OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse the influence of different methods of monitoring cerebral perfusion (MCP) on stroke, death, and use of intraluminal shunt during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted and registered in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42021246360). Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with > 50 participants that compared clinical outcomes for different MCP in patients undergoing CEA were included. Papers reporting one or a combination of two of the following MCPs were included in the analysis: awake testing (AT), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalography (EEG), somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), motor evoked potential (MEP), transcranial Doppler (TCD), and stump pressure (SP). A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a binomial likelihood function with a specified logit link for peri-operative stroke or death and shunting as outcomes. Near infrared spectroscopy was excluded due to the lack of studies that could be used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1 834 publications, 17 studies (15 cohort studies and two RCTs) including 21 538 participants were incorporated in the quantitative analysis. Electroencephalography was used in the largest number of participants (7 429 participants, six studies), while AT was used in the highest number of studies (10 studies). All monitoring modalities had worse outcomes with respect to stroke or death when compared with AT, with ORs ranging between 1.3 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.2 - 10.9) for SSEP + MEP and 3.1 (CrI 0.3 - 35.0) for patients monitored with a combination of EEG and TCD. However, the wide CrI indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the monitoring methods. Patients monitored with a combination of EEG and TCD had the lowest odds of being shunted, while SP had the highest odds of being shunted, also with no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality data on this topic in the literature. The present study showed no significant difference between monitoring methods investigated in the network meta-analysis.

UNASSIGNED: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an interventional therapy for symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. In this study, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery disease compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that used TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. The primary outcomes included a 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised cranial nerve injury and major bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were calculated to compare TCAR with CEA and CAS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and degree of stenosis. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the vascular quality initiative registry population.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 7 studies involving 24 246 patients were analyzed. Within this patient cohort, 4771 individuals underwent TCAR, 12 350 underwent CEA, and 7125 patients underwent CAS. Compared with CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.33-1.82]) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.83-2.01]) but lower mortality (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54]) but similar rates of myocardial infarction (OR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.64-1.38]) and mortality (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.87-2.10]).
UNASSIGNED: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS. Prospective randomized trials comparing the 3 modalities are needed.

Acute glaucoma is a potential complication of carotid revascularization procedures such as endarterectomy or stenting. Although preoperative ocular hypoperfusion may predispose patients to postoperative glaucoma, the details of this complication have not been clarified.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent carotid revascularization at our institution from January 2019 to December 2022. These patients were divided into glaucoma and nonglaucoma groups. Given the rarity of the event, a systematic literature review was performed to additionally include data from patients who developed acute glaucoma after carotid revascularization. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors for acute glaucoma.
Thirty-five cases, including 2 from our institution, were included in the glaucoma group, and 130 were included in the nonglaucoma group. Most cases (79%) occurred within five days postoperatively. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative ocular symptoms were significantly associated with the development of postoperative glaucoma (odds ratio, 361.06; 95% confidence interval, 34.09-3824.27; P < 0.001). Preoperative neovascularization at the iris or anterior chamber angle, indicating severe ocular hypoperfusion, was found in 84% of patients with glaucoma. Permanent visual loss occurred in 41% of patients. The incidence of postoperative glaucoma at our institution was 1.5% (2/132). The positive predictive value of preoperative ocular symptoms for postoperative glaucoma was 0.25 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32).
This study was the first to clarify the risk factors and characteristics of acute glaucoma after carotid revascularization.

