4.5 Article

Very Urgent Carotid Endarterectomy Does Not Increase the Procedural Risk

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.09.006

关键词

Internal carotid artery; Symptomatic stenosis; Carotid endarterectomy; Hyperacute period

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The timing of CEA for symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis remains a matter of controversy. Recent registry data showed a significantly increased risk, especially in the very early days after the onset of symptoms. In this study the outcome of CEA in the hyperacute phase has been investigated. Methods: The outcome of CEA for symptomatic ICA stenosis between January 2004 and December 2013 has been retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into four timing groups: surgery within 0 and 2 days, between 3 and 7 days, 8 and 14 days, and thereafter. The post-operative 30 day stroke and death rates were assessed. Results: A total of 761 symptomatic patients (40.1% with transient ischemic attack [TIA], 21.3% with amaurosis fugax, and 38.6% with ischemic stroke) were included, with an overall pen-operative stroke and death rate of 3.3%. A stroke and death rate of 4.4% (9/206) for surgery within 0 and 2 days, 1.8% (4/219) between 3 and 7 days, 4.4% (6/136) between 8 and 14 days, and 2.5% (5/200) in the period thereafter (p = .25 for the difference between the groups) was observed. The timing of surgery did not influence the pen-operative outcome in a multivariate regression analysis (OR 0.93 [0.63-1.36], p = .71). Conclusions: These data show that very urgent surgery in symptomatic patients can be performed without increased procedural risk. Given the fact that ruptured plaques with neurological symptoms Carry the highest risk of a recurrent ischemic event in the first 2 days, treating patients as soon as possible to offer the highest benefit in stroke prevention is recommended. 2014 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据