A systematic review of patch angioplasty versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy

Comparative on the effectiveness and safety of different carotid endarterectomy techniques: a single-center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical procedure that can reduce the risk of stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, controversy still exists regarding the optimal surgical technique for CEA.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of different techniques.

METHODS

Data on baseline characteristics as well as perioperative and postoperative complications from patients who underwent CEA at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 262 CEA patients included in study, with a total of 265 CEA operations. The mean age of 69.95 ± 7.29 (range, 44-89) years. 65 (24.5%) patients underwent cCEA, 94 (35.5%) underwent pCEA, and 106 (40.0%) underwent eCEA. The use of shunt (1.9%) and the mean operation time were lower in eCEA group (P < 0.05). eCEA was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hypotension, whereas pCEA was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hypertension (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in clinical baseline characteristics, occurrence of perioperative complications, and survival whether restenosis-free, asymptomatic or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that all three surgical methods are equally safe for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis and are effective in preventing stroke.

Comparison Between Conventional and Patch Carotid Endarterectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term safety and effectiveness between conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) and patch carotid endarterectomy (pCEA) under current medical conditions.

METHODS

Data on baseline characteristics as well as perioperative and long-term postoperative complications from patients who underwent cCEA or pCEA at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, from 2013 to 2022, were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 248 CEA patients were included in our study. The majority of patients (87.3%) were male, and mean age was 63.6 ± 7.6 (range, 40-81) years; 104 patients (41.9%) underwent cCEA, while 144 (58.1%) underwent pCEA. Between the cCEA and pCEA groups, there were no significant differences in clinical baseline characteristics, occurrence of perioperative or long-term (median, 42.5 [range, 7 to 120] months) complications, and survival whether restenosis-free, asymptomatic or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-center experience, conventional and patch CEA approaches appear similarly safe and effective.

Investigation of Combined Carotid Endarterectomy and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Outcomes and Adverse Event Risk Factors in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of simultaneous CEA and CABG utilizing the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Additionally, we seek to investigate risks for both perioperative and long-term mortality and adverse neurological outcomes.

METHODS

All carotid endarterectomies in the VQI between January 2003 and May 2022 were queried. We identified 171,816 CEA in the database. We extracted 2 cohorts from these CEA. The first group was patients who underwent simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass (CABG) (N = 3137). The second group encompassed patients who underwent CABG or percutaneous coronary artery angioplasty/stent within 5 years of ultimately undergoing CEA (N = 27,387). We investigated the following outcomes in a multivariable fashion: 1. Risks for mortality in long term follow-up for both cohorts combined; 2. Risks for ischemic event in the cerebral hemisphere ipsilateral to the CEA site after index hospital admission in follow up for both cohorts combined. Tertiary outcomes are also investigated in the manuscript.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing simultaneous combined CEA and CABG had equivalent long-term survival to patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 5 years of ultimately undergoing CEA. Five-year survival is noted to be 84.5% vs 86% with a Cox regression non-significant P-value (.203). Significant multivariable risks for reduced long term survival (P < .03 for all) included: advancing age (HR 2.48/year); smoking history (HR 1.26); Diabetes (HR 1.33); history of CHF (HR 1.66); history of COPD (HR 1.54); baseline renal insufficiency at the time of surgery (HR 1.30); anemia (HR1.64); lack of preoperative aspirin (HR 1.12); and lack of preoperative statin (HR 1.32); lack of patch placement at CEA site (HR 1.16); perioperative MI (HR 2.04); perioperative CHF (1.66); perioperative dysrhythmia (HR 1.36); cerebral reperfusion injury (HR 2.23); perioperative ischemic neurological event (HR 2.48); and lack of statin at discharge (HR 2.04). Amongst patients with documented neurological status in follow up, combined CEA and CABG had over 99% freedom from ischemic cerebral event ipsilateral to the CEA site after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined CEA and CABG provides excellent long-term mortality prevention in patients with co-existing severe coronary and carotid atherosclerosis. Simultaneous CEA and CABG provides equivalent stroke prevention and long-term survival to both a cohort of patients undergoing coronary revascularization within 5 years of CEA and patients undergoing isolated CEA or CABG in the literature. The two most impactful modifiable risk factors towards long-term stroke and mortality prevention for patients undergoing simultaneous CEA-CABG are patch placement at CEA site and adherence to statin medication therapy.

