Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Therapy

Description

Carotid endarterectomy is a commonly performed but controversial procedure. We developed from the literature a list of 864 possible reasons for performing carotid endarterectomy, and asked a panel of nationally known experts to rate the appropriateness of each indication using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-five percent of the patients in our sample had carotid endarterectomy for appropriate reasons, 32 percent for equivocal reasons, and 32 percent for inappropriate reasons. Of the patients having inappropriate surgery, 48 percent had less than 50 percent stenosis of the carotid artery that was operated on. Fifty-four percent of all the procedures were performed in patients without transient ischemic attacks in the carotid distribution. Of these procedures, 18 percent were judged appropriate, as compared with 55 percent judged appropriate in patients with transient ischemic attacks in the carotid distribution. After carotid endarterectomy, 9.8 percent of patients had a major complication (stroke with residual deficit at the time of hospital discharge or death within 30 days of surgery).

Carotid Endarterectomy

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is performed to prevent embolic stroke in patients with atheromatous disease at the carotid bifurcation. There is now substantial evidence to support early operation in symptomatic patients, ideally within 2 weeks of the last neurological symptoms. Thus, the anaesthetist may be faced with a high risk patient in whom there has been limited time for preoperative preparation. The operation may be performed under local or general anaesthesia. The advantages and disadvantages of both are explored in this review. Carotid shunting may offer a degree of cerebral protection, but carries its own risks and has not been proved to reduce morbidity and mortality. The use of carotid shunts is based on clinical judgement, awake neurological monitoring, and the use of monitors of cerebral perfusion. There is no ideal monitor of cerebral perfusion in the patient receiving general anaesthesia. Both the intraoperative and postoperative periods may be witness to dramatic haemodynamic changes that may compromise the cerebral or myocardial circulations. In particular, postoperative hypotension may compromise both myocardial and cerebral perfusion, and severe hypertension can cause cerebral hyperperfusion. There is as yet limited evidence to guide the management of these problems. In summary, CEA can yield significant benefit, but those with the most to gain from the operation also present the greatest challenge to the anaesthetist.

Carotid endarterectomy has been shown to be beneficial in patients with high-grade carotid stenosis and ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or stroke. This benefit will be realized only if the operation is performed safely. We sought to determine the extent to which clinically significant adverse events occurring after carotid endarterectomy can be predicted from clinical data available before surgery. Eleven hundred sixty patients were randomly selected from all patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and were discharged during the calendar years 1988, 1989, and 1990 in 12 academic medical centers in 10 states. Clinical data abstracted from hospital charts were analyzed retrospectively. A model was developed and validated to predict the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the postoperative period of hospitalization. Clinical data can be used to stratify patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy according to risk of postoperative in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction, or death.

Pulmonary Endarterectomy

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a known sequela of acute pulmonary embolic disease and yet remains underdiagnosed. Although nonsurgical options for patients with CTEPH have become increasingly available, including pulmonary artery hypertensive medical therapy, surgical endarterectomy provides the most appropriate intervention as a potential cure for this debilitating disorder. This article summarizes the most recent outcomes of pulmonary endarterectomy at a single institution over the past 12 years, with emphasis on the surgical approach to segmental-level chronic thromboembolic disease. Clinicians often have to make treatment decisions based on the likelihood that an individual patient will benefit. In this article we consider the relevance of relative and absolute risk reductions, and draw attention to the importance of expressing the results of trials and subgroup analyses in terms of absolute risk. We describe the limitations of univariate subgroup analysis in situations in which there are several determinants of treatment effect, and review the potential for targeting treatments with risk models, especially when benefit is probably going to be dependent on the absolute risk of adverse outcomes with or without treatment. The ability to systematically take into account the characteristics of an individual patient and their interactions, to consider the risks and benefits of interventions separately if needed, and to provide patients with personalised estimates of their likelihood of benefit is shown using the example of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Endarterectomy reduces risk of stroke in certain patients with recently symptomatic internal carotid stenosis. However, investigators have made different recommendations about the degree of stenosis above which surgery is effective, partly because of differences between trials in the methods of measurement of stenosis. To accurately assess the overall effect of surgery, and to increase power for secondary analyses, we pooled trial data and reassessed carotid angiograms. We pooled data from the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial, and Veterans Affairs trial 309 from the original electronic data files. Outcome events were re-defined, if necessary, to achieve comparability. Pre-randomisation carotid angiograms from ECST were re-measured by the method used in the other two trials.