Literature DB >> 7805271

Guidelines for carotid endarterectomy. A multidisciplinary consensus statement from the Ad Hoc Committee, American Heart Association.

W S Moore1, H J Barnett, H G Beebe, E F Bernstein, B J Brener, T Brott, L R Caplan, A Day, J Goldstone, R W Hobson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Indications for carotid endarterectomy have engendered considerable debate among experts and have resulted in publication of retrospective reviews, natural history studies, audits of community practice, position papers, expert opinion statements, and finally prospective randomized trials. The American Heart Association assembled a group of experts in a multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop this statement.
METHODS: A conference was held July 16-18, 1993, in Park City, Utah, that included recognized experts in neurology, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, and healthcare planning. A program of critical topics was developed, and each expert presented a talk and provided the chairman with a summary statement. From these summary statements a document was developed and edited onsite to achieve consensus before final revision.
RESULTS: The first section of this document reviews the natural history, methods of patient evaluation, options for medical management, results of surgical management, data from position statements, and results to date of prospective randomized trials for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery disease. The second section divides 96 potential indications for carotid endarterectomy, based on surgical risk, into four categories: (1) Proven: This is the strongest indication for carotid endarterectomy; data are supported by results of prospective contemporary randomized trials. (2) Acceptable but not proven: a good indication for operation; supported by promising but not scientifically certain data. (3) Uncertain: Data are insufficient to define the risk/benefit ratio. (4) Proven inappropriate: Current data are adequate to show that the risk of surgery outweighs any benefit.
CONCLUSIONS: Indications for carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic good-risk patients with a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 6% are as follows. (1) Proven: one or more TIAs in the past 6 months and carotid stenosis > or = 70% or mild stroke within 6 months and a carotid stenosis > or = 70%; (2) acceptable but not proven: TIAs within the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, progressive stroke and a stenosis > or = 70%, mild or moderate stroke in the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, or carotid endarterectomy ipsilateral to TIAs and a stenosis > or = 70% combined with required coronary artery bypass grafting; (3) uncertain: TIAs with a stenosis < 50%, mild stroke and stenosis < 50%, TIAs with a stenosis < 70% combined with coronary artery bypass grafting, or symptomatic, acute carotid thrombosis; (4) proven inappropriate: moderate stroke with stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; single TIA, < 50% stenosis, not on aspirin; high-risk patient with multiple TIAs, not on aspirin, stenosis < 50%; high-risk patient, mild or moderate stroke, stenosis < 50%, not on aspirin; global ischemic symptoms with stenosis < 50%; acute dissection, asymptomatic on heparin. Indications for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic good-risk patients performed by a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 3% are as follows. (1) Proven: none. As this statement went to press, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke issued a clinical advisory stating that the Institute has halted the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) because of a clear benefit in favor of surgery for patients with carotid stenosis > or = 60% as measured by diameter reduction. When the ACAS report is published, this indication will be recategorized as proven. (2) acceptable but not proven: stenosis > 75% by linear diameter; (3) uncertain: stenosis > 75% in a high-risk patient/surgeon (surgical morbidity and mortality rate > 3%), combined carotid/coronary operations, or ulcerative lesions without hemodynamically significant stenosis; (4) proven inappropriate: operations with a combined stroke morbidity and mortality > 5%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7805271     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.91.2.566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  29 in total

1.  [Significance of Doppler ultrasound procedures for diagnosis of carotid stenoses].

Authors:  R Kubale; C Arning
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Non-cardiac vascular disease.

Authors:  Thomas W G Carrell; John H N Wolfe
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  [Position paper on the indication for and implementation of interventional treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis].

Authors:  H Mudra; W Büchele; K Mathias; G Schuler; H Sievert; W Theiss
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.460

4.  Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Post CREST.

Authors:  Michael Buschur; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  CT and ultrasound in the study of ulcerated carotid plaque compared with surgical results: potentialities and advantages of multidetector row CT angiography.

Authors:  L Saba; G Caddeo; R Sanfilippo; R Montisci; G Mallarini
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Prediction of high-risk plaque development and plaque progression with the carotid atherosclerosis score.

Authors:  Dongxiang Xu; Daniel S Hippe; Hunter R Underhill; Minako Oikawa-Wakayama; Li Dong; Kiyofumi Yamada; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2014-03-13

7.  The practice of carotid revascularization in a large metropolitan population.

Authors:  Matthew L Flaherty; Brett Kissela; Heidi Sucharew; Kathleen Alwell; Charles J Moomaw; Daniel Woo; Pooja Khatri; Simona Ferioli; Opeolu Adeoye; Jason Mackey; Joseph P Broderick; Dawn Kleindorfer
Journal:  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Lesion-Related Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting with Closed-Cell Design without Embolic Protection Devices in High-Risk Elderly Patients-Can This Concept Work Out? A Single Center Experience Focusing on Stent Design.

Authors:  Silke Hopf-Jensen; Leonardo Marques; Michael Preiß; Stefan Müller-Hülsbeck
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2014-12

9.  Geometric and compositional appearance of atheroma in an angiographically normal carotid artery in patients with atherosclerosis.

Authors:  L Dong; H R Underhill; W Yu; H Ota; T S Hatsukami; T L Gao; Z Zhang; M Oikawa; X Zhao; C Yuan
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  Predictors of surface disruption with MR imaging in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Authors:  H R Underhill; C Yuan; V L Yarnykh; B Chu; M Oikawa; L Dong; N L Polissar; G A Garden; S C Cramer; T S Hatsukami
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.