Regional variation in patient selection, practice patterns, and outcomes based on techniques for carotid artery revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Significant regional variation is known with multiple surgical procedures. This study describes regional variation in carotid revascularization within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).

METHODS

Data from the VQI carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) databases from 2016 to 2021 were used. Nineteen geographic VQI regions were divided into three tertiles based on the average annual volume of carotid procedures performed per region (low-volume: 956 cases [range, 144-1382]; medium-volume: 1533 cases [range, 1432-1589]; and high-volume: 1845 cases [range, 1642-2059]). Patients' characteristics, indications for carotid revascularization, practice patterns, and outcomes (perioperative and 1-year stroke/death) of different revascularization techniques were compared between these regional groups. Regression models that adjust for known risk factors and allow for random effects at the center level were used.

RESULTS

CEA was the most common revascularization procedure (>60%) across all regional groups. Significant regional variation was observed in the practice of CEA such as variability in the use of shunting, drain placement, stump pressure and electroencephalogram monitoring, intraoperative protamine, and patch angioplasty. For transfemoral CAS, high-volume regions had a higher proportion of asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (30.5% vs 27.8%) in addition to higher use of local/regional anesthesia (80.4% vs 76.2%), protamine (16.1% vs 11.8%), and completion angiography (81.6% vs 77.6%) during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) compared with low-volume regions. For transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), high-volume regions were less likely to intervene on asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (32.2% vs 35.8%) than low-volume regions. They also had a higher proportion of urgent/emergent procedures (13.6% vs 10.4%) and were more likely to use general anesthesia (92.0% vs 82.1%), completion angiography (67.3% vs 63.0%), and poststent ballooning (48.4% vs 36.8%). For each carotid revascularization technique, no significant differences were noted in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-volume regions. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between TCAR and CEA across the different regional groups. In all regional groups, TCAR was associated with a 40% reduction in perioperative and 1-year stroke/death compared with TF-CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant variation in clinical practices for the management of carotid disease, no regional variation exists in the overall outcomes of carotid interventions. TCAR and CEA continue to show superior outcomes to TF-CAS across all VQI regional groups.

Posterior cervical triangle approach for carotid endarterectomy: Technical note and results

INTRODUCTION

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed using the anterior cervical triangle as a surgical corridor but, when needed, the retromandibular space makes dissection of higher structures difficult in some cases. The posterior cervical triangle (PCT) can be useful in these demanding cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed cases from July 2013 to November 2019 in which PCT was used as an approach for CEA. The surgical technique used was explained, and the complications and evolution of the patients were analysed.

RESULTS

We found 7 CEAs performed through this approach, of which 2 presented transient trapezius paresis. There were no cases of severe complications in this series.

CONCLUSION

The PCT approach for performing CEA represents a useful and easy technique that avoids the need for mandibular mobilisation or osteotomies for lesions located in anatomically high carotid bifurcations.

Carotid endarterectomy with saphenous vein patch angioplasty: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

