A comparison of results with eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative and the Mid-America Vascular Study Group

Joseph R. Schneider*, Irene B. Helenowski, Cheryl R. Jackson, Michael J. Verta, Kimberly C. Zamor, Nilesh H. Patel, Stanley Kim, Andrew W. Hoel, for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative, Mid-America Vascular Study Group

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed with eversion (ECEA) or conventional (CCEA) technique. Previous studies report conflicting results with respect to outcomes for ECEA and CCEA. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes for ECEA and CCEA. Methods: Deidentified data for CEA patients were obtained from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (SVS VQI) database for years 2003 to 2013. Second (contralateral) CEA, reoperative CEA, CEA after previous carotid stenting, or CEA concurrent with cardiac surgery were excluded, leaving 2365 ECEA and 17,155 CCEA for comparison. Univariate analysis compared patients, procedures, and outcomes. Survival analysis was also performed for mortality. Multivariate analysis was used selectively to examine the possible independent predictive value of variables on outcomes. Results: Groups were similar with respect to sex, demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative neurologic symptoms, except that ECEA patients tended to be older (71.3 vs 69.8 years; P <.001). CCEA was more often performed with general anesthesia (92% vs 80%; P <.001) and with a shunt (59% vs 24%; P <.001). Immediate perioperative ipsilateral neurologic events (ECEA, 1.3% vs CCEA, 1.2%; P =.86) and any ipsilateral stroke (ECEA, 0.8% vs CCEA, 0.9%; P =.84) were uncommon in both groups. ECEA tended to take less time (median 99 vs 114 minutes; P <.001). However, ECEA more often required a return to the operating room for bleeding (1.4% vs 0.8%; P =.002), a difference that logistic regression analysis showed was only partly explained by differential use of protamine. Life-table estimated 1-year freedom from any cortical neurologic event was similar (96.7% vs 96.7%). Estimated survival was similar comparing ECEA with CCEA at 1 year (96.7% vs 95.9%); however, estimated survival tended to decline more rapidly in ECEA patients after ∼2 years. Cox proportional hazards modeling confirmed that independent predictors of mortality included age, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking, but also demonstrated that CEA type was not an independent predictor of mortality. The 1-year freedom from recurrent stenosis >50% was lower for ECEA (88.8% vs 94.3%, P <.001). However, ECEA and CCEA both had a very high rate of freedom from reoperation at 1 year (99.5% vs 99.6%; P =.67). Conclusions: ECEA and CCEA appear to provide similar freedom from neurologic morbidity, death, and reintervention. ECEA was associated with significantly shorter procedure times. Furthermore, ECEA obviates the expenses, including increased operative time, associated with use of a patch in CCEA, and a shunt, more often used in CCEA in this database. These potential benefits may be reduced by a slightly greater requirement for early return to the operating room for bleeding.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1216-1222
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume61
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of results with eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative and the Mid-America Vascular Study Group'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this