No Evidence for Long Term Blood Pressure Differences Between Eversion and Conventional Carotid Endarterectomy in Two Independent Study Cohorts. (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nolde, Janis M.; Cheng, Suk F.; Richards, Toby; Schlaich, Markus P.
• Is Part Of: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery. Volume 63:Number 1(2022)
• Page Start: 33
• Page End: 42
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: Blood pressure -- Carotid endarterectomy -- Conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) -- Eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA) -- Sympathetic nervous activity; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Blood-vessels -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Vascular Surgical Procedures -- methods -- Periodicals; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Vaisseaux sanguins -- Chirurgie endoscopique -- Périodiques; Blood-vessels -- Endoscopic surgery; Blood-vessels -- Surgery; Endoscopy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.413005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.09.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-5884

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Blood pressure (BP) management is a vital aspect of stroke prevention and post-stroke care. Different surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) techniques may impact on BP control post-operatively. Specifically, the carotid sinus nerve, which innervates the carotid baroreceptors and carotid body, is commonly left intact during conventional CEA but is routinely transected as part of eversion CEA. The aim of this study was to assess long term BP control after eversion and conventional CEA. Methods: Patients from the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS cohort) and a personal series of patients from the Stroke Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (UCL cohort) were separately analysed and divided into eversion and conventional CEA groups. Mixed effect linear models were fitted and adjusted for baseline demographic data and antihypertensive treatment to test for changes in BP from baseline over a three year follow up period after the respective procedures. Results: There were no differences in changes in baseline BP readings and follow up readings between eversion and conventional CEA in the ICSS or UCL cohorts. In the ICSS cohort a mild but significant systolic (–8.6 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI] –10.6 – –6.6) and diastolic (–4.9 mmHg; 95% CI –6.0 – –3.8) BP lowering effect was evident at discharge in the conventional group but not in the eversion CEA group. BP monitoring during follow up did not reveal any consistent BP changes with either conventional or eversion CEA vs. baseline levels. Conclusion: Neither conventional nor eversion CEA seem to result in clinically significant long term BP changes. Potential concerns related to either short or long term alterations in BP levels with transection of the carotid sinus nerve during eversion CEA could not be substantiated.