This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
Abstract
Objectives
Current European guidelines recommend both eversion CEA and conventional CEA with routine patch closure, rather thar routine primary closure.
Polyester and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) have been used as patch material for a long time. More recently, bovine pericardium has been used, however there are few studies comparing long-term results between bovine pericardium and other patch types. The aim of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term results after CEA depending on surgical technique and patch material.
Methods
Registry-based study on all primary CEAs (n=9205) performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in Sweden from July 2008 to December 2019, cross linked with data from the Swedish stroke registry, Riksstroke, and chart review for evaluation of any events occurring during follow-up. Primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke <30days. Secondary endpoints were reoperations due to neck haematoma and <30day ipsilateral stroke >30days, all stroke >30days and all-cause mortality.
Results
2495 patients had undergone eversion CEA and 6710 conventional CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The most commonly used patch-material was Dacron (n=3921), followed by PTFE (n=588) and Bovine pericardium (n=413). 1788 patients underwent conventional CEA with primary closure.
273 patients(3.0%) had a stroke<30days. Primary closure was associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke and stroke or death <30days, OR 1.7(95%CI1.2-2.4), p=0.002; and 1.5(95% CI 1.2-2.0) respectively. During follow up (median 4.2 years), 592 patients had any form of stroke and 1492 died. There was no significant difference in long term risk of ipsilateral stroke, all stroke or death depending on surgical technique or patch material.
Conclusions
There was an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke <30days in patients operated with primary closure compared to eversion-CEA and patch angioplasty. There was no difference between primary closure, different patch types or eversion after the perioperative phase.
Keywords
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
December 29,
2022
Received in revised form:
November 23,
2022
Received:
April 8,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Accepted ManuscriptIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Vascular Surgery.
User license
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
Permitted
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectRelated Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
