A reassessment of carotid endarterectomy in the face of contralateral carotid occlusion: surgical results in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Total occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery has often been considered to be a predictor of poor outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) of ipsilateral carotid stenosis. Data from both the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study have suggested this to be true. However, each of these trials had relatively few patients with contralateral occlusion in the surgical arms of the studies. Recently, advocates of carotid angioplasty and stenting have suggested that this technique may be preferable in patients with a contralateral occlusion because of the perceived poor outcome with surgery. The purpose of this study was to review a large series of CEAs performed in patients with contralateral occlusion to see whether results differed from patients with patent contralateral arteries and to determine whether the presence of preoperative symptoms was an important factor in outcome in these cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A review was conducted of a prospectively compiled database of all primary CEAs performed at our institution from 1985 to 1999. Surgery was performed on 2420 patients, of whom 338 (14.0%) had contralateral total occlusion.
RESULTS: Patients with contralateral total occlusion were more likely to be symptomatic (65.7% versus 60.1%; P =.1), male (70.9% versus 58%; P <.001), and hypertensive (63.9% versus 58.4%; P =.07) with a positive smoking history (42.6% versus 31.4%; P <.001) than patients with patent contralateral carotid artery. No significant difference was seen in the rates of perioperative neurologic events between patients with contralateral occlusion (3.0%) and those without (2.1%; P =.34). Among the total of 913 asymptomatic patients, of whom 115 had contralateral occlusion, no difference was seen in the rate of perioperative neurologic events (1.8% for contralateral occlusion cases; 1.9% for cases without contralateral occlusion). Among the total of 1507 symptomatic patients, of whom 223 had contralateral occlusion, no significant difference was seen in the rate of perioperative neurologic events (3.7% for contralateral occlusion cases; 2.2% for cases without contralateral occlusion; P =.2).
CONCLUSION: The presence of contralateral occlusion does not appear to increase the perioperative risk of CEA. Although the risk of CEA in symptomatic patients with contralateral occlusion may be slightly increased, this must be weighed against the risk with medical treatment alone. CEA can be performed safely in patients with contralateral occlusion, which should not necessarily be considered a high-risk condition for surgery in favor of angioplasty and stenting.