Literature DB >> 11739974

Redo carotid endarterectomy versus primary carotid endarterectomy.

A F AbuRahma1, T G Jennings, J T Wulu, L Tarakji, P A Robinson.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11739974     DOI: 10.1161/hs1201.099649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  6 in total

1.  Carotid angioplasty and stent placement for restenosis after endarterectomy.

Authors:  Yasha Kadkhodayan; Christopher J Moran; Colin P Derdeyn; DeWitte T Cross
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Carotid artery stenting has increased risk of external carotid artery occlusion compared with carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Kevin Brown; Dina S Itum; Joshua Preiss; Yazan Duwayri; Ravi K Veeraswamy; Atef Salam; Thomas F Dodson; Luke P Brewster
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 4.268

3.  Outcomes of carotid angioplasty and stenting for radiation-associated stenosis.

Authors:  Paul Harrod-Kim; Yasha Kadkhodayan; Colin P Derdeyn; DeWitte T Cross; Christopher J Moran
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 4.  Stroke prevention-surgical and interventional approaches to carotid stenosis.

Authors:  Kumar Rajamani; Seemant Chaturvedi
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.620

Review 5.  Management of carotid artery stenosis: comparing endarterectomy and stenting.

Authors:  Ricardo A Hanel; Andrew R Xavier; Jawad F Kirmani; Abutaher M Yahia; Adnan I Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in patients undergoing reintervention after prior carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Margriet Fokkema; Gert Jan de Borst; Brian W Nolan; Ruby C Lo; Robert A Cambria; Richard J Powell; Frans L Moll; Marc L Schermerhorn
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 4.268

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.