Related Experiment Videos
Carotid endarterectomy with patch closure versus carotid eversion endarterectomy and reimplantation: a prospective
E Ballotta1, G Da Giau, M Saladini
1Vascular Surgery Section, University of Padua, School of Medicine, Italy.
Background:
Although carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) has obtained consensus providing excellent early and late results, conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patching continues to be considered the gold standard surgical procedure. The few studies published to date comparing CEE with CEA in a small series of patients have failed to show substantial advantages of one technique over the other, and further randomized comparative studies are still required. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of CEA with routine patch closure (CEAP) with that of CEE and reimplantation (CEER) of the internal carotid artery in the common carotid artery.
Methods:
Three hundred thirty-six primary CEAs performed in 310 patients were randomized into 2 groups, 167 CEAPs and 169 CEERs. Surviving patients underwent duplex ultrasound scan control at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and every postoperative year thereafter. The mean follow-up was 34 months (range, 1 to 69 months). Demographic characteristics, risk factors, associated diseases, and indications for surgery were comparable in the 2 groups.
Results:
Although the rate of intraoperative electroencephalogram changes was comparable in the 2 groups, the incidence of shunting was statistically higher in the CEAP group (28.1% vs 1.2%, P < .00001). The carotid cross-clamping time was significantly lower in the CEER group (P = .01). Although all deaths were in the CEAP group, the overall perioperative death and stroke-related death rates were comparable in the 2 groups. The perioperative stroke rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group (2.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Although the recurrent stenosis rate was comparable in the 2 groups (1.2% vs 0%), the CEAP group had a statistically higher rate of combined recurrent stenoses and occlusions (4.9% vs 0%, P = .003). The late mortality rate was similar in both groups.
Conclusions:
Although the outcome of CEAP in this series is consistent with that of the main reported trials, the CEER procedure is less likely than CEAP to cause perioperative stroke and death and seems superior in reducing the incidence of recurrent stenosis and late occlusive events.