Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic, but "haemodynamically insignificant" carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) guidelines in symptomatic carotid stenosis are based on NASCET and ECST criteria with 70% or greater carotid stenosis as estimated from a catheter angiogram the major indication. This has several problems: (1) lack of reliable correlation between non-invasive imaging and catheter angiography, which has been largely superseded by non-invasive imaging in investigating carotid stenosis; (2) errors inherent in estimating the degree of stenosis from catheter angiography; (3) disregard for the fact that stroke risk also depends on plaque stability, and number of ischaemic events. METHODS: A retrospective review of ischaemic events, imaging results, operative findings, surgical complications and stroke-free follow-up in 31 patients presenting over a 23 year period with TIA/stroke (symptoms lasting > 24 h and/or imaging evidence of infarction) who had 70% or less carotid stenosis (on non-invasive imaging), but nonetheless underwent CEA. RESULTS: Nineteen patients had small strokes, 7 had TIAs and 5 had ocular events; 28 patients had features of unstable plaque on imaging; 19 patients experienced multiple events before CEA. All had haemorrhagic, ruptured plaque at CEA. One patient suffered an intra-operative stroke, only 1 patient suffered a further stroke/TIA (mean follow-up 4.2 years). CONCLUSION: To predict the likelihood of major stroke in symptomatic carotid stenosis and the benefit of CEA, plaque stability and the number of ischaemic events might be as important as an estimate of the degree of stenosis.

Why do some patients with > 80% stenosis of the internal carotid artery not undergo surgery? A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is known to benefit both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis. Duplex scanning is the 'gold standard' for non-invasive preoperative investigation of carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to analyse the indications for duplex scanning and to identify other factors that influenced the management of patients with high-grade stenosis who did not undergo carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: A total of 271 patients was observed to have > 80% stenosis of the internal carotid artery on duplex scanning during the period of review. Of these patients, 85 did not undergo carotid endarterectomy. The vascular laboratory database and hospital records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The indications for requesting a carotid duplex scan in the 85 patients were transient ischaemic attack (22%), stroke (25%), symptomatic bruit (7%), asymptomatic bruit (12%), and stroke and symptomatic bruit combined (7%). Falls and preoperative carotid assessment prior to coronary surgery were the commonest indications in the remaining patients. The main risk factors were cardiac (68%), hypertension (60%), respiratory (21%), diabetes (25%), peripheral vascular disease (19%), neoplasm (16%) and renal disease (16%). Twenty-five per cent of the patients were over 80 years of age. CONCLUSION: In the present study risk factors associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality were the commonest explanation for patients with high-grade stenosis of the internal carotid artery not undergoing surgery. These patients would generally not meet the inclusion criteria for the major carotid endarterectomy trials.

Variation in measurement of ankle-brachial pressure index in routine clinical practice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the variation in ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) measurements in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Analysis was done of preoperative and postoperative ABPIs in 130 limbs contralateral to those undergoing femoral bypass grafting in 123 patients over a 15-month period. RESULTS: The mean initial ABPI was 0.72 (range 0.22 to 1.10). The range of observed differences between the preoperative and postoperative ABPIs was from -0.33 to +0.25. The mean (+/-SD) difference between the first and second ABPIs was 0.00 (+/-0.11). The 95% confidence limits of the difference were -0.21 to 0.21. There was no trend for the size or direction of the difference in ABPI to vary according to the mean ABPI, brachial blood pressure, or time between tests. CONCLUSIONS: ABPI is routinely used as an objective measure of peripheral vascular disease. The variation observed in this study is comparable with values obtained in reproducibility studies and is greater than that accepted in clinical practice. The difference between an ABPI measurement and the actual ABPI and the difference between repeat single measurements are not the same and should be distinguished. Vascular laboratories should determine the accuracy of ABPI measurement on a local basis to guarantee and maintain quality assurance.