When performing a conventional CEA it is recommended the use of patch angioplasty (PA), since previous meta-analyses have shown PA to be superior to primary closure (PRC) in terms of stroke and restenosis rates. Different materials patches can be employed although none of them has been proved to be superior. Although autologous veins are potentially more resistant to immediate thrombosis as well as infection, cons may be represented by patch rupture and late dilatation. Aim of this study is to evaluate immediate and long-term results of CEA with saphenous vein patch angioplasty (SVPA) in a single-center experience.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed analyzing all patients undergoing CEA with SVPA at our institution from January 2012 to March 2020. CEA was performed in symptomatic patients with 50-99% carotid stenosis degree or asymptomatic patients with 70-99% stenosis degree. Exclusion criteria were critical limb ischemia, varicose disease, unavailability of saphenous veins, vein diameter <3.5 mm. All CEAs were performed under general anesthesia with routine shunting. Primary endpoints were perioperative stroke, death, carotid thrombosis and hematoma requiring surgery rates. Secondary endpoints included the rate of recurrent stenosis >70%, patch aneurysm/rupture/infection at follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 488 interventions were performed on 461 patients. Most patients were male (77.8%) with a mean age of 71.2±8.3 years. Thirty-day mortality and stroke rates were 0.4% and 1.2% respectively. Carotid thrombosis occurred in five patients (1%). Five patients (1%) developed a surgical site hematoma requiring surgical drainage. At a mean follow-up of 34.4±25.8 months 12 restenoses (2.5%) were detected. Five-year freedom from restenosis rate was 96.7%. Restenosis at follow-up was more frequent in patients who had contralateral carotid stenosis (P=0.019). Two patients (0.4%) developed carotid patch aneurysmal degeneration at a mean follow-up of 78.7 months. No infection nor patch disruption were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA with SVPA resulted safe and effective in terms of early and late results. The perioperative complications rates we recorded were quite similar to those reported by other larger reviews and meta-analyses.

Nationwide Outcome Analysis of Primary Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients Depending on Closure Technique and Patch Type

OBJECTIVE

Current European guidelines recommend both eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and conventional CEA with routine patch closure, rather than routine primary closure. Polyester and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) have been used as patch material for a long time. More recently, bovine pericardium has been used; however, there are few studies comparing long term results between bovine pericardium and other patch types. The aim of this study was to investigate the short and long term results after CEA depending on surgical technique and patch material.

METHODS

A registry based study on all primary CEAs (n = 9 205) performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in Sweden from July 2008 to December 2019, cross linked with data from the Swedish stroke registry, Riksstroke, and chart review for evaluation of any events occurring during follow up. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke < 30 days. Secondary endpoints included re-operations due to neck haematoma and < 30 day ipsilateral stroke, > 30 day ipsilateral stroke, all stroke > 30 days, and all cause mortality.

RESULTS

2 495 patients underwent eversion CEA and 6 710 conventional CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The most commonly used patch material was Dacron (n = 3 921), followed by PTFE (n = 588) and bovine pericardium (n = 413). A total of 1 788 patients underwent conventional CEA with primary closure. Two hundred and seventy-three patients (3.0%) had a stroke < 30 days. Primary closure was associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke and stroke or death <30 days: odds ratio 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 - 2.4, p = .002); and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 - 2.0), respectively. During follow up (median 4.2 years), 592 patients had any form of stroke and 1 492 died. There was no significant difference in long term risk of ipsilateral stroke, all stroke, or death depending on surgical technique or patch material.

CONCLUSION

There was an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke < 30 days in patients operated on with primary closure compared with eversion CEA and patch angioplasty. There was no difference between primary closure, different patch types, or eversion after the peri-operative phase.

The role of patch closure in current-day carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

It has long been debated whether it is preferable to perform conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patch closure. Although most contemporary surgeons patch, many still do not. Recent small studies have surfaced implying patching is unnecessary. The objective of our analysis was to determine the difference in short- and long-term outcomes according to patch use in a large modern, cross-specialty database.

METHODS

Analyzing more than 118,000 records from the Vascular Quality Initiative, multimodel inference was used to evaluate the effect of patch use on important outcomes of conventional CEA. The composite short-term outcome included any ipsilateral neurological event, return to the operating room for a neurological event, and an increase in the Rankin score postoperatively. Late composite outcome incorporated restenosis as well as early and late ipsilateral neurological events.

RESULTS

Patch use for conventional CEA closure was found to be a strong predictor of both early and late outcomes, as evidenced by its Akaike importance weight of 0.99. Examining predischarge events, patch closure is associated with a decrease in major negative events (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6). For long-term events, such closure offers a decrease in untoward outcome (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis in a large current-day database suggests that patch closure of conventional CEA effects superior short- and long-term outcomes.

