A comparison of outcomes of eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: one centre experience
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCarotid endarterectomy Eversion Operative time Shunt
- 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
- 4.WHO (2011) The 10 leading causes of death by broad income group, vol 2008. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 11.Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM (2009) Patch angioplasty versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD000160Google Scholar
- 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
- 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