Carotid endarterectomy with patch closure versus carotid eversion endarterectomy and reimplantation: a prospective randomized study. A prospective randomized study on bilateral carotid endarterectomy: patching versus eversion. A randomized study on eversion versus standard carotid endarterectomy: study design and preliminary results: the Everest Trial. Division-endarterectomy-anastomosis of the internal carotid artery: a prospective randomized comparative study.
Although carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) has obtained consensus providing excellent early and late results, conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patching continues to be considered the gold standard surgical procedure. The few studies published to date comparing CEE with CEA in a small series of patients have failed to show substantial advantages of one technique over the other, and further randomized comparative studies are still required. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of CEA with routine patch closure (CEAP) with that of CEE and reimplantation (CEER) of the internal carotid artery in the common carotid artery.
                Three hundred thirty-six primary CEAs performed in 310 patients were randomized into 2 groups, 167 CEAPs and 169 CEERs. Surviving patients underwent duplex ultrasound scan control at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and every postoperative year thereafter. The mean follow-up was 34 months (range, 1 to 69 months). Demographic characteristics, risk factors, associated diseases, and indications for surgery were comparable in the 2 groups.
                Although the rate of intraoperative electroencephalogram changes was comparable in the 2 groups, the incidence of shunting was statistically higher in the CEAP group (28.1% vs 1.2%, P < .00001). The carotid cross-clamping time was significantly lower in the CEER group (P = .01). Although all deaths were in the CEAP group, the overall perioperative death and stroke-related death rates were comparable in the 2 groups. The perioperative stroke rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group (2.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Although the recurrent stenosis rate was comparable in the 2 groups (1.2% vs 0%), the CEAP group had a statistically higher rate of combined recurrent stenoses and occlusions (4.9% vs 0%, P = .003). The late mortality rate was similar in both groups.
                Although the outcome of CEAP in this series is consistent with that of the main reported trials, the CEER procedure is less likely than CEAP to cause perioperative stroke and death and seems superior in reducing the incidence of recurrent stenosis and late occlusive events. To compare the clinical outcome and restenosis incidence of patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (CEAP) on one side and carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) on the other.
                Although a few investigators have compared the results of CEAP versus CEE, no reports have compared the outcome of CEAP versus CEE in the same patient.
                Eighty-six patients were randomly selected for sequential surgical treatment involving either CEAP/CEE or CEE/CEAP. All patients underwent postoperative duplex ultrasound study and clinical follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. Various factors were analyzed to ascertain any association with restenosis, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of restenosis.
                Demographic and clinical data were similar in the CEAP and CEE groups. The selective shunting rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group. There were no perioperative deaths. Although the incidence of perioperative ipsilateral stroke was not significant, CEAP patients had a rate of combined transient ischemic attacks and strokes that approached statistical significance. The mean follow-up was 40 months. CEAP patients had a significantly higher incidence of restenosis and combined occlusive events and restenoses. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CEE had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than CEAP and that freedom from restenoses at 24 and 36 months was 87% and 83% for CEAP and 98% and 98% for CEE, respectively.
                CEE is less likely to cause perioperative neurologic complications and restenoses than CEAP. The significantly higher rate of unilateral recurrence suggests that local factors play a more important role than systemic factors in the occurrence of restenosis. The EVEREST Trial was designed to determine whether the surgical technique influences the durability and complications of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The current report focuses on the study design and preliminary results.
                EVEREST is a randomized multicenter trial. A total of 1353 patients with carotid stenosis requiring surgical treatment were randomly assigned to received standard (n = 675) or eversion (n = 678) CEA. Primary end points included carotid occlusion, major stroke, death, and restenosis rate.
                The rate of perioperative major stroke and death (1.3 for each study group) and the incidence of early carotid occlusion (0.6% for eversion vs 0.4% for standard) were similar. No significant differences were found between eversion and standard CEA with respect to incidence of perioperative transient ischemic accident, minor stroke, cranial nerve injuries, neck hematoma, myocardial infarction, or surgical defects as detected with intraoperative quality controls. Clamping time was significantly shorter for eversion CEA compared with patch standard procedures (31.7 +/- 15.9 vs 34.5 +/- 14.4 minutes, p = 0.02). A shunt was inserted in 11% of patients undergoing eversion CEAs and in 16% of patients undergoing standard procedures. Overall 30-day events occurred in 13.3% of the eversion group and in 11.4% of the standard group (p = 0.3). At a mean follow-up of 14.9 months (range, 1 to 38 months), 16 (2.4%) restenoses occurred in the eversion group and 28 (4.1%) occurred in the standard group (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.1; p = 0.08).
                The preliminary results of the EVEREST Trial suggest that eversion CEA is a safe and rapid procedure with low major complication rates. No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between eversion and standard CEA at the available follow-up. Longer-term results are necessary to assess whether the eversion technique influences the durability of CEA. Saphenous vein patch angioplasty is reported to yield superior results for carotid endarterectomy. In order to evaluate an alternative technique, which leaves the saphenous vein intact for other possible graft purposes, 200 carotid endarterectomies were included in a prospective randomized comparative study. Patients were randomized to two statistically equivalent groups: one group underwent classical carotid endarterectomy through a longitudinal incision with saphenous vein patch angioplasty; the other had endarterectomy through an oblique division of the internal carotid followed by in situ anastomosis. Cross-clamping time was approximately 5min shorter with the division-endarterectomy-anastomosis technique. The overall perioperative (< 30 days) mortality rate was 2.5% and cumulative mortality-morbidity rate 8% in the patch group compared with 4% in the other (P > 0.05). There were significantly more cranial nerve injuries in the patch group, most of which were transient (P < 0.01). The mean follow-up was 365 days. The late mortality rate was 5.5%. There were no late permanent or fatal strokes, but 3% of patients sustained mild transient neurological events. Only three significant (> 60%) stenoses developed during follow-up, all within 9 months. Dilatation and disturbed flow were more pronounced in the patch group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between both techniques on mortality, disabling neurological morbidity and recurrent stenosis. In conclusion, the results of the division-endarterectomy-anastomosis technique are equivalent to those with patch angioplasty, leaving the patient's venous capital intact.
Eversion CEA may be associated with low risk of arterial occlusion and restenosis. However, numbers are too small to definitively assess benefits or harms. Reduced restenosis rates did not appear to be associated with clinical benefit in terms of reduced stroke risk, either perioperatively or later. Until further evidence is available, the choice of the CEA technique should depend on the experience and familiarity of the individual surgeon.