Literature DB >> 7839390

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:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7839390     DOI: 10.1161/01.str.26.1.188

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


  49 in total

1.  Diagnosis of internal carotid artery stenosis greater than 70% with power Doppler duplex sonography.

Authors:  M Koga; K Kimura; K Minematsu; T Yamaguchi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  [Angiology update].

Authors:  C Ranke; H J Trappe
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1999-05-15

Review 3.  Treatment of atherosclerotic disease at the cervical carotid bifurcation: current status and review of the literature.

Authors:  J J Connors; D Seidenwurm; J C Wojak; R W Hurst; M E Jensen; R Wallace; T Tomsick; J Barr; C Kerber; E Russell; G M Nesbit; A J Fox; F Y Tsai
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Carotid Artery Occlusive Disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2000-06

Review 5.  Imaging of carotid artery disease: from luminology to function?

Authors:  J H Gillard
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2003-09-04       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  [Controversies in the treatment of carotid stenoses. Present state of research and evidence-based medicine].

Authors:  H-H Eckstein; P Heider; O Wolf; M Barone; M Hanke
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 7.  [Surgical therapy of extracranial carotid stenosis].

Authors:  H H Eckstein
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in patients undergoing general and vascular surgical procedures.

Authors:  M Paciaroni; V Caso; M Acciarresi; R W Baumgartner; G Agnelli
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 10.154

9.  Carotid artery stenting: a single-centre experience with up to 8 years' follow-up.

Authors:  Giovanni Simonetti; Roberto Gandini; Francesco Versaci; Enrico Pampana; Sebastiano Fabiano; Matteo Stefanini; Alessio Spinelli; Carlo Andrea Reale; Massimiliano Di Primio; Eleonora Gaspari
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Carotid artery stenting: findings based on 8 years' experience.

Authors:  G Simonetti; R Gandini; F Versaci; E Pampana; S Fabiano; M Stefanini; A Spinelli; C A Reale; M Di Primio; E Gaspari
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-09-26       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.