Trauma bypass performed by vascular surgeons demonstrate excellent long-term outcomes and limb preservation.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes in civilian trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization is poorly studied secondary to limitations of certain large databases and the nature of the patients in this specific vascular subset. This study reports on the experience and outcomes of a Level 1 trauma center that serves both an urban and a large rural population over a 20-year period to identify bypass outcomes and surveillance protocols. METHODS: Database of a single vascular group at an academic center was queried for trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2022. Patient demographics, indications, operative details, operative mortality, 30-day nonoperative morbidity, revisions, subsequent major amputations, and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 223 revascularizations were performed, 161 (72%) lower and 62 (28%) upper extremities. One hundred sixty-seven patients (74.9%) were male, with a mean age of 39 years (range, 3-89 years). Comorbidities included hypertension (n = 34; 15.3%), diabetes (n = 6; 2.7%), and tobacco use (n = 40; 17.9%). Mean follow-up time was 23 months (range, 1-234 months), with 90 patients (40.4%) lost to follow-up. Mechanisms included blunt trauma (n = 106; 47.5%), penetrating trauma (n = 83; 37.2%), and operative trauma (n = 34; 15.3%). Bypass conduit was reversed vein (n= 171; 76.7%), prosthetic (n = 34; 15.2%), and orthograde vein (n = 11; 4.9%). Bypass inflow artery was superficial femoral (n = 66; 41.0%), above-knee popliteal (n = 28; 17.4%), and common femoral (n = 20; 12.4%) in the lower extremity, and brachial (n = 41; 66.1%), axillary (n = 10; 16.1%), and radial (n = 6; 9.7%) in the upper extremity. Lower extremity outflow artery was posterior tibial (n = 47; 29.2%), below-knee popliteal (n = 41; 25.5%), superficial femoral (n = 16; 9.9%), dorsalis pedis (n = 10; 6.2%), common femoral (n = 9; 5.6%), and above-knee popliteal (n = 10; 6.2%). Upper extremity outflow artery was brachial (n = 34; 54.8%), radial (n = 13; 21.0%), and ulnar (n = 13; 21.0%). Total operative mortality was nine patients (4.0%), all involving lower extremity revascularization. Thirty-day non-fatal complications included immediate bypass occlusion (n = 11; 4.9%), wound infection (n = 8; 3.6%), graft infection (n = 4; 1.8%), and lymphocele/seroma (n = 7; 3.1%). All major amputations (n = 13; 5.8%) were early and in the lower extremity bypass group. Late revisions in the lower and upper extremity groups were 14 (8.7%) and four (6.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization for extremity trauma can be performed with excellent limb salvage rates and has demonstrated long-term durability with low limb loss and bypass revision rates. The poor compliance with long-term surveillance is concerning and may require adjustment in patient retention protocols; however, emergent returns for bypass failure are extremely low in our experience.

Use of the right retroperitoneum as an alternative approach to the abdominal aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The left retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is a well-established technique for aortic exposure. The right retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is performed less commonly, and the outcomes remain unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of right retroperitoneal aortic-based procedures and to determine its utility in aortic reconstruction when faced with hostile anatomy or infection in the abdomen or left flank. METHODS: A retrospective query of a vascular surgery database from a tertiary referral center was performed for all retroperitoneal aortic procedures. Individual patient charts were reviewed, and data were collected. Demographics, indications, intraoperative details, and outcomes were tabulated. RESULTS: From 1984 through 2020, there have been 7454 open aortic procedures; 6076 were retroperitoneal-based, and 219 of which were performed from the right retroperitoneal approach (Rrp). Aneurysmal disease was the most common indication (48.9%), and graft occlusion was the most common postoperative complication (11.4%). The average aneurysm size was 5.5 cm, and the most common reconstruction was with a bifurcated graft (77.6%). Average intraoperative blood loss was 923.8 mL (range, 50-6800 mL; median, 600 mL). Perioperative complications occurred in 56 patients (25.6%) for a total of 70 complications. Perioperative mortality occurred in two patients (0.91%). The 219 patients treated with Rrp required 66 subsequent procedures in 31 patients. These included 29 extra-anatomic bypasses, 19 thrombectomies/embolectomies, 10 bypass revisions, 5 infected graft excisions, and 3 aneurysm revisions. Eight Rrp eventually underwent a left retroperitoneal approach for aortic reconstruction. Fourteen patients with a left-sided aortic procedure required a Rrp. CONCLUSIONS: The right retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is a useful technique in the setting of prior surgery, anatomic abnormality, or infection that complicates the use of other more frequently employed approaches. This review demonstrates comparable outcomes and the technical feasibility of this approach. The right retroperitoneal approach to aortic surgery should be considered a viable alternative to left retroperitoneal and transperitoneal access in patients with complex anatomy or prohibitive pathology for more traditional exposure.

Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience.

Literature review of primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure.

BACKGROUND: Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies. RESULTS: The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion). CONCLUSIONS: Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure.

Prosthetic versus native artery inflow for infrainguinal bypass.

BACKGROUND: Infrainguinal bypass performed after previous prosthetic inflow reconstruction offers a choice of where to perform the proximal anastomosis. The hood of a previous inflow bypass might be technically easier to isolate during reoperative surgery. However, the more distal native artery might offer better patency to the outflow revascularization. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes of infrainguinal bypass using the hood of a previous inflow bypass vs the native artery as the inflow source. METHODS: A single vascular group's database was queried for all cases of infrainguinal bypass performed after previous prosthetic inflow bypass to a femoral artery from January 2006 to December 2016. The demographics, indications, operative details, and long-term results were recorded and analyzed. Two groups were compared stratified by the location of the proximal anastomosis for the distal bypass. In one group, the inflow source for the distal bypass was from the hood of a previous inflow graft (prosthetic). In the second group, the distal native arterial tree was used as the inflow source. A subset analysis of the patency of the distal bypass was also performed between the two groups for those in which the previous inflow reconstruction had become occluded. Patency was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients had undergone infrainguinal bypass after previous inflow bypass from 2006 to 2016. Of the 197 procedures, 59 (30%) had used the hood of the previous bypass as the inflow source (prosthetic group) and 138 (70%) had used the native artery distal to the hood of the inflow bypass as the inflow source (native group). The indications were similar between the two groups. The two groups had a similar proportion of men and a similar incidence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, tobacco use, and renal disease. The previous inflow procedures were also similar between the two groups. The native artery used for the inflow source in the native group was the profunda femoris in 80 (58%), common femoral artery in 51 (37%), and superficial femoral artery in 7 (5.1%). Patency was significantly greater for the native group at 1 year (91% vs 75%; P = .0221). Also, the patency after inflow bypass occlusion significantly favored the native group at 1 year (87% vs 40%; P = .0035). CONCLUSIONS: Infrainguinal bypass performed after previous ipsilateral inflow bypass offers the option of using the hood of the bypass or a native artery as the inflow source. The present study demonstrated greater patency rates when using the distal native artery as the inflow source. The native artery option also offered continued patency when the inflow bypass occluded.

Chimney stent graft for left subclavian artery preservation during thoracic endograft placement.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid to subclavian artery bypass (CSB) has been the standard for revascularizing the left subclavian artery during coverage by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study is to determine if a chimney stent graft (CSG) offers similar outcomes as an alternative to open bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single vascular surgery registry between February 2011 and September 2017 was performed of all left subclavian revascularization during elective TEVAR. Arch reconstructions involving more than just the left subclavian artery were excluded. Indications, demographics, procedural details, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a mean age of 68 years (range, 32-87 years) had left subclavian revascularization (64 [79%] CSB vs 17 [21%] CSG) during TEVAR. Median follow-up for CSG was 8 months (range, 0-52 months) and for CSB was 14.5 months (range, 3-72). Demographics between the groups were similar except for more males in both groups (43 [67%] in CSB vs 10 [59%] in CSG; P = .28). The CSB group had significantly more aneurysms than dissections compared with CSG (45 [70%] vs 6 [35%]; P = .008). There were no perioperative occlusions or ischemic issues for either group in the perioperative period. Postoperative hematoma rates trended higher in the CSB (7.11% vs 1.6%; P = .53) with three (4.6%) of the CSB requiring evacuation of hematoma. Left hemispheric strokes were 6% in the CSB with none occurring in the CSG group. Perioperatively, the CSB group had one recurrent laryngeal nerve and one graft infection. Length of stay was similar in both groups (CSB, 8.4 days vs CSG, 9.1 days). Perioperative mortality was not statistically significant between both groups with two deaths (3%) in the CSB and none in the CSG group. No gutter leaks were identified on follow-up computed tomography scan during long-term follow-up. Patency rates were similar with only one occlusion in the CSB group at 23 months. CONCLUSIONS: Left common carotid to subclavian artery bypass has been the standard for revascularization of the left subclavian artery during coverage by TEVAR. Chimney stent grafting to perfuse the left arm appears to offer equivalent results as a minimally invasive alternative.

