Search

Objective: The durability of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) may be affected by carotid restenosis. The data from randomized trials show that the highest incidence of restenosis after CEA occurs from 12 to 18 months after surgery. The optimal CEA technique to reduce perioperative complications and restenosis rates is still undefined. This study examines the long-term clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis in patients who undergo eversion CEA. Previously published perioperative results of this study did not show statistically significant differences in study endpoints between the eversion and standard techniques. Methods: From October 1994 to March 1997, 1353 patients with surgical indications for carotid stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo eversion (n = 678) or standard CEA (n = 675; primary closure, 419; patch, 256). Withdrawal from the assigned treatment occurred in 1.6% of the patients (in 13 assigned to eversion CEA, and in nine assigned to standard CEA). The clinical and duplex scan follow-up examination was 99% complete, and the mean follow-up interval was 33 months (range, 12 to 55 months). The primary outcomes were perioperative and late major stroke and death, carotid restenosis (stenosis ≥ 50% of the lumen diameter detected at duplex scanning), and carotid occlusion. The primary evaluation of study outcomes was conducted on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Restenosis was found at duplex scanning in 56 patients (19 in the eversion group, and 37 in the standard group). Within the standard group, the restenosis rates were 7.9% in the primary closure population and 1.5% in the patched population. Of the patients with restenosis, 36% underwent cerebral angiography that confirmed restenosis in all cases. The cumulative restenosis risk at 4 years was significantly lower in the group that underwent treatment with eversion CEA as compared with the standard group (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01), with an absolute risk reduction of 5.6% and a relative risk reduction of 62%. Eighteen patients would have had to undergo treatment with eversion CEA to prevent one restenosis during the 4-year period. The incidence rate of ipsilateral stroke was 3.3% in the eversion population and 2.2% in the standard group. There were no significant differences in the cumulative risks of ipsilateral stroke (3.9% for eversion, and 2.2% for standard; P = .2) and death (13.1% for eversion, and 12.7% for standard; P = .7)) in the two groups. Of the 18 variables that were examined for their influence on restenosis, eversion CEA (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.6; P = .0004) and patch CEA (hazard ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.6; P = .002) were negative independent predictors of restenosis with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Conclusion: The EVEREST (EVERsion carotid Endarterectomy versus Standard Trial) showed that eversion CEA is safe, effective, and durable. No statistically significant differences were found in late outcome between the eversion and standard techniques at the available follow-up examination. (J Vasc Surg 2000;31:19-30.)

Purpose: The EVEREST Trial was designed to determine whether the surgical technique influences the durability and complications of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The current report focuses on the study design and preliminary results. Methods: EVEREST is a randomized multicenter trial. A total of 1353 patients with carotid stenosis requiring surgical treatment were randomly assigned to received standard (n = 675) or eversion (n = 678) CEA. Primary end points included carotid occlusion, major stroke, death, and restenosis rate. Results: The rate of perioperative major stroke and death (1.3 for each study group) and the incidence of early carotid occlusion (0.6% for eversion vs 0.4% for standard) were similar. No significant differences were found between eversion and standard CEA with respect to incidence of perioperative transient ischemic accident, minor stroke, cranial nerve injuries, neck hematoma, myocardial infarction, or surgical defects as detected with intraoperative quality controls. Clamping time was significantly shorter for eversion CEA compared with patch standard procedures (31.7 ± 15.9 vs 34.5 ± 14.4 minutes, p = 0.02). A shunt was inserted in 11% of patients undergoing eversion CEAs and in 16% of patients undergoing standard procedures. Overall 30-day events occurred in 13.3% of the eversion group and in 11.4% of the standard group ( p = 0.3). At a mean follow-up of 14.9 months (range, 1 to 38 months), 16 (2.4%) restenoses occurred in the eversion group and 28 (4.1%) occurred in the standard group (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.1; p = 0.08). Conclusion: The preliminary results of the EVEREST Trial suggest that eversion CEA is a safe and rapid procedure with low major complication rates. No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between eversion and standard CEA at the available follow-up. Longer-term results are necessary to assess whether the eversion technique influences the durability of CEA. (J Vasc Surg 1998;27:595-605.)