Abstract
Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide. One of the main causes of stroke is carotid artery stenosis. Stenosis with atherosclerosis in the carotid artery can cause stroke by hemodynamic ischemia or artery to artery embolism. A most common surgical intervention for carotid artery stenosis is carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Many studies on CEA have been reported and suggested medical indications. For symptomatic carotid stenosis, generally, CEA may be indicated for patients with more than 50% stenosis and is especially beneficial in men, patients aged 75 years or older, and patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their last symptoms. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, CEA may be indicated for those with more than 60% stenosis, though each guideline has different suggestions in detail. In order to evaluate the indication for CEA in each case, it is important to assess risks for CEA carefully including anatomical factors and comorbidities, and to elaborate each strategy for each operation based on preoperative imaging studies including carotid ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and angiography. In surgery there are many tips on operative position, procedure, shunt usage and monitoring to perform a safe and smooth operation. Now that carotid artery stenting has been rapidly developed, better understanding for CEA is required to treat carotid artery stenosis adequately. This chapter must be a good help to understand CEA well.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
10.1 Introduction
Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide. One of the main causes of stroke is carotid artery stenosis. Stenosis with atherosclerosis in the carotid artery can cause stroke by hemodynamic ischemia or artery to artery embolism. Carotid artery stenosis has been often treated with surgical interventions. Carotid intervention was first successfully performed in 1951 by excision of the diseased carotid artery segment and an end-to-end anastomosis of internal carotid artery and common carotid artery [1, 2]. Since then, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been evolved with introduction of temporary shunt system in 1956 [3], eversion endarterectomy in 1970 [4], and electroencephalogram monitoring in 1980 [5]. In 1980s and 1990s several randomized control trials (RCTs) have proven efficacy of CEA compared to medical treatment in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Since carotid artery stenting (CAS) was appeared in 1990s, several RCTs has been conducted [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. As the devices have been developed, treatment outcomes of CAS have been improved, and CAS has been shown to be equally beneficial to CEA with some conditions [17, 18]. By its curability and long-stand stroke preventive effect, however, CEA is still first choice of treatment for symptomatic severe carotid stenosis [19]. Here, we review the recent RCTs for CEA, explain the perioperative management, and show surgical techniques with illustrations.
10.2 Evidence of CEA
10.2.1 CEA for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis
For symptomatic carotid stenosis, two large RCTs, European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) compared CEA with medical treatment.
In ECST, 3024 carotid stenosis patients with transient or mild symptomatic ischemic vascular event on the distribution of one or both carotid arteries were allocated to medical treatment only or CEA. As a result, ipsilateral stroke or perioperative death with more than 80% stenosis was 20.6% in medical group and 6.8% in CEA group (<0.0001) [8].
NASCET was started in 1987 in North America. Patients who experienced transient ischemic attack (TIA) or nondisabling stroke within 120 days were assigned to optimal medical care alone or optimal medical care plus CEA. The results showed that cumulative risk of any ipsilateral stroke at 2 years with 70–99% stenosis were 26% in medical group and 9% in surgical group (P < 0.001) on the condition that the treatments were conducted in the centers with the rate of less than 6% for stroke and death occurring within 30 days of operation [6]. Also, the ipsilateral stroke risk at 5 years with 50–69% stenosis were 22.2% in medical group and 15.7% in surgical group, whose difference became statistically significant (P = 0.045) if the surgeons have lower rates of complications than 2% [7]. Efficacy of CEA in symptomatic patients with less than 50% stenosis has not been proved.
Mata-analysis of ECST and NASCET focused on clinical subgroups and timing of surgery was reported in 2004 [20]. CEA was especially beneficial in men, patients aged 75 years or older, and patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their last symptoms, and fell rapidly with increasing delay (see Timing of Surgery).
10.2.2 CEA for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis
For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) began in 1987. Medical treatment and CEA were compared in 1662 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of 60% or greater. The aggregate risk over 5 years for ipsilateral stroke and any perioperative stroke or death was 11.0% in medical group and 5.1% in CEA group (P = 0.004), which proved the efficacy of CEA if it was performed with less than 3% perioperative morbidity and mortality [9].
Another trial for asymptomatic stenosis, Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST), was started in 1993. It compared deferral of any carotid procedure and immediate CEA in asymptomatic patients with at least 60%. The risk of perioperative events and strokes was 10.9% in deferral CEA group and 6.9% in immediate CEA group at 5 years (P = 0.0001) and 17.9% and 13.4% at 10 years (P = 0.009) [10, 11]. Contrary to the trials in symptomatic patients, these ACST showed no significant association between the risk of stroke and the percentage of stenosis, and CEA was effective for both males and females.
With a recent progress of intensive medical therapy, however, the superiority of CEA to medical therapy becomes equivocal in asymptomatic patients [21]. In practice, CEA is recommended only when the stenosis is more severe (70–99%) or the patients have a particular high risk of stroke (progression of stenosis, the detection of asymptomatic carotid embolism, carotid plaque vulnerability, reduced cerebrovascular reserve, and the presence of silent embolic infarcts) [22]. Other than these risk factors, we should consider the comorbidities and life expectancy of the patients and also the surgeons’ experience so as to get maximum benefit from CEA. In our opinion, the indication of CEA for asymptomatic patients should depend not only upon guidelines, but also upon the tailor-made medicine.