Effects of endovascular first strategy on spliced vein bypass outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive endovascular interventions for patients without adequate full-length venous conduit have gained popularity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of spliced vein bypass (SVB) as primary treatment versus treatment after failed endovascular intervention (endovascular SVB [ESVB]) for infrainguinal revascularization. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a single vascular group's database of all SVBs was queried for demographics, indications, intraoperative details, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria included acute ischemia, aneurysm, dual outflow, bypass revisions, and patients lost to immediate follow-up. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five infrainguinal SVBs were performed between January 2011 and March 2017. There were 182 SVB (77%) and 53 ESVB (23%) with a mean follow-up of 488 days (range, 1-2140). Demographics between the SVB and ESVB groups were similar in all categories recorded: diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease (P = .29). Indications for bypass were not statistically significant between SVB and ESVB (P = .48). The study included Rutherford class 3 (14 vs 2), class 4 (51 vs 20), class 5 (67 vs 18), and class 6 (50 vs 13). Inflow was grouped into iliac (2.6%), femoral (88%), and popliteal (9.8%). Outflow arteries were grouped into below knee popliteal (14.9%) and infrapopliteal (85.1%). Inflow and outflow arteries, as well as number of spliced pieces per bypass were not different between groups. Major amputation rates were not different between SVB and ESVB for the entire study period. There was no statistical difference with patency outcomes based on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive endovascular first strategy for treatment of patients without adequate autogenous conduit seems to offer benefit without negatively affecting future bypass options. SVB patency and major amputation rates in this series were not affected by a prior endovascular treatment.

Outcomes for carotid endarterectomy in nonagenarians.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established procedure with prospective randomized data demonstrating the benefit of stroke prevention. With the aging of the population, there are limited data published for nonagenarians, especially for asymptomatic stenosis. This study investigated 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as late survival in symptomatic and asymptomatic nonagenarians with severe carotid stenosis undergoing CEA. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of a single vascular surgery group's registry involving multiple hospitals between November 1994 and June 2017 for all primary CEAs of patients ≥90 years old at the time of surgery. The exclusion criterion was redo surgery or bilateral CEAs. Demographic data, sex, symptoms, risk factors, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Survival analysis was conducted using SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for the specific end point 30-day morbidity or mortality and late survival. RESULTS: There were 77 patients (44 male [57%]) who underwent CEA for symptomatic (44 [57%]) and asymptomatic (33 [43%]) internal carotid artery stenosis with a median age of 92 years; 23 women were symptomatic compared with 21 men, and 23 men were asymptomatic compared with 10 women. Symptomatic patients included amaurosis fugax (n = 3), stroke (n = 16), and transient ischemic attack (n = 25). CEAs were performed using the eversion technique under cervical block with selective shunting. The 30-day morbidity included one (2.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarction and one (2.3%) ischemic stroke in the symptomatic group compared with one (3%) patient having a nonfatal myocardial infarction and none with ischemic stroke in the asymptomatic group. One patient of the symptomatic group required return to the operating room for hematoma evacuation. The 30-day mortality was 2.3% in the symptomatic group compared with 6.1% in the asymptomatic group. There was no statistical difference in survival based on sex (P = .444). The symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had similar median survival of 27.7 months and 29.4 months (P = .987), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The aging population adds increasing difficulty in decision-making for surgical intervention on carotid stenosis. CEA in nonagenarians is associated with reasonably low 30-day rates of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in our small study. However, enthusiasm for asymptomatic CEA in this population must be tempered by low survival rates.

CEA vs. stent in patients with acute strokes: are they equally effective?

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Review of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute stroke, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.

Use of Transesophageal Echocardiogram and Interdisciplinary Approach to Intraoperative Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma With Inferior Vena Cava Invasion.

OBJECTIVE: Report experience of patients undergoing surgery for resection of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava invasion and use of transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE). DESIGN: Retrospective and observational study. SETTING: Single large university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 55 consecutive who underwent resection of renal cell carcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: A transesophageal echocardiogram was performed by cardiac anesthesiologists in high grade tumors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two patients had tumor thrombi classified as level III, and 6 patients were classified as level IV. There was increased use of TEE for higher level of tumor thrombi. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical management of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava tumor extension is complex. High-grade tumors require individualized treatment. Successful outcomes require collaboration between surgeons and anesthesiologists. Patients with level IIIb to IV tumor invasion benefit from TEE assessment and monitoring, which may be life-saving, and cardiac anesthesia should be involved in those types of cases.

