Bypass and other modified reconstruction techniques for ‘challenging’ carotid cases: A comparison with conventional endarterectomy
Authors: Xodo Andrea , Barbui Federico , Desole Alessandro , Pilon Fabio , Zaramella Massimiliano , Milite Domenico 
Published: May 2023

Objective

Standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed with patch closure or eversion. However, sometimes a ‘modified’ carotid artery revascularization (MCAR) technique is required if the lesion is complex, extended and anatomically or technically challenging. MCAR is defined as carotid artery bypass; otherwise, it is the combination of common carotid artery (CCA) primary suture or patch angioplasty, associated with internal carotid artery (ICA) patch closure or eversion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of MCAR during complex carotid procedures, comparing them with standard CEA.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of asymptomatic patients who underwent CEA during a 16-year period (June 2005 to June 2021) was performed. Patients were divided into three different groups: ECEA (eversion CEA), PCEA (CEA with patch angioplasty) and MCAR. Primary endpoints were relevant neurological complication rate (RNCR), death within 30 days, freedom from ipsilateral stroke, reintervention rates and freedom from carotid artery restenosis.

Results

A total of 1,752 patients were included (ECEA: 699; PCEA: 948; MCAR: 105) in the study. Patients treated with MCAR were significantly older and had a higher SVS score for arterial hypertension compared with ECEA and PCEA groups. A long plaque in the CCA was the most common indication for MCAR (40.1%); inadequate distal plaque-end or distal dissection (25.7%) was the second most prevalent indication. Overall perioperative RNCR, defined as minor and major stroke, was 0.7% (ECEA: 0.4%; PCEA: 0.7%; MCAR: 1.9%; p = 0.22), without any significant difference among the three groups. However, patients treated with MCAR had a significantly higher rate of global central neurological complications (defined as transient ischaemic attack, minor stroke and major stroke) than the other cohorts (ECEA: 0.7%; PCEA: 1.2%; MCAR: 3.8%; p = 0.02). One patient (0.05%) died perioperatively of a major cerebral infarction. Long-term follow-up (66.7 ± 43.9) showed a significantly lower rate of freedom from ipsilateral stroke for the MCAR group (96.8%) compared with ECEA and PCEA groups (99.8% and 98.9%, respectively, p = 0.03). Similar reintervention rates (ECEA: 2.7%; PCEA: 3.3%; MCAR: 3.8%; p = 0.74) and freedom from carotid restenosis rates (ECEA: 1.3%; PCEA: 2.6%; MCAR: 1.9%; p = 0.16) were observed.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent ICA revascularization with MCAR showed risks of perioperative death, major or minor stroke (<2%), reintervention rates and carotid restenosis rates that are comparable with PCEA or ECEA groups. Nevertheless, the MCAR group showed a significantly higher rate of global central neurological complications (considering together TIA, minor stroke and major stroke) than patients treated with standard CEA. MCAR techniques appear to be effective alternatives to standard CEAs, with an acceptable surgical risk. However, these should be performed mainly in selected cases, for example, in complex anatomy (detected in a non-negligible percentage of patients by preoperative imaging), or in the case of unexpected intraoperative technical issues.