Updated guidelines for the treatment of carotid stenosis from American Heart Association (AHA), Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS), and European society of vascular surgeons (ESVS) are listed in Table 10.1 [23,24,25,26].
10.2.3 CEA vs. CAS
Since CAS was first performed in 1994, several RCTs comparing CEA and CAS have been reported. The first RCT comparing CAS to CEA was Stent and Angioplasty with Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial [13]. The trial focused on the patients at high risk for CEA who have at least one of the following risk factors: positive stress test; age older than 80 years; contralateral carotid occlusion; pulmonary dysfunction; high cervical lesion; repeat carotid operation; congestive heart failure and/or known severe left ventricular dysfunction; open heart surgery needed within 6 weeks; recent myocardial infarction; unstable angina; contralateral laryngeal nerve palsy; radiation therapy to the neck. In this trial, CAS is proved not to be inferior to CEA at 1 year and also at 3 years’ follow-up [13]. For patients without high risk for CEA, Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis Trial (EVA-3S) [14], Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) [15], and International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) [16] compared CAS and CEA for symptomatic stenosis. All of these three trials failed to show the non-inferiority of CAS to CEA. We need to note that these three trials did not require the use of protection devices in CAS, and the surgeons were not selected strictly. Contrary to these three trials, recent RCTs reported the equal benefit of CEA and CAS. One of these RCTs is Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). The trial compared CAS with embolic protection devices and CEA in symptomatic patients (>50% stenosis), and asymptomatic patients (>70% stenosis). There was no significant difference in the primary end point: 4-year rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death of any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization (7.2% in CAS and 6.8% in CEA, P = 0.51), and the rates did not differ depending on symptomatic status (P = 0.84) or sex (P = 0.34). However, an interaction between age and treatment efficacy was detected (P = 0.02); CAS tended to show greater efficacy at younger than 70 years, and CEA at older. Moreover, periprocedural complication rate differed between CAS and CEA: the stroke rate was higher in CAS (4.1% and 2.3%, P = 0.01), and the myocardial infarction rate was higher in CEA (1.1% and 2.3%, P = 0.03). The rate of ipsilateral stroke was low in both groups (2.0% and 2.4%, P = 0.85) [17].
Another RCT showing efficacy of CAS is Asymptomatic Carotid Trial (ACT) one reported in 2016. The study targeted asymptomatic patients with at least 70% stenosis aged 79 years or younger without high risk for CEA, and compared CAS with embolic protection and CEA. In this study, CAS was noninferior to CEA for the prevention of ipsilateral stroke and death until 5-year follow-up period [18]. Today some new RCTs (CREST-2, ECST-2, and ACST-2) are now ongoing. In these trials, not only CEA vs CAS but also best medical treatment (BMT) vs interventions (CEA/CAS) are being compared. Indication of intervention should be reconsidered based on the upcoming trials’ results.
10.3 Theoretical Background of CEA
Most of the carotid plaques are known to be limited to carotid bifurcation. The reason of this localization is not clear, but shear stress seems to play an important role in the formation of atheromatous plaque. In the carotid bifurcation, blood stream changes its direction, which can induce shear stress to the vessel wall [27,28,29]. In addition, Hori et al. reported that the characteristics of artery change from elastic to muscular artery at the bifurcation, and this histological change can also affect atheromatous formation [30]. They mentioned this change ended up to 20 mm distal from the bifurcation and plaque formation was also terminated up to 25 mm distal from bifurcation in most of the cadaver cases even with severe atherosclerosis.
Theoretically, in other words, we can remove almost all plaques with CEA when we expose distal ICA more than 25 mm from the bifurcation, although there are some exceptions.
10.4 Timing of Surgery
It is not well-known which timing is best for CEA after stroke or TIA. Concerning about TIA, risk for stroke onset after TIA increases by time, especially within 14 days. It has been reported that stroke occurs in 5–8% of patients with 50–99% carotid stenosis within 48 h after the index TIA, 4–17% within 72 h, 8–22% within 7 days, and 11–25% within 14 days [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], which indicate early (<14 days) intervention is beneficial to prevent stroke in TIA (or minor stroke) patients [20]. But the effectiveness of urgent (<24, or 48 h) CEA is still controversial. The 2017 Clinical Guidelines of European Society for Vascular Surgery states that patients with 50–99% stenosis who present with crescendo TIA should be considered for an urgent CEA, preferably within 24 h [39], but a systemic analysis demonstrated that CEA within 48 has a beneficial effect for crescendo TIA patients, but its effectiveness was not different between CEA within 24 h and after 24 h [40]. In addition, for the patients who have large infarct volume (≥1/3 of MCA territory) and severe disability (modified Rankin score ≥3), CEA should be deferred to minimize the risks of postoperative parenchymal hemorrhage [41]. Recent report shows urgent (<48 h) CEA leads to worse functional outcome if it is applied to the patients with moderate to severe strokes (NIHSS >10) [42].
In summary, the patients who have symptomatic 50–99% carotid stenosis should undergo CEA.