This systematic review aimed to identify sex-specific outcomes in men and women after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), including transfemoral and transcarotid. A search of literature published from January 2000 through December 2022 was conducted using key terms attributed to carotid interventions on PubMed. Studies comparing outcome metrics post intervention (ie, myocardial infarction [MI], cerebral vascular accident [CVA] or stroke, and long-term mortality) among male and female patients were reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Overall, all studies reported low rates of perioperative complications. Among the studies that did not stratify outcomes by the preoperative symptom status, there were no significant sex differences in rates of perioperative strokes or MIs. Two studies, however, noted a higher rate of 30-day mortality in male patients undergoing CEA than in female patients. Analysis of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA revealed no difference in perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 1.8% v male: 0.4% to 4.3%), similar rates of CVAs (female: 0.8% to 5% v male: 0.8% to 4.9%), and no significant differences in the long-term mortality outcomes. Alternatively, symptomatic patients undergoing CEA reported a higher rate of CVAs in female patients vs. male patients (7.7% v 6.2%) and showed a higher rate of death in female patients (1% v 0.7%). Among studies that did not stratify outcome by symptomatology, there was no difference in the 30-day outcomes between sexes for patients undergoing CAS. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS demonstrated similar incident rates across perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 5.9% v male: 0.28% to 3.3%), CVAs (female: 0.5% to 4.1% v male: 0.4% to 6.2%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0% to 1.75% v male: 0.2% to 1.5%). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS similarly reported higher incidences of perioperative MIs (female: 0.3% to 7.1% v male: 0% to 5.5%), CVAs (female: 0% to 9.9% v male: 0% to 7.6%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0.6% to 7.1% v male: 0.5% to 8.2%). Sex-specific differences in outcomes after major vascular procedures are well recognized. Our review suggests that symptomatic female patients have a higher incidence of neurologic and cardiac events after carotid interventions, but that asymptomatic patients do not.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the intraoperative use of bivalirudin during lower extremity revascularization in the setting of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).
METHODS: A 65 year-old man presented with left common iliac, external iliac, and femoral artery occlusion necessitating revascularization with left femoral endarterectomy and common and external iliac stent angioplasty. Three months before the femoral endarterectomy, the patient was hospitalized for a coronary artery bypass procedure. During this admission, the patient tested positive for the presence of heparin-PF4 antibody complexes. With the patient\'s recent history of HIT, bivalirudin was selected as the optimal agent for intraoperative anticoagulation. Bivalirudin was administered as a 50 mg bolus, followed by a continuous infusion initiated at 1.75 mg/kg/hr. Repeated bivalirudin boluses were necessary to maintain an activated clotting time (ACT) necessary for the revascularization procedures and recurrent subacute thrombi despite appropriate ACT values.
CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin has been utilized for cardiopulmonary bypass and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), but data for dosing in lower extremity revascularization are lacking. As the risk for thrombosis with HIT continues for months after diagnosis, it is important to elucidate optimal dosing of non-heparin anticoagulant options, such as the direct thrombin inhibitor, bivalirudin. The absence of validated dosing strategies for bivalirudin can result in prolonged operative times, increased risk of bleeding, and inadequate anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin is an appropriate agent for intraoperative anticoagulation in lower extremity revascularization. However, further investigation into the optimal intraoperative bivalirudin dosing regimen is necessary.

Extracranial atherosclerotic carotid stenosis is associated with inadequate cerebral blood flow (CBF) and cognitive dysfunction. The impact of extracranial carotid revascularization on cognition and how any cognitive change relates to changes in CBF are less clear. This review examines the effects of revascularization of extracranial carotid disease by carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS) on cognition, and how this relates to changes in CBF.
A systematic review of existing reports in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement recommendations. All original retrospective or prospective studies and clinical trials that compared pre- and postoperative cognitive function and CBF in patients with extracranial carotid stenosis who underwent CEA or CAS versus a control group, published between January 1985 and December 2022, were identified and considered eligible for inclusion in this study.
Seven studies (661 participants; 460 CEA or CAS) were identified. All were observational studies and of moderate to good methodologic quality. Six studies (619 participants; follow-up range 1 month to 2 years) demonstrated improvement in some cognitive domains following CEA or CAS, improvement in CBF following revascularization, and correlated some of these cognitive changes with changes in CBF. One study (42 participants; 3 months follow-up) found cognitive improvement following CEA, but found no improvement in CBF or any correlation between cognitive and CBF change. The literature however represented heterogenous study populations examining asymptomatic and/or symptomatic carotid stenosis, differing in treatment modality and criteria for control groups ranging from healthy volunteers to those with stenosis but not who underwent surgical revascularization, and finally, differing reporting methods. This heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.
Definitive conclusions are limited by variation in cognitive function assessment, timing of testing, and how these are correlated to CBF. However, research suggests a potential improvement in cognition which may be associated with improvement in CBF, particularly in those patients who have more significant CBF deficit at baseline. Further studies are required to better understand this association and provide a clearer picture of the cognitive effects of carotid revascularization.