Selection criteria for patch angioplasty material in carotid endarterectomy

Background:

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty has been favored due to its lower reoccurrence of restenosis compared to primary CEA. There are multiple types of patch angioplasty material available. However, selection of patch material is based on uncertain criteria. The aim of this study is to determine the ideal criteria for selecting the best patch material for CEA.

Methods:

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies that describe the ideal criteria for selecting patch material for CEA. We compiled all of the criteria mentioned into one table and selecting the criteria which were most frequently mentioned with a simple scoring system.

Results:

A total of 65 studies out of 784 studies were assessed for its full-text eligibility. Thus, we found 23 studies that were eligible for analysis. There are 22 ideal criteria that were mentioned in the analyzed studies. We grouped these criteria into physical characteristics, safety, contribution to hemodynamic, contribution in tissue healing, economic aspect, and ability to prevent postsurgical complication. We proposed 10 ideal criteria for guiding vascular surgeon in selecting the best patch angioplasty material.

Conclusion:

To this day, no material has been discovered which meets all ten criteria. This study’s proposed ideal criteria serve as the foundation for the creation of the best patch angioplasty material.

Five-year outcome of non-shunting and primary closure technique during carotid endarterectomy: a longitudinal cohort study

Objective

The long-term outcomes of primary carotid artery closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have not been sufficiently studied. This prospective study was performed to analyze the 5-year outcomes of the non-shunting and primary arterial repair technique for CEA.

Methods

This study involved 150 patients who underwent CEA with the primary arterial closure technique without arterial shunting and completed 5 years of follow-up.

Results

The patients comprised 107 men and 43 women. The 30-day postoperative course was uneventful in 147 (98.0%) patients; however, cerebrovascular accidents occurred in 3 (2.0%) patients. With respect to the long-term results, most cases of restenosis at 5 years were <50%. Two patients developed asymptomatic total internal carotid artery occlusion. Eleven deaths occurred (mortality rate of 7.3%); one death (0.7%) occurred in the first 30 days.

Conclusion

Primary arteriotomy closure provides very good long-term patency. Routine use of patch closure is unnecessary.

Comprehensive comparison of carotid endarterectomy primary closure and patch angioplasty: A single-institution experience

Background:

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective intervention for the treatment of high-grade carotid stenosis. Technical preferences exist in the operative steps including the use patch for arteriotomy closure. The goals of this study are to compare the rate of postoperative complications and the rate of recurrent stenosis between patients undergoing primary versus patch closure during CEA.

Methods:

Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent CEA at single institution. Vascular surgeons mainly performed patch closure technique while neurosurgeons used primary closure. Patients’ baseline characteristics as well as intraprocedural data, periprocedural complications, and postprocedural follow-up outcomes were captured.

Results:

Seven hundred and thirteen charts were included for review with mean age of 70.5 years (SD = 10.4) and males representing 64.2% of the cohort. About 49% of patients underwent primary closure while 364 (51%) patients underwent patch closure. Severe stenosis was more prevalent in patients receiving patch closure (94.5% vs. 89.4%; P = 0.013). The incidence of overall complications did not differ between the two procedures (odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence intervals = 0.82–1.85; P = 0.353) with the most common complications being neck hematoma, strokes, and TIA. Doppler ultrasound imaging at 6 months postoperative follow-up showed evidence of recurrent stenosis in 15.7% of the primary closure patients compared to 16% in patch closure cohort.

Conclusion:

Both primary closure and patch closure techniques seem to have similar risk profiles and are equally robust techniques to utilize for CEA procedures.

MEAN PLATELET VOLUME PREDICTS RESTENOSIS AFTER CAROTID ENDARTERECTOMY

BACKGROUND

Carotid restenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a cumulative risk at 5-years up to 32%, which may impact the well-being of patients following CEA. Haematological parameters in the standard complete blood cell count (CBC) are emerging as potential biomarkers, but their application in CEA is scarce. The primary aim of this study was to investigate haematological markers for restenosis following CEA. The secondary aim was to characterize clinical risk factors for restenosis.