-
1.
Within 14 days if the symptom is TIA or minor stroke and within 48 h is better if possible.
-
2.
After 30 days if the symptom is severe (mRS ≥ 3 or NIHSS>10) or infarct volume is large (≥1/3 of MCA territory).
10.5 Imaging
10.5.1 Carotid Ultrasonography (CUS)
CUS is less invasive and suitable for screening. It can also evaluate plaque fragility by its echo-lucency. Hypoechoic (echo-lucent) plaque seems lipid-rich fragile plaque, whereas hyperechoic plaque seems elastic, and/or calcified stable plaque. Doppler-CUS gives us the peak systolic velocity (PSV) of the blood stream, which helps us to estimate the severity of stenosis. PSV > 125 cm/s means >50% stenosis, and PSV > 200–230 cm/s means >70% stenosis [43, 44].
10.5.2 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Angiography (MRA) (Fig. 10.1)
MRI/MRA is also less invasive imaging modality and gives us much more information about plaque characteristics with higher reproducibility than CUS. We can grasp the plaque extension, which is helpful to decide the range of distal ICA exposure during CEA [45]. With black-blood MRI (BB-MRI), moreover, plaque vulnerability can be evaluated. The plaque-to-muscle (sternocleidomastoid muscle) signal intensity ratio (plaque/muscle ratio [PMR]) is widely used and PMR > 3 is thought to be very fragile, PMR 1–3 be fragile, whereas PMR <1 is stable [46, 47].
10.5.3 Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) (Fig. 10.2)
CTA needs contrast medium and X-ray exposure, which means more invasive than CUS and MRI, but much less invasive than digital subtraction angiography (DSA) because of no necessity of catheter procedure. Using three-dimensional (3D) CTA with bone images, surgical simulation becomes possible. We routinely measure mandibular angle to bifurcation length (M-B length) and according to this length, skin incision is designed in CEA.
10.5.4 Other Imaging Modalities
Conventional DSA is not always necessary for CEA patients, considering its risk. Brain MRI is to be done just prior to surgery to check the presence of fresh infarction in the ipsilateral brain and MRA is also to be done to check tandem lesion distal to the CEA site, and also to estimate the collateral blood flow from contralateral ICA or posterior circulation through circle of Willis during cross clamping. In our institute, cerebral blood flow (CBF) evaluation with single photon emission CT (SPECT) becomes mandatory to estimate the risk of postoperative cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) if the patient seems to have hemodynamic compromise [48, 49]. The patients who have severe hypoperfusion preoperatively tend to suffer from CHS.
10.6 Anatomy of CEA (Fig. 10.3)
It is essential to know the surgical anatomy quite well before we start real surgery. In CEA, anatomy itself is not complicated. We do surgery inside the “carotid triangle,” which is surrounded by three muscles (sternocleidomastoid, omohyoid, and posterior belly of digastric muscle), and other than arteries and veins, we should know the running course of two important nerves: hypoglossal nerve and superior laryngeal nerve. Descending branch of hypoglossal nerve (ansa cervicalis) could be cut without any symptoms, but a damage to superior laryngeal nerve can cause hoarseness and/or dysphagia. Different from hypoglossal nerve, branches of this nerve are very fine and cannot usually be identified during surgery, so comprehending the anatomy of this nerve and avoiding the rough dissection around this nerve (especially near the external carotid artery) lead to functional preservation.
10.7 Preoperative Management
10.7.1 Risk Management of General Anesthesia
Many patients who need CEA have some comorbidities such as other atheromatous vessel disease, pulmonary disease, and renal failure. In particular, those who have coronary artery disease (CAD) likely to develop myocardial infarction (MI) after CEA, so that careful checkup of CAD with ECG with physical load test, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or coronary 3D-CTA is necessary. If CAD coexists, intervention to it should take a priority if there is a time before CEA.
10.7.2 Antiplatelet Therapy
Cessation of antiplatelet therapy increases the risk of perioperative stroke and MI, so single or also dual antiplatelet therapy should continue just before CEA. On the other hand, anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation can be stopped before surgery because the combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy may increase the risk of postoperative bleeding [50].
10.8 Neurophysiological Monitoring and Shunt Usage
Routine shunt or selective shunt usage during cross clamping is still controversial. Routine use of shunting system may increase the risk of intimal injury, dissection, and thrombosis formation by its insertion and removal [51], and shunt system disturbs the surgical view, which makes exposure of distal plaque end sometimes difficult. To select the patients who definitely require the shunt, neurophysiological monitoring becomes mandatory. Electroencephalography (EEG) [52, 53], Transcranial Doppler flowmetry (TCD) [54, 55], Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) [56,57,58], Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) [59,60,61], and Motor evoked potential (MEP) [62, 63] have been applied as a single or multiple monitoring [64, 65] during CEA, and their efficacy has been reported for the selection of shunt-required patients and also for the prediction of the postoperative functional status. However, cut-off value of each monitoring has not been established. In our institute, multiple monitoring with EEG, SSEP, and MEP has been used. To our impression, EEG change occurs rapidly after cross clamp, but it cannot be quantified and sometimes recovers spontaneously. Therefore, we use EEG change as an alert of hypoperfusion, and if it is followed by the SSPE and/or MEP changes (cut-off value <50%), internal shunt is applied. Under this multiple monitoring, the incidence of shunt usage is approximately 10% without false negative.
10.9 Standard Surgical Procedure (Figs. 10.4–10.7)
We commonly use general anesthesia. The patients who have high carotid bifurcation needs nasal intubation. To lift up the mandibular angle, neck tends to be extended with vertex down position, but it has a risk to worsen the cervical spondylosis (CS). Those who have a history of CS or have myelopathic symptoms in the preoperative neck extension test, we should not keep the patients in the vertex down position. Instead, we can get similar surgical working space by lifting up the mandibular bone with blunt hooks even in the normal head positioning.
According to B-M length measured by the preoperative CT angiography, first we mark the carotid bifurcation on the skin. Skin incision is made 4 cm above and 4 cm below the marking of bifurcation (total 8 cm) along with the anterior margin of sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM). After cutting the skin and platysma muscle, SCM is exposed. First, dissection is to be done between SCM and omohyoid muscle to expose common carotid artery (CCA). Anterior margin of SCM is hitched up laterally to expose the carotid sheath, and internal jugular vein is not always to be exposed. Carotid sheath is cut and hitched upward together with carotid arteries to get shallow surgical field. Common facial vein is cut during this exposure, but care should be taken no to cut the hypoglossal nerve which sometimes runs very close to this vein. How to identify the hypoglossal nerve is to follow the ansa cervicalis or to dissect just below the posterior belly of digastric muscle, which could easily be found just below the parotid gland. The patient who has high carotid bifurcation requires us some effort to expose the distal end of plaque. We have used tailor-made mouth piece to achieve mandibular subluxations [66] but recently it is thought to be enough to dissect SCM and parotid gland as much as possible and lift up the mandible with blunt hooks with nasal intubation. We commonly expose the carotid artery at least 2.5 cm distal to the bifurcation, 2 cm proximal to it according to the literature mentioned above [30], but it can be modified by refereeing the plaque imaging in MRA [45]. To visualize the distal end of the plaque clearly even in case of shunt usage, we think 5 mm more to be exposed from the distal edge of the plaque, and more exposure leads to less possibility of acute postoperative occlusion of distal ICA. After systemic heparinization with activated clotting time (ACT) >250 s, cross clamp is made. According to the intraoperative monitoring, we selectively use internal shunt. The plaque is removed from CCA to ICA. ECA plaque is easily pulled out without additional arteriotomy, but ICA plaque end should not be pulled out blindly. With adequate exposure, ICA plaque end must be visually confirmed and removed totally with gentle dissection. Most of the plaques can be dissected from normal intima at their ends by splitting the margin with micro-scissors and move the plaques laterally. Tacking suture is done with 6-0 nylon only when the intimal flap formation is recognized at the distal end of dissection (rare). Vessel wall is closed with 5-0 Nylon running suture from both sides and overlapped 5 mm at the midpoint of suture line. Prior to total declamping, ECA and CCA clips are released temporally to prevent air embolism to ICA and secure the hemostasis. Additional stitches are requested when the arterial bleeding occurs from suture line, but small oozing can be stopped with gentle compression and heparinization reversal (after total declamping), or hemostatic agent (Floseal®). After checking the patency of ICA with Doppler sonography or flowmetry, wound is closed with layer-by-layer.
10.10 Controversial Issue
10.10.1 Eversion or Standard CEA?
Eversion CEA is first described by DeBakey et al. in 1959 [67]. This technique is known to be superior to standard CEA in terms of short surgical time and less frequent restenosis [68]. Instead, shunt insertion is more challenging and access to high lesion is difficult. Moreover, eversion CEA requires full dissection around carotid bulb and distal ICA that may lead to cranial nerve palsies. We prefer standard CEA because Asian people usually have high carotid bifurcation and shunt insertion is requested for approximately 10% of patients in our series with multiple neurophysiological monitoring.
10.10.2 Primary Closure or Patch Angioplasty?
Primary closure is a simple method and can reduce the clamp time but may increase the incidence of acute occlusion or restenosis. Patch angioplasty is thought to reduce these complications even though longer operation time and rare complication of vein graft rupture and patch infection were reported [69,70,71]. Patch material is made from an autologous vein, bovine pericardium, or synthetic material including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), dacron, polyurethane, and polyester. The difference of patch material does not affect the outcome so much [72]. In our institute, patch angioplasty is not mandatory because we have rarely encountered restenosis after CEA (1%) with primary closure. We have used as small suture bite-to-stich interval as possible and tried not to involve the adventitia in the suture, which may lead to prevent acute occlusion or restenosis (Fig. 10.7). On the other hand, those who have originally small diameter in ICA (especially women) or CEAs after restenosis are treated with patch angioplasty (Hemashield patch graft), so this technique should be ready to use whenever necessary.
10.10.3 Restenosis After CEA
It has been reported that restenosis occurs in 5–22% after CEA [73,74,75]. Restenosis is defined as more than 50% of stenosis after more than 30 days postoperatively [76]. Pathophysiology of early restenosis (within 2 years after CEA) is thought not to be atherosclerosis, but to be inflammation and neo-intimal hyperplasia, so it is not likely to cause artery to artery embolism even though the stenosis becomes severe. But late restenosis (>2 years after CEA) is deemed similar to primary atherosclerotic lesion that can become an embolic source [77]. There is no clear guideline to treat post-CEA restenosis, but controlling the risk factors is most essential. Vascular risk factors (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and metabolic syndrome), and female gender have been described as risk factors [75], so best medical treatment (BMT) should continue and careful follow-up is necessary to the patients who have those factors. If the restenosis becomes severe (>70%) and symptomatic, reintervention should be taken into consideration [39]. Re-do CEA and CAS seems to be the same effect for the prevention of ipsilateral stroke [78, 79], but its choice must depend upon pathophysiology of stenosis mentioned above. If the restenosis occurs in early phase (<2 years) and intimal hyperplasia is suspected with plaque imaging, CAS has a priority because plaque rupture is hard to occur during stenting procedure. On the other hand, CEA with patch angioplasty may be better to the lesion which has been caused more than 3 years after initial CEA and has a sign of atheromatous plaque in the echo or MRI imaging.
10.11 Postoperative Management
The patients are recovered from anesthesia soon after surgery, but those who have been treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are kept anesthetized overnight to prevent postoperative bleeding. Patients are strictly monitored in the intensive care unit (ICU) or rooms comparable to ICU. Postoperative airway obstruction due to a carotid rupture or wound hematoma can occur mainly within 24 h postoperatively, which sometimes becomes fatal. If it occurs, emergency wound reopening and decompression should be performed. Blood pressure is kept under 80–100% of preoperative value until the SPECT denies postoperative hyperperfusion. If the hyperperfusion is recognized in SPECT, strict control of blood pressure should be continued for at least 4–7 days even if it is asymptomatic, because it can cause massive and sometimes fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) is restarted soon after surgery and continues thereafter [80,81,82].
10.12 Complication and its Management
10.12.1 Myocardial Infarction
This is most common systemic complication in CEA. As mentioned before, preoperative screening is essential to avoid this complication, but if preoperative coronary evaluation was insufficient, electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring should be continued for a few days postoperatively. It is important to recognize that carotid artery stenosis is a part of systemic vascular disease, and vascular surgeons must keep in touch with cardiologists.
10.12.2 Nerve Palsies
Hypoglossal nerve and superior laryngeal nerve palsy can be occurred in CEA. The latter one, especially, can cause hoarseness and dysphagia and affect the quality of life. Most of the symptoms will recover within 3 months, but not completely in some patients. To avoid superior laryngeal nerve palsy, care should be taken not to dissect the tissue around ECA and superior thyroid artery too much, because this nerve usually runs just behind these arteries.
10.12.3 Cerebral Hyperperfusion Syndrome (CHS)
CHS has been reported in 0.2–18.9% of cases following CEA, but recent report showed less incidence (1.9%) [83]. It is well-known that the patients whose cerebral blood flow was severely decreased before surgery have dysregulation of cerebral vascular system and have a tendency of CHS [49]. The major symptoms of CHS include headache, restless, and seizure that appear in parallel with blood pressure elevation [48]. It is also reported that intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) can be caused by CHS, and this ICH sometimes becomes fatal even though the incidence is quite low (0.37%) [83]. This complication is preventable, so screening the patient who is prone to CHS and postoperative BP control (<100% of preoperative value) with CBF evaluation (SPECT) are essential.
10.13 CEA for High Risk Patients (Advanced)
High risk for CEA is defined in Table 10.2. Comorbidities listed in this table are the risks for general anesthesia and if they are poorly controlled, CEA with general anesthesia becomes contraindication. As for risks for anatomical factors, most of them can be overcome and not contraindication. For example, it has been reported that CEA for carotid stenosis with previous radiation therapy has longer stroke prevention with less restenosis than CAS, whereas cranial nerve palsy was more common [84,85,86]. CEA for contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) seems not to be contraindication, because some reports demonstrated that perioperative stroke risk was not different between CCO and non-CCO patients, under routine or selective shunt [87, 88]. In our institute, among anatomical factors listed in Table 10.2, only contralateral laryngeal nerve palsy is thought to be contraindication of CEA. In case of previous neck surgery or tracheostomy, we usually use microscope to do meticulous dissection around carotid artery when adventitia and surrounding tissues are tightly adhered, although all of these patients have not been treated only with CEA.
10.14 Summary
CEA is a surgery for stroke prevention, whose efficacy is supported by many RCTs and whose recommendation level is quite high. Even though the devices and techniques of CAS progress, CEA seems to be golden standard for the intervention for carotid stenosis by its curability. To warrant its superiority, low complication rate is required, so CEA surgeons should continue to brush up their knowledge and skills. On the other hand, CEA, CAS and medical therapy are no longer competitive, but complementary treatment, so vascular surgeons should also catch up the current status of other two options and become able to change their surgical indication flexibly to give an optimal treatment to the patients.
References
Carrea R, Molins M, Murphy G. Surgery of spontaneous thrombosis of the internal carotid in the neck; carotido-carotid anastomosis; case report and analysis of the literature on surgical cases. Medicina (B Aires). 1955;15:20–9.
Morris DR, Ayabe K, Inoue T, Sakai N, Bulbulia R, Halliday A, Goto S. Evidence-based carotid interventions for stroke prevention: state-of-the-art review. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2017;24:373–87.
Cooley DA, Al-Naaman YD, CAC. Surgical treatment of atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery. J Neurosurg. 1956;13:500–6.
Samuel N. A simple technic for carotid endarterectomy. Am J Surg. 1970;120:275–8.
Callow AD. An overview of the stroke problem in the carotid territory. Am J Neurosurg. 1980;140:181–91.
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators, HJM B, Taylor DW, Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Peerless SJ, Ferguson GG, Fox AJ, Rankin RN, Hachinski VC, EM WDO. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445–53.
Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, Fox AJ, Ferguson GG, Haynes RB, Rankin RN, Clagett GP, Hachinski VC, Sackett DL, Thorpe KE, Meldrum HESJD. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. New Engl J Med. 1998;339:1415–25.
Warlow C, Farrell B, Fraser A, Sandercock P, Slattery J. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. 1998;351:1379–87.
Mayberg MR. Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1459.
Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, Peto C, Peto R, Potter J, Thomas D, MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurologic symptoms: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1491–502.
Halliday A, Harrison M, Hayter E, Kong X, Mansfi A, Marro J, Pan H, Peto R, Potter J. 10-Year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1074–84.
Yadav JS. Carotid stenting in high-risk patients: design and rationale of the SAPPHIRE trial. Cleve Clin J Med. 2004;71:45–6.
Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1572–9.
Mas J-L, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, et al. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1660–71.
SPACE Collaborative Group, Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Brückmann H, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Hartmann M, Hennerici M, Jansen O, Klein G, Kunze A, Marx P, Niederkorn K, Schmiedt W, Solymosi L, Stingele R, HW ZH. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2006;368:1239–47.
International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators, Ederle J, Dobson J, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:985–97.
Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:11–23.
Rosenfield K, Matsumura JS, Chaturvedi S, Riles T, Ansel GM, Metzger DC, Wechsler L, Jaff MR, Gray W, Investigators ACTI. Randomized trial of stent versus surgery for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1011–20.
Orrapin S, Rerkasem K. Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD001081. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001081.pub3.
Rothwell PM, Eliasziw M, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP, Barnett HJM. Endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis in relation to clinical subgroups and timing of surgery. Lancet. 2004;363:915–24.
Keyhani S, Cheng EM, Hoggatt KJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy vs initial medical therapy in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(9):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1427.
Bogiatzi C, Azarpazhooh MR, Spence JD. Choosing the right therapy for a patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2020;18:53–63.
Brott TG, Halperin JL, Abbara S, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS Guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease. Circulation. 2011;124:54–130.
Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:2160–236.
Aboyans V, Ricco JB, Bartelink MLEL, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:763–816.
Ricotta JJ, Aburahma A, Ascher E, Eskandari M, Faries P, Lal BK. Updated Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for management of extracranial carotid disease. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:e1–e31.
Kjaernes M, Svindland A, Walløe L, Wille SO. Localization of early atherosclerotic lesions in an arterial bifurcation in humans. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A. 1981;89:35–40.
LoGerfo FW, Nowak MD, Quist WC, Crawshaw HM, Bharadvaj BK. Flow studies in a model carotid bifurcation. Arteriosclerosis. 1981;1:235–41.
Motomiya M. Flow patterns in the human carotid artery bifurcation. Stroke. 1984;15:50–6.
Hori E, Hayashi N, Hamada H, Masuoka T, Kuwayama N, Hirashima Y, Origasa H, Ohtani O, Endo S. A development of atheromatous plaque is restricted by characteristic arterial wall structure at the carotid bifurcation. Surg Neurol. 2008;69:586–90.
Marnane M, Prendeville S, McDonnell C, Noone I, Barry M, Crowe M, Mulligan N, Kelly PJ. Plaque inflammation and unstable morphology are associated with early stroke recurrence in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2014;45:801–6.
Merwick Á, Albers GW, Arsava EM, et al. Reduction in early stroke risk in carotid stenosis with transient ischemic attack associated with statin treatment. Stroke. 2013;44:2814–20.
Mono ML, Steiger I, Findling O, et al. Risk of very early recurrent cerebrovascular events in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2013;119:1620–6.
Johansson EP, Arnerlöv C, Wester P. Risk of recurrent stroke before carotid endarterectomy: The ANSYSCAP Study. Int J Stroke. 2012;8:220–7.
Bonifati DM, Lorenzi A, Ermani M, Refatti F, Gremes E, Boninsegna C, Filipponi S, Orrico D. Carotid stenosis as predictor of stroke after transient ischemic attacks. J Neurol Sci. 2011;303:85–9.
Ois A, Cuadrado-Godia E, Rodríguez-Campello A, Jimenez-Conde J, Roquer J. High risk of early neurological recurrence in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2009;40:2727–31.
