Carotid endarterectomy with concomitant distal endovascular intervention is associated with increased rates of stroke and death.

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with concomitant distal endovascular intervention (CEA+D) is infrequently necessary but has often been used as a salvage maneuver when complications occur during CEA. The present study aimed to determine whether preoperative risk factors associated with CEA requiring CEA+D exist and to evaluate the outcomes compared with isolated CEA.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA registry was used to identify patients who had undergone CEA or CEA+D for asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis from 2013 to 2019. Data regarding distal intervention included whether angioplasty or stenting of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) and/or bifurcation had been required. However, information regarding the indication or whether the intervention had been planned was not included. The χ test and analysis of variance were used to evaluate the categorical and continuous perioperative variables. Variables with P < .20 on univariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis to assess for preoperative predictors of the need for CEA+D and the association with perioperative stroke.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2019, 327 CEA+D cases were identified and compared with 105,192 isolated CEA cases. The CEA+D patients were more likely to have undergone previous ipsilateral CEA (CEA, 1.8%; CEA+D, 4.9%; P < .01) and contralateral ICA occlusion (CEA, 4.6%; CEA+D, 11.0%; P < .01) but were less likely to have had ipsilateral stenosis ≥70% (CEA, 88.3%; CEA+D, 80.6%; P < .01). The preoperative factors associated with the need for CEA+D on multivariable analysis included previous peripheral vascular intervention, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4, contralateral ICA occlusion, low-volume surgeon, and previous ipsilateral CEA. CEA+D was associated with significantly increased rates of stroke in both asymptomatic (CEA+D, 3.9%; CEA, 0.9%; P < .01) and symptomatic (CEA+D, 9.4%; CEA, 1.9%; P < .01) patients. CEA+D was associated with decreased rates of 30-day survival in both asymptomatic (CEA+D, 98.3%; CEA, 99.4%; P = .02) and symptomatic (CEA+D, 94.8%; CEA, 99.1%; P < .01) cohorts. On multivariable analysis, CEA+D remained significantly associated with stroke (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-5.60; P < .01). Other factors significantly associated with perioperative stroke included procedure length >135 minutes, diabetes, hypertension, shunt for indication, symptomatic status, previous ipsilateral CEA, contralateral ICA occlusion, urgent or emergent procedure, intravenous medications for hemodynamic instability, and re-exploration at the initial operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although markers of more significant cardiovascular disease burden were associated with the use of CEA+D, their power to predict CEA+D use was limited. In cases in which CEA+D was used, CEA+D was associated with significantly greater rates of perioperative stroke and mortality compared with isolated CEA for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, which could be useful for framing the expected outcomes after these procedures.