Patient outcomes following carotid endarterectomy are not adversely affected by surgical trainees' operative involvement: A retrospective cohort study

Comparing the Surgical Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy: Assessing the Impact of Consultant versus Trainee Cases on Patient Care and Surgical Training

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the impact of having a surgical trainee performing a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedure on the postoperative rates of stroke and death.

METHODS

In this observational retrospective study, consecutive patients, who underwent CEA between May 01, 2016, and July 31, 2022, were entered into a retrospectively collected database. Patients were stratified into 2 categories - consultant-led cases and trainees-led cases. Primary outcomes were 30-day stroke rate, and 30-day morbimortality. A sub analysis was performed after grouping the patients in whether there was a neurological event in the previous 6 months - symptomatic or asymptomatic.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Trainees-led cases had significantly longer clamping times and higher rates of stroke in asymptomatic patients compared with consultant-led cases. Patient's safety should be our top priority. Any practice leading to a significantly increased rate of postoperative stroke must be discontinued. Training protocols and adequate supervision must ensure that trainees possess the necessary skills and knowledge to safely and effectively perform CEA procedures, thereby prioritizing patient safety.

Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Stratified by Institutional Designation: Academic Versus Community Hospitals

BACKGROUND

The extent of practice setting's influence on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) outcomes is not yet established. This study seeks to assess and compare TCAR outcomes in academic and community-based healthcare settings.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained, systemwide TCAR databases from 2 institutions was performed between 2015 and 2022. Patients were stratified based on the setting of surgical intervention (i.e., academic or community-based hospitals). Relevant demographics, medical conditions, anatomic characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative courses, and adverse events were captured for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 973 patients who underwent TCAR, 570 (58.6%) were performed at academic and 403 (41.4%) at community-based hospitals. An academic facility was defined as a designated teaching hospital with 24/7 service-line coverage by a trainee-led surgical team. Baseline comorbidity between cohorts were similar but cases performed at academic institutions were associated with increased complexity, defined by high cervical stenosis (P < 0.001), prior dissection (P < 0.01), and prior neck radiation (P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, academic hospitals were associated with longer operative time (67 min vs. 58 min, P < 0.001), higher blood loss (55 mLs vs. 37 mLs, P < 0.001), and longer flow reversal time (9.5 min vs. 8.4 min, P < 0.05). Technical success rate was not statistically different. In the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no significant difference with respect to reintervention (1.5% vs. 1.5%, P ≥ 0.9) or ipsilateral stroke (2.7% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.51). Additionally, no difference in postoperative myocardial infarction (academic 0.7% vs. community 0.2%, P < 0.32), death (academic 1.9% vs. community 1.4%, P < 0.57), or length of stay (1 day vs. 1 day, P < 0.62) was seen between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Cases performed at academic centers were characterized by more challenging anatomy, more frequent cardiovascular risk factors, and less efficient intraoperative variables, potentially attributable to case complexity and trainee involvement. However, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes and adverse events between the cohorts, suggesting TCAR can be safely performed regardless of practice setting.

Adverse events are not increased with trainee participation in transcarotid revascularization

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a vascular surgery trainee's participation in transcarotid revascularization (TCAR), a new technology, affects patient safety and outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective, institutional review of our carotid database was performed. Patients who underwent TCAR were stratified based on whether a vascular trainee was present during the procedure. Relevant demographics, comorbidities, anatomical indication, perioperative courses, and adverse events in the postoperative period were captured for statistical analysis.

SETTING

Data were obtained from affiliated Memorial Hermann Hospitals in Houston, Texas.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients who underwent TCAR from September 2017 to January 2022 were included.

RESULTS

Of 486 patients who underwent TCAR, 173 (35.6%) were performed in the presence of a trainee, and 313 (64.4%) were performed without a trainee. Subjects in the trainee cohort had more challenging anatomy, defined as a higher rate of carotid bifurcation above C2, restenotic disease, previous ipsilateral neck dissection, and neck radiation. The trainee cohort had higher rates of estimated blood loss (61.1 ± 66 vs. 35.5 ± 39 mL, p < 0.01), longer operative time (64.8 ± 30.3 vs. 57.9 ± 20.4 min, p < .01), longer cerebral blood flow reversal time (8.9 ± 6.1 vs. 7.9 ± 6.6 min, p = .01), and higher contrast administration (25.7 ± 12.0 vs. 21.1 ± 9.4 mL, p < .01). The ability to achieve technical success was similar between the two cohorts. There was no difference in the rates of cranial nerve palsy, ipsilateral stroke, hematoma, and stent thrombosis. Hospital length of stay, death (0% vs. 1.6%, p = .10), and stroke (1.1% vs. 2.8%, p = .22) were also similar between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Vascular surgery trainee's involvement during TCAR did not increase adverse outcomes, such as stroke and death, in the perioperative period. The results presented herein should encourage other teaching institutions to provide surgical trainees with supervised, hands-on experience during TCAR.