These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Intraoperative assessment of technical perfection in carotid endarterectomy: a prospective analysis of 1305 completion procedures. Collaborators of the EVEREST study group. Eversion versus standard carotid endartectomy.
    Author: Zannetti S, Cao P, De Rango P, Giordano G, Parlani G, Lenti M, Nora A.
    Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 1999 Jul; 18(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 10388640.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: to define the incidence of technical defects and the impact of technical errors on ipsilateral carotid occlusion, ipsilateral stroke, and early restenosis rates, we analysed 1305 patients undergoing carotid completion procedures. DESIGN: prospective multicentre study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: adequacy of CEA was assessed intraoperatively by angiography in 1004 (77%), by angioscopy in 299 (22%), and by duplex scan in two patients (1%). Arteriograms and angioscopic findings were interpreted at the time of the procedure by the operating surgeon, who also established the need for immediate surgical revision. RESULTS: perioperatively, 13 major strokes (0.9%, all ipsilateral) and six deaths (0.4%) were recorded. Overall, 112 defects (9%) were identified intraoperatively: 81 (72%) were located in the common carotid artery (CCA) or internal carotid artery (ICA), and 31 (28%) in the external carotid artery. In 48 patients (4%) the defects were revised. Logistic regression analysis revealed that carotid plaque extension >2 cm on the ICA was a positive independent predictor of CEA defects (odds ratio (OR) 1.5p=0.03). A significant association was found between the incidence of revised defects of the CCA and ICA and perioperative ipsilateral stroke (OR 11.5p=0.0002). In contrast, patients with minor non-revised defects had an ipsilateral stroke rate comparable to that of patients with no defects (p=0.4). No significant association was found between revised or non-revised defects and occurrence of restenosis/occlusion at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: the incidence of major technical defects during CEA is low, yet the perioperative neurological prognosis of patients with major defects warranting revision is poor. Completion angiography or angioscopy and possible correction of defects did not protect per se from an unfavourable early outcome after CEA. Therefore, surgical excellence is mandatory to achieve satisfactory results after CEA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]