METHODS

From January 2012 to January 2019, 151 patients who underwent CEA under regional anaesthesia due to carotid stenosis were selected from a prospectively maintained cohort database. Patients were included if a preoperative CBC was available in the two weeks preceding CEA. Multivariable analysis was performed alongside propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, using the preoperative CEA parameters, to reduce confounding factors between categories.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 28 patients who developed carotid restenosis. The remaining 123 patients without restenosis composed the control group. Mean age of the patients did not differ significantly between groups (70.25±8.05 vs. 70.32 ± 9.61 YO, p=0.973), neither did gender (male gender 89.3% vs. 78.9%, p=0.206). Regarding haematological parameters, only MPV remained statistically significant within multivariable analysis (1.855, aOR [1.174-2.931], p=0.008), a result supported by PSM analysis (2.072, aOR [1.036-4.147], p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

MPV was able to predict restenosis two years after CEA. Thus, MPV can be incorporated into score calculations to identify patients at greater risk of restenosis, who could benefit from specific monitoring during follow-up. While results are promising, more research is necessary to corroborate them.

Treatment of patch infection after carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty is a widely used method for treating carotid artery stenosis. Patch infections are extremely rare, but the consequences may be serious. The current gold standard for treatment is patch excision and reconstruction with autologous material. However, no consensus has been reached and other options may be valuable as well in certain cases. The objective of this study was to evaluate the various treatment options for carotid patch infection after CEA with patch angioplasty on the basis of their outcomes (reinfection, ischemic stroke, and infection-related mortality). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The electronic bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched. Case series and case reports were included. Studies in languages other than English were excluded. Patients who developed a post-operative patch infection of CEA with patch angioplasty were included. Angioplasty could be performed with any type of patch. Patch infection needed to be confirmed by clinical presentation in combination with imaging, culture, or during the operation. The primary outcome measures were reinfection, ischemic stroke, and infection-related mortality. Eleven retrospective case series, two prospective case series, and seventeen case reports were included. The study size was 165 patients (mean age 69.7 years, M/F ratio 1.75:1). One hundred and seventy-one patches developed a patch infection after CEA with patch angioplasty and needed treatment. Treatment strategies included conservative treatment (14.0%), endovascular treatment (4.7%), and open surgery (81.4%). Mean follow-up was 34.8 months and extended up to 180 months. Reinfection rate was 4.7%, ischemic stroke rate 5.8%, and infection-related mortality rate 2.3%. No statistical comparison between treatment options could be performed, because of the heterogeneity of the included studies. Autologous material should be the primary choice of treatment if patch infection is diagnosed after CEA with patch angioplasty. In emergency situations, endovascular treatment, carotid ligation, or abscess drainage could be considered. Endovascular treatment and abscess drainage are temporary solutions. After the patient has recovered sufficiently, a more durable treatment i.e., open surgery is advised. Endo vacuum assisted closure (EndoVAC) seems to be promising. Further research is needed to determine the applicability of each treatment option.

Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques.

METHODS

Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality, < 30 days mortality, < 30 days stroke, or any other serious adverse events. These conclusions are based on data from 15 to 35 years ago, obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE, and should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, we suggest conducting new randomized clinical trials patch angioplasty versus primary closure in carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with an internal carotid artery stenosis of 50% or more. Such trials ought to be designed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement (Chan et al., Ann Intern Med 1:200-7, 2013) and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (Schulz et al., 7, 2010). Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to guidelines should not be abandoned.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014013416 . Review protocol publication 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026419 .

Literature review of primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure

BACKGROUND

Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies.

RESULTS

The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure.

