4.5 Article

The role of patch closure in current-day carotid endarterectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.08.003

关键词

Carotid endarterectomy; Primary repair; Patch repair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed a large modern, cross-specialty database to determine the use of patch closure in conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The results indicate that patch closure leads to significantly improved short- and long-term outcomes.
Background: It has long been debated whether it is preferable to perform conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patch closure. Although most contemporary surgeons patch, many still do not. Recent small studies have surfaced implying patching is unnecessary. The objective of our analysis was to determine the difference in short- and long-term outcomes according to patch use in a large modern, cross-specialty database. Methods: Analyzing more than 118,000 records from the Vascular Quality Initiative, multimodel inference was used to evaluate the effect of patch use on important outcomes of conventional CEA. The composite short-term outcome included any ipsilateral neurological event, return to the operating room for a neurological event, and an increase in the Rankin score postoperatively. Late composite outcome incorporated restenosis as well as early and late ipsilateral neurological events. Results: Patch use for conventional CEA closure was found to be a strong predictor of both early and late outcomes, as evidenced by its Akaike importance weight of 0.99. Examining predischarge events, patch closure is associated with a decrease in major negative events (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6). For long-term events, such closure offers a decrease in untoward outcome (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-0.9). Conclusions: Analysis in a large current-day database suggests that patch closure of conventional CEA effects superior short- and long-term outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据