Literature review of primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure

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.

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.

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).

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.