Extracellular Matrix Patches for Endarterectomy Repair

Patch repair is the preferred method for arteriotomy closure following femoral or carotid endarterectomy. Choosing among available patch options remains a clinical challenge, as current evidence suggests roughly comparable outcomes between autologous grafts and synthetic and biologic materials. Biologic patches have potential advantages over other materials, including reduced risk for infection, mitigation of an excessive foreign body response, and the potential to remodel into healthy, vascularized tissue. Here we review the use of decellularized extracellular matrix (ECM) for cardiovascular applications, particularly endarterectomy repair, and the capacity of these materials to remodel into native, site-appropriate tissues. Also presented are data from two post-market observational studies of patients undergoing iliofemoral and carotid endarterectomy patch repair as well as one histologic case report in a challenging iliofemoral endarterectomy repair, all with the use of small intestine submucosa (SIS)-ECM. In alignment with previously reported studies, high patency was maintained, and adverse event rates were comparable to previously reported rates of patch angioplasty. Histologic analysis from one case identified constructive remodeling of the SIS-ECM, consistent with the histologic characteristics of the endarterectomized vessel. These clinical and histologic results align with the biologic potential described in the academic ECM literature. To our knowledge, this is the first histologic demonstration of SIS-ECM remodeling into site-appropriate vascular tissues following endarterectomy. Together, these findings support the safety and efficacy of SIS-ECM for patch repair of femoral and carotid arteriotomy.

Frequency and Significance of Maneuvers to Dissect the Distal Internal Carotid Artery During Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency, factors associated with, and significance of surgical dissection maneuvers of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information in patients undergoing CEA, we recorded information on demographics, risk factors and comorbidities, dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA, other operative variables and neurological outcome measures.

RESULTS

During the period July 2008 and February 2020 inclusive, 218 consecutive patients (180 males, median age 69.5 years) underwent 240 CEAs. In 117 (48.8%) of them, CEA was performed for a symptomatic stenosis. Dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA were required in 77 cases (32.1%), including division and ligation of the sternocleidomastoid vessels in 66 cases (27.5%), mobilization of the XII cranial nerve in 69 cases (28.7%, with concomitant transection of the superior root of the ansa cervicalis in 11 cases, 4.6%) and division of the posterior belly of the digastric muscle in 8 cases (3.3%). Styloid osteotomy was not required in any case. Smoking was the single predictive factor associated with the use of an adjunctive dissection maneuver (odds ratio 2.23, p = 0.009). The use of a patch was more common in smokers (16% vs 7.1% in non-smokers, odds ratio 2.48, p = 0.05). Perioperative stroke and/or death rate was 0%, not allowing testing for associations with maneuver performance. Two patients (0.8%) developed a transient ischemic attack and 4 patients (1.7%) a cranial nerve injury (CNI), including 2 patients with recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, diagnosed on routine laryngoscopy during planning of a contralateral CEA. There was no association between CNI and dissection of the distal ICA using an operative adjunct (p = 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Several surgical maneuvers are often required to accomplish dissection of the distal ICA beyond the point of atherosclerotic disease. When dictated by operative findings, such maneuvers are deemed safe.

Comparative Analysis of Patch Angioplasty Versus Selective Primary Closure during Carotid Endarterectomy Performed at a Single Vascular Center in China

BACKGROUND

One of the ongoing debates about carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the closure technique of arterial wall in the operation. Current guidelines recommend routine patch closure (PAC); this recommendation is based on the evidence reported 10-20 years ago. Therefore, the exact role of PAC and primary closure (PRC) remains uncertain. The objectives of this study were to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent CEA with different closure techniques.

METHODS

From January 2013 and December 2018, one senior vascular surgeon performed CEA for 126 patients in the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. The closure technique (PAC or PRC) was determined on the characteristics (diameter and level) of carotid arteries. Patient demographics and clinical data were retrospectively collected by two research fellows by reviewing the hospital medical records and relevant radiologic studies, as were carotid duplex reports, indications, intraoperative data, closure technique, and perioperative complications. Data of long-term outcomes were gathered by reviewing outpatient clinic visits and associated supplementary examinations.

