Advertisement

A comparison of outcomes of eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: one centre experience

  • Seán C. MaguireEmail author
  • Mohamed Elnagar
  • Afia Nazar
  • Stephen J. Sheehan
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Prompt carotid endarterectomy for stroke prevention remains an essential component of treatment for symptomatic carotid stenosis. There exist a number of techniques, most commonly, access via a longitudinal arteriotomy for conventional carotid endarterectomy (CCEA), but eversion endarterectomy (ECEA) may also be used. Neither has been definitively proven as superior. We outline the experience in our institution of these two approaches.

Methods

All patients who had surgery over a 7-year period (2009–2015) under a single consultant vascular surgeon were included in this analysis. Midway through the study period, the operative technique was changed from exclusively CCEA to exclusively ECEA. Demographics, outcomes, and complications, including re-intervention and restenosis rate were gathered from a variety of sources to maximise data reliability and accuracy.

Results

Two hundred four interventions were performed during the study period; 114 in the CCEA group, 90 in the ECEA group. Demographics and indication for surgery was well matched between groups. A significant difference was found between operative time (128.6 ± 2.3 vs 70.7 ± 12.2 min) and need for shunting (19.3% vs 1.9%), between CCEA and ECEA. Haematoma rates were higher in the ECEA group (7.7% vs 1.7%), but this can be attributed to differing use of perioperative anti-platelet therapy. There was no other statistical difference in morbidity, mortality, restenosis rates, or re-intervention rates between groups.

Conclusion

These two carotid endarterectomy techniques are equivalent in terms of outcome, but ECEA can be performed in a significantly shorter operative time and reduces need for shunting.

Keywords

Carotid endarterectomy Eversion Operative time Shunt 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Feigin VL, Norrving B, Mensah GA (2017) Global burden of stroke. Circ Res 120(3):439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McElwaine PM, J. Harbison, J. Irish (2016) On behalf of the National Stroke Programme. Irish Heart Foundation/HSE National Stroke Audit Rehabilitation Units 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith S, Horgan F, Sexton E, Cowman S, Hickey A, Kelly P, McGee H, Murphy S, O'Neill D, Royston M, Shelley E, Wiley M (2012) The cost of stroke and transient ischaemic attack in Ireland: a prevalence-based estimate. Age Ageing 41(3):332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO (2011) The 10 leading causes of death by broad income group, vol 2008. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flaherty ML, Kissela B, Khoury JC, Alwell K, Moomaw CJ, Woo D, Khatri P, Ferioli S, Adeoye O, Broderick JP, Kleindorfer D (2013) Carotid artery stenosis as a cause of stroke. Neuroepidemiology 40(1):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. 1998 May 9;351(9113):1379–87Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Writing G, Naylor AR, Ricco JB, de Borst GJ, Debus S, de Haro J et al (2018) Editor’s choice - management of atherosclerotic carotid and vertebral artery disease: 2017 clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55(1):3–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK) (2008). Stroke: National clinical guideline for diagnosis and initial management of acute stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA). London: Royal College of PhysiciansGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bakey ME, Crawford ES, Cooley DA, Morris GC Jr (1959) Surgical considerations of occlusive disease of innominate, carotid, subclavian, and vertebral arteries. Ann Surg 149(5):690–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ballotta E, Da Giau G, Saladini M, Abbruzzese E, Renon L, Toniato A (1999) Carotid endarterectomy with patch closure versus carotid eversion endarterectomy and reimplantation: a prospective randomized study. Surgery 125(3):271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM (2009) Patch angioplasty versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD000160Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cao PG, de Rango P, Zannetti S, Giordano G, Ricci S, Celani MG (2001) Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy for preventing stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD001921Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Counsell CE, Salinas R, Naylor R, Warlow CP (1997) A systematic review of the randomised trials of carotid patch angioplasty in carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 13(4):345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonopoulos CN, Kakisis JD, Sergentanis TN, Liapis CD (2011) Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 42(6):751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ballotta E, Da Giau G, Baracchini C, Manara R (2002) Carotid eversion endarterectomy: perioperative outcome and restenosis incidence. Ann Vasc Surg 16(4):422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paraskevas KI, Robertson V, Saratzis AN, Naylor AR (2018) Editor’s choice - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following eversion vs. conventional carotid endarterectomy in randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55(4):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naylor AR, Sayers RD, McCarthy MJ, Bown MJ, Nasim A, Dennis MJ et al (2013) Closing the loop: a 21-year audit of strategies for preventing stroke and death following carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 46(2):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vascular SurgerySt Vincent’s University HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations