-CEA for treating of RCS in comparison to s-PCEA. The records of all patients undergoing elective CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade RCS from January 1981 to July 2002 were reviewed. Although during the earlier period s-PCEA was performed preferentially, this paradigm changed to e-CEA being the preferred technique for treatment of RCS. During the course of postoperative follow-up when duplex sonography suggested high-grade RCS, the diagnosis was confirmed via arteriography. Data on cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death were prospectively collected into a vascular registry database and analyzed retrospectively, Students' t-test and chi-square analysis were used to compare the group's baseline characteristics and outcomes. Over a 21-year period, 7001 patients underwent primary CEA for symptomatic (n = 2405, 34%) or asymptomatic (n = 4596, 66%) high-grade stenosis via standard (n = 1501, 21%) or eversion (n = 5500, 79%) techniques. Fifteen (25%) patients had 70 to 80% stenosis, 30 (51%) had 81 to 90% stenosis, and 14 (24%) had 91 to 99% stenosis. During this time period, 59 patients presented with symptomatic (n = 18, 31%) or asymptomatic (n = 41, 69%) high-grade RCS and underwent operative repair via s-PCEA (n = 22, 37%) or eversion (n = 37, 63%) techniques. The mean time interval for repeat carotid surgery for RCS was 49 months in the s-PCEA group and 48 months in the e-CEA group. Permanent cranial nerve injuries, stroke, and recurrent restenosis occurred in one (4.5%), one (4.5%), and one (4.5%) of the patients undergoing s-PCEA, respectively. In the e-CEA group, these events occurred in one (27%), none (0%), and one (2.7%) patients, respectively, There were no deaths during the 30-day postoperative period. Eversion CEA is a feasible option for the treatment of many RCSs and can be performed safely with a low rate of cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death.

Since carotid endarterectomy was revitalized following the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study, results have improved. However, types of carotid endarterectomy, indications, risk factors, surgical factors, techniques, and other treatment modalities may be associated with outcomes of carotid endarterectomy. The purpose of this study was to identify those factors in a broad-based carotid endarterectomy patient. This study involved review of the data from 3,644 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy in New York State hospitals. A multivariate statistical model was used to identify significant patient risk factors to examine the association of the process of care and surgical factors, including surgical specialty for outcome of carotid endarterectomy. In-hospital death and stroke rate overall was 1.84%. After adjustment for patient risk factors, specific processes of care, such as eversion endarterectomy, protamine, heparin, or shunt, were associated with lower adverse outcomes relative to patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy without these processes. Similarly, patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy by vascular surgeons had lower adverse outcomes compared to neurosurgeons and general surgeons. This retrospective review showed that processes of care and surgical specialty were significant factors that contributed to outcomes following carotid endarterectomy.

Purpose: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after acute stroke is generally delayed 6 to 8 weeks because of fear of stroke progression. This delay can result in an interval stroke rate of 9% to 15%. We analyzed our results with CEA performed within 1 to 4 weeks of stroke., Methods: Records for all patients undergoing CEA after stroke between 1980 and 2001 were analyzed. Perioperative evaluation included carotid duplex scanning or angiography, and head computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. All patients with nonworsening neurologic status, additional brain territory at risk for recurrent stroke, and severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis underwent CEA. Patients were grouped according to time of CEA after stroke: group 1, first week; group 2, second week; group 3, third week; group 4, fourth week. Statistical analysis was performed with the chi(2) test, logistic regression, and analysis of variance., Results: Two hundred twenty-eight patients underwent CEA within 1 to 4 weeks of stroke. Perioperative permanent neurologic deficits occurred in 2.8% of patients in group 1 (72 procedures), 3.4% of patients in group 2 (59 procedures), 3.4% of patients in group 3 (29 procedures), and 2.6% of patients in group 4 (78 procedures). There was no relationship between location or size of preoperative infarct and time of surgery. Only preoperative infarct size correlated with probability of neurologic deficit after CEA (P <.05)., Conclusion: Incidence of postoperative stroke exacerbation is similar at all intervals. The results are within acceptable limits for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. CEA may be performed within 1 month of stroke with similar results at all intervals during this period.

Purpose: Recurrent carotid stenosis following standard longitudinal carotid endarterectomy (s- CEA), with and without patch angioplasty, effects the durability of the procedure and can lead to reintervention. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of restenosis following eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) in women., Methods: The records of all patients undergoing elective carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis over a 5-year period from July 1994 to June 1999 were reviewed. Eversion endarterectomy was performed preferentially under regional anesthesia in awake patients. Postoperatively, patients were routinely evaluated by duplex scans at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (>70%) via duplex scans was confirmed by standard or magnetic resonance angiography. Student's t-test and Chi square analysis were used to assess statistical significance and assumed for P<0.05., Results: Over this 5-year period, 3429 eversion carotid endarterectomies were done for symptomatic (female: 375, male: 573) and asymptomatic (female: 1091, male: 1390) high grade carotid stenosis. In the postoperative period 18 (0.9%) male and 12 (0.8%) female patients developed a permanent stroke (P = NS). Operative mortality was 0.6% (n = 12) in males and 0.5% (n = 8) in females (P = NS). Cranial nerve injuries, wound infections, and neck hematoma occurred in 7 (0.4%), 2 (0.1%), and 26 (1.3%) male and in 3 (0.2%), 3 (0.2%), and 15 (1.0%) female patients, respectively. Recurrent carotid stenosis greater than 70% via duplex scan (PSV >125 cm/s and EDV >100 cm/s) developed in 12 (1.0%) males and 15 (1.5%) females (P = NS)., Conclusion: The eversion technique for CEA requires both the transection and anastomosis of the internal carotid artery at the carotid bulb, and appears to result in a low incidence of restenosis in women. This is a straightforward technique and obviates the need for primary closure of distal smaller caliber internal carotid artery that can lead to narrowing, and the use of patch closure that has its attendant risks.

