Shunt intention during carotid endarterectomy in the early symptomatic period and perioperative stroke risk.
Aged
Anastomosis, Surgical
/ statistics & numerical data
Carotid Stenosis
/ mortality
Cerebrovascular Circulation
Clinical Decision-Making
Endarterectomy, Carotid
/ adverse effects
Female
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Care Planning
/ statistics & numerical data
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Recurrence
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
/ statistics & numerical data
Risk Factors
Secondary Prevention
/ methods
Stroke
/ epidemiology
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Carotid endarterectomy
Operative planning
Shunt
Stroke
Vascular surgery
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
03
09
2019
accepted:
21
11
2019
pubmed:
10
2
2020
medline:
12
3
2021
entrez:
10
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Whether recent stroke mandates planned shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is controversial. Our goal was to determine associations of various shunting practices with postoperative outcomes of CEAs performed after acute stroke. The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2010-2018) was queried for CEAs performed within 14 days of an ipsilateral stroke. Surgeons who prospectively planned to shunt either shunted routinely per their usual practice or shunted selectively for preoperative indications. Surgeons who prospectively planned not to shunt either shunted selectively for intraoperative indications or did not shunt. Univariable and multivariable analyses compared shunting approaches. There were 5683 CEAs performed after acute ipsilateral stroke. Surgeons planned to shunt in 56.1% of cases. Patients whose surgeons planned to shunt vs planned not to shunt were more likely to have severe contralateral stenosis (8.8% vs 6.9%; P = .008), to receive general anesthesia (97.5% vs 89.1%; P < .001), and to undergo conventional CEA (94% vs 81.8%; P < .001). Unadjusted outcomes were similar between the cohorts for operative duration (124.3 ± 48.1 minutes vs 123.6 ± 47 minutes; P = .572) and 30-day stroke (3.4% vs 3%; P = .457), myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 0.8%; P = .16), and mortality (1.6% vs 1.3%; P = .28). On multivariable analysis, planning to shunt vs planning not to shunt was associated with similar risk of 30-day stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.67; P = .402). On subgroup analysis, in 38.4% patients, no shunt was placed, whereas the remainder received routine shunts (44.4%), preoperatively indicated shunts (11.6%), and intraoperatively indicated shunts (5.5%). Compared with no shunting, shunting by surgeons who routinely shunt was associated with a similar stroke risk (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.91-2.13; P = .129), but shunting by surgeons who selectively shunt on the basis of preoperative indications (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.22-3.63; P = .007) or intraoperative indications (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.86-6.01; P < .001) was associated with increased stroke risk. Prior coronary revascularization independently predicted increased intraoperatively indicated shunting (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.8; P = .022). In CEAs performed after acute ipsilateral stroke, there is no difference in postoperative stroke risk when surgeons prospectively plan to shunt or not to shunt. Shunting is often not necessary; however, when shunting is performed, routine shunters achieve better outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32035768
pii: S0741-5214(19)32892-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.047
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1385-1394.e2Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.