Advertisement

Journal of Ultrasound

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 433–436 | Cite as

Early hemodynamic characteristics of eversion and patch carotid endarterectomies

  • Jesse ChaitEmail author
  • Michael Nicoara
  • Pavel Kibrik
  • Yuriy Ostrozhynskyy
  • Natalie Marks
  • Sareh Rajaee
  • Anil Hingorani
  • Enrico Ascher
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently the gold standard in the operative management of carotid artery stenosis. While eversion and patch CEAs vary greatly in technique, various studies have determined equivalence with regard to clinical outcomes. However, the hemodynamic differences following each procedure are not known. This study aimed to investigate any early hemodynamic differences between eversion and patch CEAs.

Methods

All CEAs performed at our institution from March 2012 to June 2018 were aggregated in a retrospective database by querying the 35301 CPT code from the electronic medical record system. Variables collected included gender, age, laterality of CEA, type of procedure, and pre- and post-operative duplex ultrasound (DUS) date and quantitative findings. Exclusion criteria included any procedure with incomplete data, a post-operative DUS > 90 days following the procedure, CEAs with concomitant bypass(es), isolated external carotid artery (ECA) endarterectomies, and re-do CEAs.

Results

One hundred and seventy-one CEAs were performed in 161 unique patients. There were 101 males and 60 females, with an average age of 69.7 (38-96; ± 9.36). 63 CEAs were excluded from analysis: 51 due to incomplete data, eight with a > 90 day post-operative DUS, 2 isolated ECA endarterectomies, 1 CEA with a carotid–subclavian bypass, and 1 re-do CEA secondary to an infected patch. Twenty-seven eversion and 81 patch CEAs were included in analysis. There was no difference in procedure laterality or gender between the two cohorts (p > 0.05); however, patients who received an eversion CEA were older on average (73.3 vs 67.5; p = 0.002). Pre-operative peak systolic velocities (PSV) of the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA), distal ICA, and distal common artery (CCA) were all similar (p > 0.05). Post-operative DUS was performed at 17.0 and 12.9 days in the eversion and patch CEA cohorts, respectively (p = 0.12). Post-operative PSV and change in PSV were similar for all three aforementioned segments (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Although eversion and patch CEAs vary greatly in technique and post-procedure anatomy, there was no significant difference in post-operative PSV or change in PSV at or around the carotid bifurcation.

Keywords

Carotid stenosis Carotid endarterectomy Eversion endarterectomy Patch endarterectomy Vascular surgery Hemodynamics Ultrasound 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest—financial or otherwise. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board (IRB) approval for this study was granted as outlined by the principles set by the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was waived for this investigation, as the study was of minimal risk and the data were blinded and retrospective.

References

  1. 1.
    Liapis CD, Kakisis JD, Kostakis AG (2001) Carotid stenosis. Stroke 32(12):2782–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grotta JC (2013) Carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 369(12):1143–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cao P, Giordano G, Rango PD, Zannetti S, Chiesa R, Coppi G et al (2000) Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: late results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 31(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cao P, Rango PD, Zannetti S (2002) Eversion vs conventional carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 23(3):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider JR, Helenowski IB, Jackson CR, Verta MJ, Zamor KC, Patel NH et al (2015) A comparison of results with eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy from the vascular quality initiative and the mid-america vascular study group. J Vasc Surg 61(5):1216–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paraskevas KI, Robertson V, Saratzis AN, Naylor AR (2018) An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following eversion vs. conventional carotid endarterectomy in randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Euro J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55(4):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casadei A, Floreani M, Catalini R, Serra C, Assanti A, Conci P (2012) Sonographic characteristics of carotid artery plaques: implications for follow-up planning? J Ultrasound 15(3):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gervasio A, D’Orta G, Mujahed I, Biasio A (2011) Sonographic anatomy of the neck: the suprahyoid region. J Ultrasound 14(3):130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ricotta JJ, AbuRahma A, Ascher E, Eskandari M, Faries P, Lal BK (2011) Updated society for vascular surgery guidelines for management of extracranial carotid disease. J Vasc Surg 54(3):e1–e31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gutierrez J, Williams OA (2014) A decade of racial and ethnic stroke disparities in the United States. Neurology 82(12):1080–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    North American Symptomatic Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators (1991) Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325(7):445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker MD (1995) Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 273(18):1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Djedovic M, Mujanovic E, Hadzimehmedagic A, Totic D, Vukas H, Vranic H (2017) Comparison of results classical and eversion carotid endarterectomy. Med Arch 71(2):89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Demirel S, Goossen K, Bruijnen H, Probst P, Böckler D (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of postcarotid endarterectomy hypertension after eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 65(3):868–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Assadian A, Senekowitsch C, Pfaffelmeyer N, Assadian O, Ptakovsky H, Hagmüller G (2004) Incidence of cranial nerve injuries after carotid eversion endarterectomy with a transverse skin incision under regional anaesthesia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 28(4):421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wells DR, Archie JP, Kleinstreuer C (1996) Effect of carotid artery geometry on the magnitude and distribution of wall shear stress gradients. J Vasc Surg 23(4):667–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mozzini C, Roscia G, Casadei A, Cominacini L (2016) Searching the perfect ultrasonic classification in assessing carotid artery stenosis: comparison and remarks upon the existing ultrasound criteria. J Ultrasound 19(2):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benzing T, Wilhoit C, Wright S, Mccann PA, Lessner S, Brothers TE (2015) Standard duplex criteria overestimate the degree of stenosis after eversion carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 61(6):1457–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Vascular SurgeryNYU Langone Hospital—BrooklynBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations