Key result
Dacron patch CEA linked to similar stroke/TIA risk but ~69% fewer operative conversions versus eversion CEA.
Why the study?
The two primary approaches to carotid endarterectomy for extracranial carotid stenosis, patch angioplasty and eversion endarterectomy, were compared to evaluate their efficacy and outcomes.
Does eversion carotid endarterectomy improve perioperative outcomes and reduce recurrent stenosis compared to carotid endarterectomy with Dacron patch angioplasty in patients with extracranial carotid stenosis?
Cohort (n=189)
Does eversion carotid endarterectomy improve perioperative outcomes and reduce recurrent stenosis compared to carotid endarterectomy with Dacron patch angioplasty in patients with extracranial carotid stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.6% vs 1.56%
Both eversion and Dacron patch angioplasty approaches to carotid endarterectomy demonstrate similar efficacy and safety profiles for the treatment of extracranial carotid occlusive disease.
Both patch and eversion CEA yield similar perioperative and early restenosis rates; leaves open whether technique selection affects durability or outcomes in unselected practice.
Currently, the two primary approaches to carotid endarterectomy for extracranial carotid stenosis are carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty and eversion carotid endarterectomy. In a retrospective study over a 4-year period from 1998 to 2002, we had an opportunity to compare the two approaches as two surgeons utilized carotid endarterectomy with Dacron patch angioplasty and two other surgeons utilized eversion carotid endarterectomy. During the 4-year period, 189 carotid endarterectomies were performed, 125 with Dacron patch angioplasty (CE-P) and 64 with eversion (EE) endarterectomy. There were no significant differences in age of the patients, operative indication, or associated risk factors between the two groups. Perioperative outcome measurement in the CE-P versus EE included stroke or transient ischemic attack, 1.6 per cent versus 1.56 per cent, cranial nerve injury, 2.4 per cent versus 3.13 per cent; death, 0.8 per cent versus 0 per cent; need for operative conversion or revision, 2.4 per cent versus 7.81 per cent, respectively. Only the need for operative conversion or revision reached significant difference ( P < 0.05), although the need decreased to 4 per cent for the last 50 EE cases. Recurrent stenosis of 50 per cent to 79 per cent was 4.88 per cent versus 3.13 per cent and >80 per cent was 0.81 per cent versus 0 per cent in the CE-P versus EE group over a follow up of 16.3 months and 17.0 months, respectively. We conclude that both CE-P and EE are equally efficacious operative approaches to extracranial carotid occlusive disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Littooy et al. (2004) conducted a cohort in Extracranial carotid stenosis (n=189). Carotid endarterectomy with Dacron patch angioplasty vs. Eversion carotid endarterectomy was evaluated on Stroke or transient ischemic attack. Carotid endarterectomy with Dacron patch angioplasty compared to eversion endarterectomy resulted in similar rates of perioperative stroke or TIA (1.6% vs 1.56%) but fewer operative conversions (2.4% vs 7.81%, P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: