Subject(s)
Endarterectomy, Carotid , Protamines , Carotid Stenosis , Humans , Risk Factors , Stroke , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have been published on the safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Registry reports have been recommended in order to gather large study groups. DESIGN: A retrospective, registry based, case controlled study on prospectively gathered data from Sweden, the capital region of Finland, and from Denmark, including 30 days of follow up. METHODS: The study group was a consecutive series of 5526 patients who had CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis during a 4.5 year period. Among these, 202 (4%) had IVT prior to surgery, including 117 having CEA within 14 days, and 59 within 7 days of thrombolysis. IVT as well as CEA were performed following established guidelines. The median time from index symptom to CEA was 12 days (range 0-130, IQR 7-21). RESULTS: The 30 day combined stroke and death rate was 3.5% (95% CI 1.69-6.99) for those having IVT + CEA, 4.1% (95% CI 3.46-4.39) for those having CEA without previous IVT (odds ratio 0.84 [95% CI 0.39-1.81]), 3.4% (95% CI 1.33-8.39) for those having IVT + CEA within 14 days, and 5.1% (95% CI 1.74-13.91) for those having IVT + CEA within 7 days. CONCLUSION: Data on the time from symptoms to CEA in patients not having IVT, Rankin score, degree of stenosis, and cerebral imaging were not available. Despite its weaknesses, this study reasserts that CEA can be performed within the recommended 2 weeks of the onset of symptoms and IVT without increasing the risk of peri-operative stroke or death. Centres and vascular registries are recommended to continue monitoring changes in patient characteristics, lead times, and major complications after CEA in general, with a special focus on those who have undergone a prior thrombolysis.
Subject(s)
Brain Ischemia/drug therapy , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Endarterectomy, Carotid , Fibrinolytic Agents/administration & dosage , Stroke/drug therapy , Thrombolytic Therapy , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brain Ischemia/diagnosis , Brain Ischemia/etiology , Brain Ischemia/mortality , Carotid Stenosis/complications , Carotid Stenosis/diagnosis , Carotid Stenosis/mortality , Chi-Square Distribution , Endarterectomy, Carotid/adverse effects , Endarterectomy, Carotid/mortality , Female , Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Patient Selection , Recurrence , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Scandinavian and Nordic Countries , Stroke/diagnosis , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/mortality , Thrombolytic Therapy/adverse effects , Thrombolytic Therapy/mortality , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has proven effective in the treatment of acute cerebral ischaemic attack in selected cases. In the presence of a carotid artery stenosis, such patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Few studies have been made on the safety of CEA performed after IVT. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. Data including 30 days' follow-up were obtained from medical records and from a vascular registry. MATERIALS: A consecutive series of 306 patients were operated on for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis during a 5-year period. Among these, 22 (7%) patients had been treated with IVT for an acute cerebral ischaemic attack prior to CEA and 284 (93%) patients had CEA only. METHODS: IVT as well as CEA was performed following established guidelines. CEA was performed in median 11 days (25 and 75% percentiles: 7-13 days) after the neurological index event in patients having undergone IVT and 12 days (25 and 75% percentiles: 8-21 days) in patients undergoing CEA only. RESULTS: The 30 days' stroke and death rate was 0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0-15%) in patients who had IVT before CEA and 2.4% (95% CI: 0.9-4.7%) in patients who underwent CEA only. CONCLUSION: Our experience indicates that CEA performed after IVT for acute cerebral ischaemic attack is safe, confirming existing but sparse publications. However, our series is small and our study possesses a number of limitations. Thus, our results cannot necessarily be transferred to other units, who instead should perform similar studies, preferably together.