Purroy F, Montaner J, Molina CA, Delgado P, Ribo M, Álvarez-Sabín J. Patterns and predictors of early risk of recurrence after transient ischemic attack with respect to etiologic subtypes. Stroke. 2007;38:3225–9.
Fairhead JF, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Population-based study of delays in carotid imaging and surgery and the risk of recurrent stroke. Neurology. 2005;65:371–5.
Naylor AR, Ricco JB, de Borst GJ, et al. Editor’s choice—management of atherosclerotic carotid and vertebral artery disease: 2017 Clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55:3–81.
Fereydooni A, Gorecka J, Xu J, Schindler J, Dardik A. Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with crescendo transient ischemic attacks: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1055–63.
Pini R, Faggioli G, Vacirca A, Dieng M, Goretti M, Gallitto E, Mascoli C, Ricco J-B, Gargiulo M. The benefit of deferred carotid revascularization in patients with moderate-severe disabling cerebral ischemic stroke. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:117–24.
Mihindu E, Mohammed A, Smith T, Brinster C, Sternbergh WC 3rd, Bazan HA. Patients with moderate to severe strokes (NIHSS score >10) undergoing urgent carotid interventions within 48 hours have worse functional outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69:1471–81.
Koga M, Kimura K, Minematsu K, Yamaguchi T. Diagnosis of internal carotid artery stenosis greater than 70% with power doppler duplex sonography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:413–7.
Grant EG, Benson CB, Moneta GL, et al. Carotid artery stenosis: gray-scale and doppler US diagnosis—Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference. Radiology. 2003;229:340–6.
Yoshida K, Endo H, Sadamasa N, Narumi O, Chin M, Inoue K, Mitsudo K, Yamagata S. Evaluation of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaque distribution by using long-axis high-resolution black-blood magnetic resonance imaging: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2008;109:1042–8.
Takemoto K, Ueba T, Takano K, Abe H, Hirata Y, Higashi T, Inoue T, Sakata N, Yoshimitsu K. Quantitative evaluation using the plaque/muscle ratio index panels predicts plaque type and risk of embolism in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:1298–303.
Eto A, Kinoshita Y, Matsumoto Y, Kiyomi F, Iko M, Nii K, Tsutsumi M, Sakamoto K, Aikawa H, Kazekawa K. Relationship between the carotid plaque T1 relaxation time and the plaque-to-muscle signal intensity ratio on black-blood magnetic resonance imaging scans. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;25:2580–4.
Farooq MU, Goshgarian C, Min J, Gorelick PB. Pathophysiology and management of reperfusion injury and hyperperfusion syndrome after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting. Exp Transl Stroke Med. 2016;8:1–8.
Manojlovic V, Budakov N, Budinski S, Milosevic D, Nikolic D. Cerebrovacular reserve predicts the cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome after carotid endarterectomy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(12):105318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105318.
Becker RC, Caprini JA, Dunn AS, et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:823–33.
Chongruksut W, Vaniyapong T, Rerkasem K. Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(6):CD000190. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000190.pub3.
Mcgrail KM. Intraoperative use of electroencephalography as an assessment of cerebral blood flow. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1996;7:685–92.
Schneider JR, Droste JS, Schindler N. Carotid endarterectomy with routine electroencephalography and selective shunting : influence of contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion and utility in prevention of perioperative strokes. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1114–22.
Yun W. Cerebral monitoring during carotid endarterectomy by transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2017;92:105–9.
Ackerstaff RGA, Moons KGM, Van De Vlasakker CJW, Moll FL, Vermeulen FEE, Algra A, Spencer MP. Association of intraoperative transcranial doppler monitoring variables with stroke from carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 2000;31:1817–23.
Kondov S, Beyersdorf F, Sch J, Benk C. Outcome of near-infrared spectroscopy e guided selective shunting during carotid endarterectomy in general anesthesia. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;61:170–7.
Pennekamp CWA, Immink RV, Den Ruijter HM, Kappelle LJ, Bots ML, Buhre WF, Moll FL, De Borst GJ. Near-infrared spectroscopy to indicate selective shunt use during carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46:397–403.
Mille T, Tachimiri ME, Klersy C, Ticozzelli G, Bellinzona G, Blangetti I, Pirrelli S, Lovotti M, Odero A. Near infrared spectroscopy monitoring during carotid endarterectomy : which threshold value is critical ? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;27:646–50.
Amantini A, Bartelli M, De Scisciolo G, Lombardi M, Macucci M, Rossi R, Pratesi C, Pinto F. Monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials during carotid endarterectomy. J Neurosurg. 1992;239:241–7.
Crammond DJ, Thirumala PD. Diagnostic value of somatosensory evoked potential changes during carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:73–80.
Seidel K, Jeschko ÃJ, Schucht ÃP, et al. Somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial Doppler monitoring to guide shunting in carotid endarterectomy. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2021;82(4):299–307.
Uchino H, Nakamura T, Kuroda S, Houkin K, Murata JI, Saito H. Intraoperative dual monitoring during carotid endarterectomy using motor evoked potentials and near-infrared spectroscopy. World Neurosurg. 2012;78:651–7.
