Editor's Choice - Safety of Shunting Strategies During Carotid Endarterectomy: A Vascular Quality Initiative Data Analysis.

IF 5.7 1区医学 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.021

Xavier Hommery-Boucher, William Fortin, Nathalie Beaudoin, Jean-François Blair, Louis-Mathieu Stevens, Stéphane Elkouri

{"title":"Editor's Choice - Safety of Shunting Strategies During Carotid Endarterectomy: A Vascular Quality Initiative Data Analysis.","authors":"Xavier Hommery-Boucher, William Fortin, Nathalie Beaudoin, Jean-François Blair, Louis-Mathieu Stevens, Stéphane Elkouri","doi":"10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: 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.Methods: 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.Results: 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 multivariable 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).Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between three shunting strategies for in hospital SDR, including in patients with CCO or recent stroke.","PeriodicalId":55160,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"695-702"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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 multivariable 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).

Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between three shunting strategies for in hospital SDR, including in patients with CCO or recent stroke.

查看原文本刊更多论文

颈动脉内膜剥脱术中分流策略的安全性：血管质量行动数据分析

目的：本研究旨在根据分流术的使用情况评估颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）后的住院效果，尤其是患有对侧颈动脉闭塞（CCO）或近期中风的患者。分析了2012年至2020年期间在血管质量倡议数据库中登记的CEA数据，排除了在数据库中登记的CEA少于10例的外科医生、同时进行的手术、再次干预和不完整的数据：根据分流使用率，将参与的外科医生分为三组：非分流者（< 5%）、选择性分流者（5 - 95%）和常规分流者（> 95%）。对有症状和无症状患者的住院卒中、死亡、卒中和死亡率（SDR）等主要结果进行了分析：共有 113 202 名患者符合研究标准，其中 31 147 名有症状，82 055 名无症状。在纳入的 1 645 名外科医生中，12.1% 为非分流医生，63.6% 为选择性分流医生，24.3% 为常规分流医生，每组分别进行了 10 557 例、71 160 例和 31 579 例手术。在单变量分析中，无症状队列中三组患者的住院卒中（2.0% vs. 1.9% vs. 1.6%；P = .17）、死亡（0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.4%；P = .71）和 SDR（2.2% vs. 2.1% vs. 1.8%；P = .23）无显著统计学差异。无症状队列的住院卒中（0.9% vs. 1.0% vs. 0.9%；p = .55）、死亡（0.2% vs. 0.2% vs. 0.2%；p = .64）和 SDR（1.0% vs. 1.1% vs. 1.0%；p = .43）差异也无统计学意义。多变量模型显示，三个分流组之间的主要结果没有显著统计学差异。在亚组分析中，CCO 患者（3.3% vs. 2.5% vs. 2.4%；P = .64）和近期发生过中风的患者（2.9% vs. 3.4% vs. 3.1%；P = .60）的 SDR 无统计学差异：结论：住院 SDR 的三种分流策略在统计学上没有明显差异，包括 CCO 或近期中风的患者。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

6.80

自引率

15.80%

发文量

471

审稿时长

66 days

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery is aimed primarily at vascular surgeons dealing with patients with arterial, venous and lymphatic diseases. Contributions are included on the diagnosis, investigation and management of these vascular disorders. Papers that consider the technical aspects of vascular surgery are encouraged, and the journal includes invited state-of-the-art articles. Reflecting the increasing importance of endovascular techniques in the management of vascular diseases and the value of closer collaboration between the vascular surgeon and the vascular radiologist, the journal has now extended its scope to encompass the growing number of contributions from this exciting field. Articles describing endovascular method and their critical evaluation are included, as well as reports on the emerging technology associated with this field.