Eline Huizing1, Cornelis G Vos2, Peter J van den Akker3, Michiel A Schreve3, Gert J de Borst4, Çağdaş Ünlü3. 1. Department of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: huizingeline@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine patching after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on the basis of a lower restenosis rate and presumed lower procedural stroke rate than with primary repair. Underlying evidence is based on studies performed decades ago with perioperative care that significantly differed from current standards. Recent studies raise doubt about routine patching and have suggested that a more selective approach to patch closure (PAC) might be noninferior for procedural safety and long-term stroke prevention. The objective was to review the literature on the procedural safety and perioperative stroke prevention of PAC compared with primary closure (PRC) after CEA. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from January 1966 to September 2017. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, assessment of methodologic quality, and data extraction. Articles were eligible if they compared PAC and PRC after CEA, were published in English, included human studies, and had a full text available. Methodologic quality for nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score; randomized controlled trials were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Nonrandomized studies with a score ≤15 were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 30-day stroke risk. Secondary outcome measures were long-term restenosis (>50%) and postoperative bleeding. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria, 9 randomized studies and 20 nonrandomized studies, for a total of 12,696 patients and 13,219 CEAs. Overall 30-day stroke risk was higher in the PRC group (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.9). After exclusion of nonrandomized studies, this difference was not statistically significant anymore (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.8-3.9). The restenosis rate was higher after PRC (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). There were no differences in bleeding complications. Methodologic quality of the nonrandomized studies was moderate, and seven were excluded. Quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was moderate for restenosis, 30-day stroke, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, on the basis of moderate-quality evidence, perioperative stroke rate was lower after PAC compared with PRC. The rate of restenosis was higher after PRC, although the clinical significance of this finding in terms of long-term stroke prevention remained unclear.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine patching after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on the basis of a lower restenosis rate and presumed lower procedural stroke rate than with primary repair. Underlying evidence is based on studies performed decades ago with perioperative care that significantly differed from current standards. Recent studies raise doubt about routine patching and have suggested that a more selective approach to patch closure (PAC) might be noninferior for procedural safety and long-term stroke prevention. The objective was to review the literature on the procedural safety and perioperative stroke prevention of PAC compared with primary closure (PRC) after CEA. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from January 1966 to September 2017. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, assessment of methodologic quality, and data extraction. Articles were eligible if they compared PAC and PRC after CEA, were published in English, included human studies, and had a full text available. Methodologic quality for nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score; randomized controlled trials were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Nonrandomized studies with a score ≤15 were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 30-day stroke risk. Secondary outcome measures were long-term restenosis (>50%) and postoperative bleeding. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria, 9 randomized studies and 20 nonrandomized studies, for a total of 12,696 patients and 13,219 CEAs. Overall 30-day stroke risk was higher in the PRC group (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.9). After exclusion of nonrandomized studies, this difference was not statistically significant anymore (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.8-3.9). The restenosis rate was higher after PRC (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). There were no differences in bleeding complications. Methodologic quality of the nonrandomized studies was moderate, and seven were excluded. Quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was moderate for restenosis, 30-day stroke, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, on the basis of moderate-quality evidence, perioperative stroke rate was lower after PAC compared with PRC. The rate of restenosis was higher after PRC, although the clinical significance of this finding in terms of long-term stroke prevention remained unclear.
Authors: Martijn S Marsman; Jørn Wetterslev; Abdelkarime Kh Jahrome; Christian Gluud; Frans L Moll; Frederik Keus; Giel G Koning Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-05-06
Authors: Keith B Allen; Joshua D Adams; Stephen F Badylak; H Edward Garrett; Nicolas J Mouawad; Steven W Oweida; Manesh Parikshak; Parvez K Sultan Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-02-11
Authors: Nur Setiawan Suroto; Fedik Abdul Rantam; Asra Al Fauzi; Prihartini Widiyanti; Agus Turchan; Vega Pangaribuan Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2022-08-19