Safety of Shunting Strategies During Carotid Endarterectomy: A Vascular Quality Initiative Data Analysis.

Carotid endarterectomy Intra-operative complication Post-operative complication Shunt Stroke Vascular surgical procedure

Journal

European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery
ISSN: 1532-2165
Titre abrégé: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9512728

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 19 11 2023
revised: 24 06 2024
accepted: 16 07 2024
medline: 23 7 2024
pubmed: 23 7 2024
entrez: 22 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

This study aimed to evaluate in hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) according to shunt usage, particularly in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) or recent stroke. Data from CEAs registered in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2012 and 2020 were analysed, excluding surgeons with < 10 CEAs registered in the database, concomitant procedures, re-interventions, and incomplete data. Based on their rate of shunt use, participating surgeons were divided in three groups: non-shunters (< 5%), selective shunters (5 - 95%), and routine shunters (> 95%). Primary outcomes of in hospital stroke, death, and stroke and death rate (SDR) were analysed in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. A total of 113 202 patients met the study criteria, of whom 31 147 were symptomatic and 82 055 were asymptomatic. Of the 1 645 surgeons included, 12.1% were non-shunters, 63.6% were selective shunters, and 24.3% were routine shunters, with 10 557, 71 160, and 31 579 procedures in each group, respectively. In the univariable analysis, in hospital stroke (2.0% vs. 1.9% vs. 1.6%; p = .17), death (0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.4%; p = .71), and SDR (2.2% vs. 2.1% vs. 1.8%; p = .23) were not statistically significantly different among the three groups in the symptomatic cohort. The asymptomatic cohort also did not show a statistically significant difference for in hospital stroke (0.9% vs. 1.0% vs. 0.9%; p = .55), death (0.2% vs. 0.2% vs. 0.2%; p = .64), and SDR (1.0% vs. 1.1% vs. 1.0%; p = .43). The multivariate model did not show a statistically significant difference for the primary outcomes between the three shunting cohorts. On subgroup analysis, the SDRs were not statistically significantly different for patients with CCO (3.3% vs. 2.5% vs. 2.4%; p = .64) and those presenting with a recent stroke (2.9% vs. 3.4% vs. 3.1%; p = .60). No statistically significant differences were found between three shunting strategies for in hospital SDR, including in patients with CCO or recent stroke.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39038509
pii: S1078-5884(24)00628-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.021
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Xavier Hommery-Boucher (X)

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: xavier.hommery-boucher@umontreal.ca.

William Fortin (W)

Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Nathalie Beaudoin (N)

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Jean-François Blair (JF)

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Louis-Mathieu Stevens (LM)

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Stéphane Elkouri (S)

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Classifications MeSH