Surgical decision making for carotid endarterectomy and contemporary magnetic resonance angiography.

BACKGROUND: Benefit from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) centers on patient selection and percent stenosis as determined by cerebral angiography. However, angiography remains expensive and poses risks. Validated carotid duplex ultrasonography has proven to be an accurate tool for selecting patients for CEA. However, the role of another noninvasive test-magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)-remains uncertain. Because of recent advances in MRA hardware and software, we hypothesized that clinically appropriate patients could be accurately selected for CEA based on MRA alone. METHODS: Fifty-four carotid arteries in 29 patients (with and without symptoms) underwent both three-dimensional time-of-flight MRA (1.5 Tesla) with multiple overlapping thin slab acquisition and biplanar intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. All patients undergoing both tests over a 24-month period were included. The majority of these patients did not undergo carotid duplex ultrasound owing to the clinical practice of the hospital's neurosurgery service. Staff radiologists interpreted each study. The accuracy of patient selection based on MRA was calculated using angiography as the standard (NASCET method). Since operative thresholds vary depending on clinical history, we considered four commonly used ranges of percent stenosis for CEA. RESULTS: Patient selection accuracy of MRA alone was low, but increased as percent stenosis increased. Out of 10 occluded arteries by angiography, 5 were interpreted as patent with stenosis (70% to 99%) by MRA. One patent artery was misread as occluded on MRA. CONCLUSION: Reliance solely on contemporary MRA for surgical decision making cannot be justified in view of low accuracy, which leads to high rates of error in patient selection for CEA.

Intraoperative autologous transfusion during elective infrarenal aortic reconstruction: a decision analysis model.

PURPOSE: The use of intraoperative autologous transfusion devices expanded during the last decade as a result of the increased awareness of transfusion-associated complications. This study was designed to determine whether routine use of an intraoperative autologous transfusion device (Haemonetics Cell Saver [CS]) during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions is cost-effective ($50,000/QALYs threshold). METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed to model all of the complications that are associated with red blood cell replacement during aortic reconstructions for both abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). It was assumed that a unit of CS return (CSR; 250 ml/unit) equaled a unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and that all CS transfusions were necessary. Transfusion requirements (AAA:PRBC = 2.8 +/- 3.2 units, CSB = 3.7 +/- 3.2 units; AIOD:PRBC = 3.1 +/- 3.0 units, CSR = 2.1 +/- 1.7 units) were determined from retrospective review of all elective aortic reconstructions (AAA, N = 63; AIOD, N = 75) from Jan. 1991 to June 1995 in which the CS was used (82.1% of all reconstructions). Risk of allogenic transfusion-related complications (transfusion reaction, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, human immunodeficiency virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus types I and II) and their associated treatment costs (expressed in dollars and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from the medical literature, institutional audit, and a consensus of physicians. RESULTS: Routine use of the CS during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions was not cost-effective in our practice. Use during reconstructions for AAA repairs cost $263.75 but added only 0.00218 QALYs, for a rate of $120,794/QALY. Use during reconstructions for AIOD was even more costly at $356.68 and provided even less benefit at 0.00062 QALYs, for a rate of $578,275/QALY. The sensitivity analyses determined that the routine use of the CS would be cost-effective in our practice only for AAA repairs if the incidence of hepatitis C were tenfold greater than the baseline assumption. The model determined that CS was cost-effective if the CSR exceed 5 units during reconstructions for AAA and 6 units during reconstructions for AIOD. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of the CS during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions is not cost-effective. The use of the device should be reserved for a select group of aortic reconstructions, including those in which cost-effective salvage volumes are anticipated. Alternatively, the CS should be used as a reservoir and activated as a salvage device if significant bleeding is encountered.

Intraoperative autologous transfusion during elective infrarenal aortic reconstruction.

Intraoperative autologous transfusion devices have been purported to reduce allogenic transfusions and their associated complications. However, the value of their routine use during elective cardiovascular operations remains undefined. This study was designed to examine the efficacy of the Haemonetics Cell Saver (CS) during elective aortic reconstructions and identify predictors of clinically significant (> or = 500 cc) and cost-efficient (> or = 1250 cc) salvage volumes. The medical records of all patients undergoing elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions between January 1991 and June 1995 were retrospectively reviewed to determine blood loss, CS return, predictors of clinically significant/ cost-efficient CS returns, blood products transfused, and estimated cost per unit CS return. The CS was used for 138 (82.1%) of all reconstructions during the study period. Estimated blood loss (2127 +/- 1467 vs 1415 +/- 1047) and CS return (927 +/- 790 vs 515 +/- 408) were significantly greater in patients with aneurysms (AAA, N = 63) compared to those with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD, N = 75). CS returns > or = 500 cc were common (79.4% AAA, 52.0% AIOD) and predictors of > or = 500 cc CS returns were large aneurysms (6.79 +/- 1.84 vs 5.72 +/- 0.71 cm) and male sex (82.0 vs 46.2%) in AAA patients and lower preoperative platelet counts (262 +/- 93 vs 311 +/- 113 K/mm3), concomitant renal revascularizations (20.5 vs 0%), and prolonged operative time (7.9 +/- 2.4 vs 6.9 +/- 2.1 hr) in AIOD patients. In contrast, CS returns > or = 1250 cc were relatively uncommon (28.6% AAA, 5.3% AIOD), and predictors of these CS returns were found only for AAA patients and included any concomitant vascular procedures (38.8 vs 15.6%) and the need for suprarenal aortic clamping (27.8 vs 6.7%). Despite the use of the CS, 73.8% of all patients required allogenic packed red blood cells with a mean of 3.0 +/- 3.1 units transfused in the perioperative period; no difference was seen between AAA and AIOD patients. The calculated cost for a unit of CS return was +128.77 for the AAA patients and +231.91 for the AIOD patients. Not using the CS and substituting the return with allogenic packed red blood cells would have saved +252.80 and +352.84 for the AAA and AIOD patients, respectively. Routine use of the CS during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions is not cost efficient and should be abandoned. Use of the device should be reserved only for complex reconstruction.