Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2018 May;67(5):1429-1437. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.093. Epub 2017 Dec 8.

Open surgery versus endovascular approach in treatment of extracranial carotid artery aneurysms.

Author information

1
Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
2
Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. Electronic address: liucw@vip.sina.com.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to investigate and to compare the early and long-term results of open surgery with endovascular intervention in the treatment of extracranial carotid artery aneurysms (ECCAs).

METHODS:

A retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ECCAs who underwent open surgical or endovascular treatment from 1997 to 2017 was performed. Clinical characteristics, aneurysm profile, and treatment outcomes were recorded. Early results (<30 days) were evaluated in terms of mortality, perioperative stroke or transient ischemic attack, and cranial nerve injury. Late results were analyzed in terms of both overall and stroke-free survival and freedom from reinterventions.

RESULTS:

A total of 48 patients with ECCAs including 34 (70.8%) true aneurysms and 14 (29.2%) pseudoaneurysms were treated. The median age was 51 years, and 19 patients (39.6%) were men; 41 patients (85.4%) had symptoms, whereas 7 (14.6%) were asymptomatic. Among 48 patients, 32 patients (66.7%) underwent open surgery; endovascular repair was performed on 16 patients (33.3%). The 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack rate was not significantly different between the open group (6.3% [2/32]) and the endovascular group (0% [0/16]; P = .307). Cranial nerve injuries occurred in eight patients in the open group (25%) and in no patient in the endovascular group (0%; P = .029). Median length of stay was significantly longer in the open group than in the endovascular group (20 vs 14 days, respectively; P = .013). Median follow-up was 46 months (range, 0-20 years), and no aneurysm-related death occurred during this period. Overall survival rates at 5 years were 88.7% (standard error [SE], 0.08) in the open group and 91.7% (SE, 0.08) in the endovascular group (P = .319; log-rank, .992). For the same time interval, stroke-free survival rates were 85.2% (SE, 0.10) in the open group and 92.2% (SE, 0.07) in the endovascular group (P = .653; log-rank, .201). One patient (1/28 [3.6%]) in the open group and two patients (2/16 [12.5%]) in the endovascular group underwent endovascular reinterventions because of restenosis during the follow-up period. Reintervention-free survival rates were 90.9% in the open group (SE, 0.09) and 69.2% in the endovascular group (SE, 0.21; P = .082; log-rank, 3.016).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this single-institutional experience, both operative and endovascular interventions for ECCAs provided acceptable early and 5-year results. The endovascular approach had significantly less cranial nerve injury and shorter length of hospital stay.

PMID:
29224941
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.093
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center