Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Mar;67(3):793-798. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.053. Epub 2017 Oct 16.
Reoperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be technically challenging because of significant scarring as a consequence of the initial CEA procedure. There are limited data that describe outcomes after reoperative CEA, and as such, our goal was to determine the effect of reoperative CEA on perioperative outcomes.
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was queried for patients undergoing index and reoperative CEA between 2005 and 2014. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the effect of reoperative CEA on outcomes including stroke, major adverse cardiovascular event, and procedure time.
There were 75,943 index and 140 reoperative CEAs identified. No differences were found in baseline demographics or comorbidities except that the reoperative group had a higher incidence of patients with end-stage renal disease (3.6% vs 1.1%; P = .004). Prior stroke with deficit (20.8% vs 15.4%; P = .137) and without deficit (11.5% vs 9.1%; P = .43) were similar between reoperative and index CEA groups. Both the reoperative and index initial CEA cohorts had comparable rates of surgical site infection (0.7% vs 0.3%; P = .462), return to the operating room (3.6% vs 4%; P = .816), readmission with 30 days (2.1% vs 6.9%; P = .810), myocardial infarction (2.1% vs 0.9%; P = .125), and perioperative death (0.7% vs 0.9%; P = .853). The reoperative cohort had a significantly higher rate of perioperative stroke (5.0% vs 1.6%; P = .002) and a longer operative duration (137 ± 54 vs 116 ± 49 minutes; P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that reoperative CEA was an independent factor for postoperative stroke (odds ratio, 3.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-8.57; P = .002), major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.32-5.78; P = .007), and longer procedure time (means ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30; P < .001).
Reoperative carotid surgery is associated with a longer operative time and higher risk for perioperative stroke compared with index CEA. This information informs the risk-benefit analysis for reoperation.
由于初次颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)导致的显著瘢痕形成,再次 CEA 手术在技术上具有挑战性。目前仅有有限的数据描述了再次 CEA 后的结果,因此,我们的目标是确定再次 CEA 对围手术期结果的影响。
在美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划(ACS NSQIP)数据库中,对 2005 年至 2014 年间接受初次和再次 CEA 的患者进行了检索。采用多变量分析评估再次 CEA 对包括中风、主要不良心血管事件和手术时间在内的结果的影响。
共确定了 75943 例初次和 140 例再次 CEA。除再次 CEA 组终末期肾病的发生率较高(3.6%比 1.1%;P=0.004)外,基线人口统计学特征和合并症无差异。再次 CEA 组与初次 CEA 组的术前伴或不伴缺陷的中风发生率相似(20.8%比 15.4%;P=0.137)。初次和再次 CEA 初始手术队列的手术部位感染发生率(0.7%比 0.3%;P=0.462)、再次手术率(3.6%比 4%;P=0.816)、30 天内再入院率(2.1%比 6.9%;P=0.810)、心肌梗死发生率(2.1%比 0.9%;P=0.125)和围手术期死亡率(0.7%比 0.9%;P=0.853)相似。再次 CEA 组围手术期中风发生率(5.0%比 1.6%;P=0.002)和手术时间(137±54 分钟比 116±49 分钟;P<0.001)明显较高。多变量分析显示,再次 CEA 是术后中风(优势比,3.71;95%置信区间[CI],1.61-8.57;P=0.002)、主要不良心血管事件(优势比,2.76;95% CI,1.32-5.78;P=0.007)和手术时间延长(均数比,1.21;95% CI,1.12-1.30;P<0.001)的独立危险因素。
与初次 CEA 相比,再次颈动脉手术的手术时间更长,围手术期中风风险更高。这些信息为再次手术的风险效益分析提供了依据。