Purpose: Nonoperative treatment of recent internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion is associated with increased recurrent stroke rates. We analyzed our results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of symptomatic recent ICA occlusion to evaluate its feasibility, safety, and outcomes., Methods: From 1990 to 2002, all patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA), amaurosis fugax, and minor stroke underwent duplex ultrasound (US) scanning and arteriography to confirm the diagnosis of ICA occlusion. Within 2 weeks of symptom onset, patients underwent operative exploration with attempted CEA. ICA occlusion was detected at preoperative angiography and confirmed at surgery. Patients with extensive ICA plaque not amenable to endarterectomy underwent external CEA with ICA ligation., Results: Over 12 years, 87 patients with symptomatic ICA occlusion underwent 90 operations for ICA exploration. In 30 patients (18 men, 12 women) with TIA (45%), amaurosis fugax (19%), or minor stroke (36%), CEA to treat ICA occlusion was technically successful. There was 1 postoperative stroke, 2 asymptomatic internal carotid occlusions, and no restenoses (mean follow-up, 26 months; range, 1-93 months). In 57 patients (37 men, 20 women) with TIA (41%), amaurosis fugax (27%), or stroke (32%) in whom CEA was unsuccessful, external CEA was performed. In this group there were no postoperative strokes, 2 asymptomatic external carotid artery occlusions, and 1 restenosis (>70%) (mean follow-up, 22 months; range, 1-73 months). There were no late strokes in either group., Conclusion: Operative exploration and endarterectomy to treat symptomatic ICA occlusion is feasible and safe. Patients with symptomatic ICA occlusion should be considered candidates for CEA.

Objectives: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a positive effect on stroke free survival in patients with either symptomatic or asymptomatic severe carotid bifurcation stenosis. However, most trials have excluded octogenarians. In addition, concerns have arisen regarding the benefits of CEA in the elderly population, especially in women. In this study, we performed an outcome analysis in patients undergoing CEA comparing those eighty and older to their younger counterparts. Additionally, we evaluated the elderly group based on gender., Methods: Over the past 10 years, all patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid disease have been entered into our vascular surgery registry. Demographics, indications for operative intervention, outcomes and survival of patients who had undergone CEA were reviewed. Procedures were preferentially performed under regional anesthesia with selective shunting. Chi square analysis was used to assess significance and assumed for P<0.05., Results: Over the last 10 years, 125 carotid endarterectomies were performed in 125 patients eighty years of age or older. Fifty-six were male and 69 were female. Mean age was 83 (range: 80-97). Asymptomatic disease was identified in 28 of the male patients (50%) and 44 of the female patients (64%). There were no deaths and a permanent neurological deficit occurred in one female patient. There was no difference in thirty-day morbidity or mortality in female patients compared to males., Conclusions: These observations suggest that CEA can be safely performed in selected elderly patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Furthermore, women over 80 may expect equally optimistic results as their male counterparts.

Objective: Women undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have higher mortality and morbidity in numerous studies. Although controversial, similar results have been seen in women undergoing carotid endarterectomy. We examined the results of combined eversion CEA/CABG by one group to analyze if the outcome is different between men and women in this setting., Method: The records of all patients undergoing combined eversion CEA/CABG were reviewed from our vascular registry between January 1992 and January 2001. Indications, demographics, morbidity, and mortality were retrieved. These results were compared on the basis of gender as well as to patients undergoing CEA alone. Significance was assessed using Theta(2) analysis., Results: There were 563 combined eversion CEA/CABG procedures performed over the 9-year study period: 324 in men and 239 in women. Asymptomatic >70% stenosis was seen in 275 (85%) male patients and 215 (90%) female patients (P = not significant [NS]). Stroke was found in four men vs three women (1.2% vs 1.3%, P = NS), whereas death occurred in 13 men and five women (4.0% vs 2.1%, P = NS). Thirty-day stroke/mortality was 4.9% in men vs 3.3% in women (P = NS). During the same period, patients undergoing CEA alone were subject to a stroke-mortality rate of 1.6% in men and 1.2% in women (P = NS)., Conclusion: This series demonstrated no difference in outcome among patients undergoing combined eversion CEA/CABG procedures on the basis of gender. Although the results demonstrate a significantly higher mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing combined procedures when compared to carotid surgery alone, the combined procedures can be performed safely in both genders. The large number of asymptomatic patients in both the combined and solo procedures may have positively influenced these results.