Redo Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Primary Carotid Endarterectomy

Author:

AbuRahma Ali F.1,Jennings Tucker G.1,Wulu John T.1,Tarakji Lisa1,Robinson Patrick A.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Surgery (A.F.A., T.G.J.), Charleston Area Medical Center, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University (L.T.), Charleston, WV; Camcare Health Education and Research Institute (J.T.W.), Charleston, WV; and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (P.A.R.), Ridgefield, Conn.

Abstract

Background and Purpose Several authorities have recently advocated carotid stenting for recurrent carotid stenosis because of the perception that redo surgery has a higher complication rate than primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the early and late results of reoperations versus primary CEA. Methods All reoperations for recurrent carotid stenosis performed during a recent 7-year period by a single vascular surgeon were compared with primary CEA. Because all redo CEAs were done with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or vein patch closure, we only analyzed those primary CEAs that used the same patch closures. A Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate stroke-free survival rates and freedom from ≥50% recurrent stenosis. Results Of 547 primary CEAs, 265 had PTFE or saphenous vein patch closure, and 124 reoperations had PTFE or vein patch closure during the same period. Both groups had similar demographic characteristics. The indications for reoperation and primary CEA were symptomatic stenosis in 78% and 58% of cases and asymptomatic ≥80% stenosis in 22% and 42% of cases, respectively ( P <0.001). The 30-day perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack rates for reoperation and primary CEA were 4.8% versus 0.8% ( P =0.015) and 4% versus 1.1%, respectively, with no perioperative deaths in either group. Cranial nerve injury was noted in 17% of reoperation patients versus 5.3% of primary CEA patients; however, most of these injuries were transient ( P <0.001). Mean hospital stay was 1.8 days for reoperation versus 1.6 days for primary CEA. Cumulative rates of stroke-free survival and freedom from ≥50% recurrent stenosis for reoperation and primary CEA at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 82% and 98%, 96%, and 95% versus 94%, 92%, and 91% and 98%, 96%, and 96%, respectively (no significant differences). Conclusions Reoperation carries higher perioperative stroke and cranial nerve injury rates than primary CEA. However, reoperations are durable and have stroke-free survival rates that are similar to primary CEA. These considerations should be kept in mind when carotid stenting is recommended instead of reoperation.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3