Long-term patency of venous and prosthetic conduits for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass has been used successfully to treat aneurysms, infection, tumor, and occlusive disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of autogenous and prosthetic conduits used for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-institution registry was performed to identify patients with ipsilateral carotid artery bypass. Demographics, complications, and patency were recorded and compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, and log-rank analysis. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2016, 105 patients underwent ipsilateral carotid artery bypass (86 prosthetic, 19 veins). The venous bypass group and prosthetic bypass group were different in terms of gender (8 males and 11 females vs 58 males and 28 females; P = .038), but similar in age (mean in the venous bypass group, 63 years [range, 18-80 years] vs mean in the prosthetic bypass group 68 years [range, 33-88 years], P = .052). The mean follow-up was 53 months (range, 1 month to 15 years). Diabetes, pulmonary disease, hypercholesterolemia, and tobacco use were not statistically different between the groups. Indications were different between the groups, with a prosthetic bypass being used more often for occlusive disease and a venous bypass used more often for infection, aneurysm, trauma, and tumor (Fisher's exact test, P = .004). Perioperative complications were few and similar between groups (restenosis, immediate occlusion, and neurologic morbidity). Patency rates, as determined by duplex ultrasound examination, were similar at 1 year (100% venous bypass group vs 99% prosthetic bypass group; P = .434). The 10-year follow-up with an estimated patency based on extrapolated survival curves to be 84% for the venous bypass group vs 88% for the prosthetic bypass group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass performed for a variety of indications using prosthetic and venous conduits have demonstrated excellent short-term results. Both types of conduits in this series have trended toward continued durability over long-term follow-up.

Risk and outcome profile of carotid endarterectomy with proximal intervention is concerning in multi-institutional assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Approaching tandem bifurcation and brachiocephalic disease using carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with ipsilateral proximal endovascular intervention (IPE) has been promulgated as safe and durable. There have been recent concerns about neurologic risk with this technique. The goal of this study was to define stroke and perioperative risk with this uncommon procedure across multiple centers. METHODS: Between August 2002 and July 2016, patients who underwent CEA + IPE were identified by operative records at three institutions. Primary end points were perioperative stroke and death, restenosis, freedom from neurologic event, and need for reintervention. Factors related to these end points were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 62 patients who underwent CEA + IPE. The average age was 69 ± 9 years. Most were female 34 (55%); 56 (90%) were taking a statin and at least one antiplatelet agent. Bilateral internal carotid stenosis (>50%) was present in 32 (52%); 26 (42%) patients were symptomatic and 12 (19%) had undergone prior ipsilateral CEA. Bifurcation operations included longitudinal CEA/patch (38 [61%]), eversion CEA (20 [32%]), bypass graft (3 [5%]), and CEA/primary repair (1 [2%]). CEA was performed first in 53 (85%). All IPEs included stenting, with a single stent used in 58 (94%). Balloon-expandable stents were placed in the majority of patients (51 [82%]). Proximal arteries treated included the innominate (20 [32%]), left common carotid (32 [52%]), right common carotid (8 [13%]) and both innominate and right common carotid (2 [3%]). IPE was protected by carotid cross-clamp in 48 (77%). Shunting occurred in 14 (23%). There were four (6.5%) perioperative ipsilateral strokes and two hyperperfusion events. There were three (4.8%) operative deaths, one from stroke and two cardiovascular. Combined stroke and death rate was 11.3% and was not different between centers. Mean clinical follow-up was 6 ± 4 years. Mean imaging follow-up was 3 ± 4 years. Restenosis ≥50% at either intervention occurred in 20 (34%). Reintervention was performed for five proximal and three bifurcation failures (14%). Symptomatic status, redo operation, carotid clamp protection, multiple stents, and procedural order were not associated with operative stroke. Carotid clamp protection was associated with less restenosis (P = .003). Redo operation (P = .04) and hyperlipidemia (P = .05) were associated with reintervention. The 5-year actuarial survival was 81%, whereas freedom from stroke and reintervention were 94% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative stroke and death with CEA + IPE are substantial and consistent across centers. It is strikingly different from isolated CEA or CEA added to open brachiocephalic reconstruction. Restenosis is frequent, and reintervention at either the proximal stent or bifurcation is common. This technical strategy should be used cautiously and selectively reserved for those who are symptomatic with hemodynamically relevant tandem lesions and unfit for open revascularization.