Malcharek MJ, Ulkatan S, Marinò V, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of carotid endarterectomy by transcranial motor evoked potential: a multicenter study of 600 patients. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124:1025–30.
Koyama S, Chonan M, Niizuma K, Kon H, Abe M, Matsuo S, Sasaki T, Nishijima M. Intraoperative monitoring for carotid endarterectomy using regional saturation of oxygen, motor evoked potential and somatosensory evoked potential : reference to necessity of internal shunt. Surg Cereb Stroke. 2014;42:340–6.
Alcantara SD, Wuamett JC, Ii JCL, Ulkatan S, Bamberger P, Mendes D, Benvenisty A, Todd G, York N, York N. Outcomes of combined somatosensory evoked potential, motor evoked potential, and electroencephalography monitoring during carotid endarterectomy. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014;28:665–72.
Yoshino M, Fukumoto H, Mizutani T, Yuyama R, Hara T. Mandibular subluxation stabilized by mouthpiece for distal internal carotid artery exposure in carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1401–4.
DE BAKEY ME, CRAWFORD ES, COOLEY DA, MORRIS GCJ. Surgical considerations of occlusive disease of innominate, carotid, subclavian, and vertebral arteries. Ann Surg. 1959;149:690–710.
Antonopoulos CN, Kakisis JD, Sergentanis TN, Liapis CD. Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:751–65.
Archie JP, Barnes RW, Robicsek F, Bock R, AbuRahma AF, Sobel M, Clagett GP. Carotid endarterectomy saphenous vein patch rupture revisited: selective use on the basis of vein diameter. J Vasc Surg. 1996;24:346–52.
Archie JP. A fifteen-year experience with carotid endarterectomy after a formal operative protocol requiring highly frequent patch angioplasty. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:724–35.
Naylor R. Management of prosthetic patch infection after CEA. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2016;57:137–44.
Orrapin S, Benyakorn T, Howard DP, Siribumrungwong B, Rerkasem K. Patches of different types for carotid patch angioplasty. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2:CD000071.
Sadideen H, Taylor PR, Padayachee TS. Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:1625–30.
Bekelis K, Moses Z, Missios S, Desai A, Labropoulos N. Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis. Br J Surg. 2013;100:440–7.
Stilo F, Montelione N, Calandrelli R, Distefano M, Spinelli F, Di Lazzaro V, Pilato F. The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:1272–2.
Lal BK, Beach KW, Roubin GS, et al. Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:755–63.
Domanin M, Gallo D, Vergara C, Biondetti P, Forzenigo LV, Morbiducci U. Prediction of long term restenosis risk after surgery in the carotid bifurcation by hemodynamic and geometric analysis. Ann Biomed Eng. 2019;47:1129–40.
Archie JPJ. Reoperations for carotid artery stenosis: role of primary and secondary reconstructions. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:495–503.
Tu J, Wang S, Huo Z, Wu R, Yao C, Wang S. Repeated carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting for patients with carotid restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2015;157:1166–73.
Glotzer OS, Rojas E, Bouchard DR, Hill SS, Harad FT, Zhang Z, Bowser KE. Carotid restenosis following endarterectomy in patients managed with single antiplatelet therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020;55:209–15.
Kretschmer G, Pratschner T, Prager M, Wenzl E, Polterauer P, Schemper M, Ehringer H, Minar E. Antiplatelet treatment prolongs survival after carotid bifurcation endarterectomy. Analysis of the clinical series followed by a controlled trial. Ann Surg. 1990;211:317–22.
Bischof G, Pratschner T, Kail M, Mittlböck M, Turkof E, Puig S, Polterauer P, Kretschmer G. Anticoagulants, antiaggregants or nothing following carotid endarterectomy? Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7:364–9.
Moulakakis KG, Mylonas SN, Sfyroeras GS, Andrikopoulos V. Hyperperfusion syndrome after carotid revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:1060–8.
Renard R, Davaine J-M, Couture T, Jayet J, Tresson P, Gaudric J, Chiche L, Koskas F. Surgical repair of radiation-induced carotid stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72:959–67.
Giannopoulos S, Texakalidis P, Jonnalagadda AK, Karasavvidis T, Giannopoulos S, Kokkinidis DG. Revascularization of radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis with carotid endarterectomy vs. carotid artery stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19:638–44.
Fokkema M, Den Hartog AG, Bots ML, Van Der Tweel I, Moll FL, De Borst GJ. Stenting versus surgery in patients with carotid stenosis after previous cervical radiation therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2012;43:793–801.
Kong J, Li J, Ye Z, Fan X, Wen J, Zhang J, Liu P. Carotid endarterectomy with routine shunt for patients with contralateral carotid occlusion. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;23:227–32.
Samson RH, Cline JL, Showalter DP, Lepore MR, Nair DG. Contralateral carotid artery occlusion is not a contraindication to carotid endarterectomy even if shunts are not routinely used. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:935–40.
Conflict of Interest
Authors do not have any conflict of interest in this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hara, T., Rai, Y. (2022). Carotid Endarterectomy. In: Kato, Y., Ansari, A. (eds) Cerebrovascular Surgery. Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87649-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87649-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87648-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87649-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)