Thomas E Brothers1. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of Vascular Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, USA. brothete@musc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been touted as superior to standard CEA with patch closure because of allegedly lower restenosis rates and greater technical ease of performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early experience of one vascular surgeon beginning to use this technique. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in an academic vascular surgical practice. The first 100 patients undergoing CEA via the eversion technique were compared with 100 contemporaneous patients who had standard CEA with patch closure. Residual (first examination within 3 months) or recurrent postoperative duplex scan stenosis, perioperative neurologic deficit, and mortality were analyzed by cumulative sum failure and Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis. RESULTS: Operative indications were not significantly different between eversion and standard CEA patients (63% vs 60% asymptomatic, 10% vs 7% stroke, 4% vs 5% amaurosis, and 23% vs 28% transient ischemia). Intraoperative shunting was more commonly used during eversion CEA (87% vs 59%; P < .01). Perioperative neurologic deficits included amaurosis (n = 1) after eversion CEA and transient cerebral ischemia (n = 1) and retinal infarction (n = 1) after standard CEA, with one cardiac death each. By 36 months, one other patient in each group had experienced a transient ischemic event, but there were no strokes. Four carotids occluded within 36 months of eversion CEA, compared with one occlusion after standard CEA (not significant). Patients undergoing eversion CEA showed no difference in critical (>80%) residual or recurrent stenosis rates. However, after eversion CEA, a greater degree of greater than 50% recurrent stenosis was observed at 36 months (38% vs 6%; P < .001) despite similar residual stenosis rates. Cumulative sum failure analysis showed no plateau among patients undergoing eversion CEA, thus indicating the absence of a learning curve, at least within the first 100 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite enthusiasm by advocates for eversion CEA, the recurrent greater than 50% stenosis rate remained high for the first 100 patients who underwent this technique, with no evidence of a learning curve. This observation implies that vascular surgeons considering adoption of this technique should monitor their own early results carefully.
OBJECTIVE: Eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been touted as superior to standard CEA with patch closure because of allegedly lower restenosis rates and greater technical ease of performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early experience of one vascular surgeon beginning to use this technique. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in an academic vascular surgical practice. The first 100 patients undergoing CEA via the eversion technique were compared with 100 contemporaneous patients who had standard CEA with patch closure. Residual (first examination within 3 months) or recurrent postoperative duplex scan stenosis, perioperative neurologic deficit, and mortality were analyzed by cumulative sum failure and Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis. RESULTS: Operative indications were not significantly different between eversion and standard CEA patients (63% vs 60% asymptomatic, 10% vs 7% stroke, 4% vs 5% amaurosis, and 23% vs 28% transient ischemia). Intraoperative shunting was more commonly used during eversion CEA (87% vs 59%; P < .01). Perioperative neurologic deficits included amaurosis (n = 1) after eversion CEA and transient cerebral ischemia (n = 1) and retinal infarction (n = 1) after standard CEA, with one cardiac death each. By 36 months, one other patient in each group had experienced a transient ischemic event, but there were no strokes. Four carotids occluded within 36 months of eversion CEA, compared with one occlusion after standard CEA (not significant). Patients undergoing eversion CEA showed no difference in critical (>80%) residual or recurrent stenosis rates. However, after eversion CEA, a greater degree of greater than 50% recurrent stenosis was observed at 36 months (38% vs 6%; P < .001) despite similar residual stenosis rates. Cumulative sum failure analysis showed no plateau among patients undergoing eversion CEA, thus indicating the absence of a learning curve, at least within the first 100 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite enthusiasm by advocates for eversion CEA, the recurrent greater than 50% stenosis rate remained high for the first 100 patients who underwent this technique, with no evidence of a learning curve. This observation implies that vascular surgeons considering adoption of this technique should monitor their own early results carefully.