RESULTS

PRC was performed in 78 operations (61.9%), and PAC was performed in 48 operations (38.1%). There were no statistical differences in demographic and clinical data between the two groups. Carotid clamp time (P < 0.001) and operating time (P < 0.001) were significantly longer when performing PAC (P < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly more when performing PAC than that of PRC (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome and the follow-up results showed that there was no significant difference in the short-term and middle-term overall survival rate and restenosis-free survival rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no differences in postoperative and middle-term outcomes between PAC and selective PRC, whereas PRC technique can save operation time and shorten the intraoperative carotid clamp time. PRC can be safely applied in patients with a greater than 5 mm internal carotid artery (ICA).

Blood flow simulations in patient-specific geometries of the carotid artery: A systematic review

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) are currently widely applied in the study of blood flow parameters and their alterations under pathological conditions, which are important indicators for diagnosis of atherosclerosis. In this manuscript, a systematic review of the published literature was conducted, according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, on the simulation studies of blood flow in patient-specific geometries of the carotid artery bifurcation. Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were used in the literature search, which was completed on the 3rd of August 2020. Forty-nine articles were included after the selection process and were organized in two distinct categories: the CFD studies (36/49 articles), which comprise only the fluid analysis and the FSI studies (13/49 articles), which includes both fluid and Fluid-Structure domain in the analysis. The data of the research works was structured in different categories (Geometry, Viscosity models, Type of Flow, Boundary Conditions, Flow Parameters, Type of Solver and Validation). The aim of this systematic review is to demonstrate the methodology in the modelling, simulation and analysis of carotid blood flow and also identify potential gaps and challenges in this research field.

Long-term Durability and Safety of Carotid Endarterectomy Closure Techniques

BACKGROUND

Various techniques have been used for the execution of carotid endarterectomy; primary (PC), patch closure (CP) and eversion technique (ET).The superiority of any of them is still unproven. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of each technique in terms of cerebrovascular event (CVE), restenosis, survival and major cardiac event (MACE).

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2018, a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data from three European tertiary centers was undertaken including 1.357 patients. Demographics, comorbidities and medical treatment were analyzed in relation to long-term outcomes. Freedom from CVE, restenosis (> 70%), survival and MACE were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis curve.

RESULTS

The mean age was 69.5 ± 8 (72% males;79% asymptomatic). 472 (35%) were treated with PC, 504 (37%) with CP and 381 (28%) with ET. Differences among groups were observed in age (P < 0.001), gender (P < 0.01), hypertension (P = 0.01), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001) and statin treatment (P < 0.001). The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 3 years (median: 5 years). Seventy-three patients presented a CVE during 8 years of follow-up. The freedom from CVE including all techniques was 96% (SE 0.6%), 93% (SE 1%) and 89% (SE 1.6%), at 2, 5 and 8 years of follow-up, respectively, with no difference between groups (P .289). Freedom from restenosis was at 96% (SE 0.7%) and 89% (SE 5%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, for all methods without differences. ET was associated with a higher mortality rate (P < 0.001) and MACE rate (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent outcomes were achieved with all types of closure techniques with low rates of MACE and other adverse events during long-term follow-up after CEA.

[Advances in surgical treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular disease]

Restoration of cerebral blood flow is particularly important for the treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular disease. It is notable that surgical approaches play a unique role in treating this devastating disease. Among them, mechanical thrombectomy facilitates rapid and effective recanalization of occluded intracranial large vessels causing ischemic stroke, which contributes to improvement of cerebral perfusion in the ischemic penumbra; decompressive craniectomy is an important therapeutic option for acute massive cerebral infarction, and the timing of surgery determines the final clinical outcomes; for carotid endarterectomy in carotid-artery stenosis, individualized surgical plan is important for the safety and effectiveness of the operation; in the surgical revascularization of Moyamoya disease, precise evaluation of clinical and radiological characteristics, optimal surgical strategies and accuracy of intraoperative judgment will yield maximal therapeutic effects; and hybrid surgery is feasible for the therapy of complex ischemic cerebrovascular diseases, such as extracranial/intracranial arteries tandem stenosis and symptomatic chronic total occlusion of carotid artery. This paper reviews recent technical and clinical advances in the surgical treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular disease.