Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting)

BACKGROUND

Temporary interruption of cerebral blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. The shunt may improve the outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 1996 and previously updated in 2002, 2009, and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of routine versus selective or no shunting, and to assess the best method for selective shunting on death, stroke, and other complications in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2021), Embase (1980 to April 2021), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1980 to April 2021). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and handsearched relevant journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting or selective shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three independent review authors performed data extraction, selection, and analysis. A pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for all outcomes of interest. Best and worse case scenarios were also calculated in case of unavailable data. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were found for this updated review. Thus, six trials involving 1270 participants are included in this latest review: three trials involving 686 participants compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial involving 200 participants compared routine shunting with selective shunting, one trial involving 253 participants compared selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, and the other trial involving 131 participants compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. Only three trials comparing routine shunting and no shunting were eligible for meta-analysis. Major findings of this comparison found that the routine shunting had less risk of stroke-related death within 30 days of surgery (best case) than no shunting (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96, I² not applicable, P = 0.05, low-quality evidence), the routine shunting group had a lower stroke rate within 24 hours of surgery (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.78, I² = not applicable, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of surgery (best case) (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, I² = 52%, P = 0.04, low-quality evidence) than the no shunting group. No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative neurological deficit between selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring. However, this analysis was inadequately powered to reliably detect the effect. There was no difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in participants selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared with pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy when performed under general anaesthesia. Large-scale randomised trials of routine shunting versus selective shunting are required. No method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in people with recently symptomatic, severe carotid artery stenosis. However, there are significant perioperative risks that may be minimised by performing the operation under local rather than general anaesthetics. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1996, and previously updated in 2004, 2008, and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether carotid endarterectomy under local anaesthetic: 1) reduces the risk of perioperative stroke and death compared with general anaesthetic; 2) reduces the complication rate (other than stroke) following carotid endarterectomy; and 3) is acceptable to individuals and surgeons.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers (to February 2021). We also reviewed reference lists of articles identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of local anaesthetics to general anaesthetics for people having carotid endarterectomy were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We calculated a pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the following outcomes that occurred within 30 days of surgery: stroke, death, ipsilateral stroke, stroke or death, myocardial infarction, local haemorrhage, and arteries shunted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs involving 4839 participants, of which 3526 were obtained from the single largest trial (GALA). The main findings from our meta-analysis showed that, within 30 days of operation, neither incidence of stroke nor death were significantly different between local and general anaesthesia. Of these, the incidence of stroke in the local and general anaesthesia groups was 3.2% and 3.5%, respectively (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.26; P = 0.58; 13 studies, 4663 participants; low-quality evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke under both types of anaesthesia was 3.1% (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48; P = 0.89; 2 studies, 3733 participants; low-quality evidence). The incidence of stroke or death in the local anaesthesia group was 3.5%, while stroke or death incidence was 4.1% in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16; P = 0.31; 11 studies, 4391 participants; low-quality evidence). A lower rate of death was observed in the local anaesthetic group but evidence was of low quality (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08; 12 studies, 4421 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of stroke and death were not convincingly different between local and general anaesthesia for people undergoing carotid endarterectomy. The current evidence supports the choice of either approach. Further high-quality studies are still needed as the evidence is of limited reliability.

Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting)

BACKGROUND

Temporary interruption of cerebral blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. This may improve outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 1996 and previously updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of routine versus selective or no shunting during carotid endarterectomy, and to assess the best method for selecting people for shunting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to August 2013). We handsearched journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting or selective shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed the searches and applied the inclusion criteria. For this update, we identified two new relevant randomised controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials involving 1270 participants in the review: three trials involving 686 participants compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial involving 200 participants compared routine shunting with selective shunting, one trial involving 253 participants compared selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, and the other trial involving 131 participants compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. In general, reporting of methodology in the included studies was poor. For most studies, the blinding of outcome assessors and the report of prespecified outcomes were unclear. For routine versus no shunting, there was no significant difference in the rate of all stroke, ipsilateral stroke or death up to 30 days after surgery, although data were limited. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative neurological deficit between selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, However, this analysis was inadequately powered to reliably detect the effect. There was no significant difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in participants selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared with pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy. Large scale randomised trials of routine shunting versus selective shunting are required. No method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in people with recently symptomatic, severe carotid artery stenosis. However, there are significant perioperative risks that may be reduced by performing the operation under local rather than general anaesthetic. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1996, and previously updated in 2004 and 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether carotid endarterectomy under local anaesthetic: (1) reduces the risk of perioperative stroke and death compared with general anaesthetic; (2) reduces the complication rate (other than stroke) following carotid endarterectomy; and (3) is acceptable to patients and surgeons.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (ISTP) (1980 to September 2013). We also handsearched relevant journals, and searched the reference lists of articles identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing the use of local anaesthetic to general anaesthetic for carotid endarterectomy were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We calculated a pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the following outcomes that occurred within 30 days of surgery: stroke, death, stroke or death, myocardial infarction, local haemorrhage, cranial nerve injuries, and shunted arteries.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 randomised trials involving 4596 operations, of which 3526 were from the single largest trial (GALA). In general, reporting of methodology in the included studies was poor. All studies were unable to blind patients and surgical teams to randomised treatment allocation and for most studies the blinding of outcome assessors was unclear. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of stroke within 30 days of surgery between the local anaesthesia group and the general anaesthesia group. The incidence of strokes in the local anaesthesia group was 3.2% compared to 3.5% in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or died within 30 days of surgery. In the local anaesthesia group 3.6% of patients had a stroke or died compared to 4.2% of patients in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16). There was a non-significant trend towards lower operative mortality with local anaesthetic. In the local anaesthesia group 0.9% of patients died within 30 days of surgery compared to 1.5% of patients in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07). However, neither the GALA trial or the pooled analysis were adequately powered to reliably detect an effect on mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients who had a stroke or died within 30 days of surgery did not differ significantly between the two types of anaesthetic techniques used during carotid endarterectomy. This systematic review provides evidence to suggest that patients and surgeons can choose either anaesthetic technique, depending on the clinical situation and their own preferences.

Improving the outcome of carotid endarterectomy

Little benefit from local anaesthesia

Assessing observational studies of medical treatments

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have assessed the validity of the observational study design by comparing results of studies using this design to results from randomized controlled trials. The present study examined design features of observational studies that could have influenced these comparisons.

METHODS

To find at least 4 observational studies that evaluated the same treatment, we reviewed meta-analyses comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials for the assessment of medical treatments. Details critical for interpretation of these studies were abstracted and analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Individual articles reviewed included 61 observational studies that assessed 10 treatment comparisons evaluated in two studies comparing randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The majority of studies did not report the following information: details of primary and ancillary treatments, outcome definitions, length of follow-up, inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient characteristics relevant to prognosis or treatment response, or assessment of possible confounding. When information was reported, variations in treatment specifics, outcome definition or confounding were identified as possible causes of differences between observational studies and randomized controlled trials, and of heterogeneity in observational studies.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of observational studies of medical treatments was often inadequate to compare study designs or allow other meaningful interpretation of results. All observational studies should report details of treatment, outcome assessment, patient characteristics, and confounding assessment.