BACKGROUND: There is still uncertainty regarding whether diabetes mellitus (DM) can adversely affect patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. The aim of the study was to assess the adverse impact of DM on patients with carotid stenosis treated by CEA.
METHODS: Eligible studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2023 were selected from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials databases. The short-term and long-term outcomes of major adverse events (MAEs), death, stroke, the composite outcomes of death/stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were collected to calculate the pooled effect sizes (ESs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prevalence of adverse outcomes. Subgroup analysis by asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis and insulin/noninsulin-dependent DM was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (n = 122,003) were included. Regarding the short-term outcomes, DM was associated with increased risks of MAEs (ES = 1.52, 95% CI: [1.15-2.01], prevalence = 5.1%), death/stroke (ES = 1.61, 95% CI: [1.13-2.28], prevalence = 2.3%), stroke (ES = 1.55, 95% CI: [1.16-1.55], prevalence = 3.5%), death (ES = 1.70, 95% CI: [1.25-2.31], prevalence =1.2%), and MI (ES = 1.52, 95% CI: [1.15-2.01], prevalence = 1.4%). DM was associated with increased risks of long-term MAEs (ES = 1.24, 95% CI: [1.04-1.49], prevalence = 12.2%). In the subgroup analysis, DM was associated with an increased risk of short-term MAEs, death/stroke, stroke, and MI in asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA and with only short-term MAEs in the symptomatic patients. Both insulin- and noninsulin-dependent DM patients had an increased risk of short-term and long-term MAEs, and insulin-dependent DM was also associated with the short-term risk of death/stroke, death, and MI.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with carotid stenosis treated by CEA, DM is associated with short-term and long-term MAEs. DM may have a greater impact on adverse outcomes in asymptomatic patients after CEA. Insulin-dependent DM may have a more significant impact on post-CEA adverse outcomes than noninsulin-dependent DM. Whether DM management could reduce the risk of adverse outcomes after CEA requires further investigation.

Stroke is one of the devastating complications after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Underlying carotid artery atherosclerotic disease is reported to be an independent risk factor. The optimal treatment strategy for these patients remains under debate.
We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of additional carotid interventions for patients with concomitant carotid artery atherosclerotic disease who require CABG by comparing perioperative adverse event rates. All articles through February 2022 were searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies that investigated outcomes of CABG only as well as additional staged vs combined carotid interventions by both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).
Two randomized controlled trials and 23 observational studies were included, yielding a total of 32,473 patients who underwent combined CEA and CABG (n = 20,204), CEA and staged CABG (n = 6882), CABG and staged CEA (n = 340), CAS and CABG regardless of timing and sequences (n = 1224), and CABG only (n = 3823). No strategy showed a significant advantage over CABG only in all perioperative outcomes. CEA and staged CABG was associated with the lowest perioperative stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) rate, significantly lower compared with CAS and CABG (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.76) as well as CABG and staged CEA (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.74), but was also associated with the highest perioperative mortality (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.67-3.85, vs CAS and CABG) and myocardial infarction rate (OR, 3.70 [95% CI, 1.16-12.5] and OR, 2.50 [95% CI, 1.35-4.55] vs CAS and CABG, vs combined CEA and CABG, respectively).
CEA and staged CABG are associated with low perioperative stroke/transient ischemic attack rates with a tradeoff of higher mortality and myocardial infarction rate. No strategy showed a significant advantage over the CABG-only strategy in all perioperative outcomes, outlining the importance of a tailored approach and determining proper indications for carotid intervention in these patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical simulation has come to the forefront to enhance the training of residents. The aim of our scoping review is to analyze the available simulation-based carotid revascularization techniques, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) and suggest critical steps for evaluating competency in a standardized fashion.
METHODS: A scoping review of all reports on simulation-based carotid revascularization techniques including CEA and CAS was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources Citation Index, and Epistemonikos databases. Data were collected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The English language literature was searched from January 1, 2000 to January 9, 2022. The outcomes evaluated included measures of assessment of operator performance.
RESULTS: Five CEA and 11 CAS manuscripts were included in this review. The methods of assessments employed by these studies to judge performance were comparable. The 5 CEA studies sought to validate and demonstrate improved performance with training or distinguish surgeons by their experience level, either through assessing operative performance or end-product results. The 11 CAS studies used 1 of 2 types of commercial simulators and focused on determining the efficacy of simulators as teaching tools. By examining the steps of the procedure associated with preventable perioperative complications, it provides a reasonable framework for determining which elements of the procedure should be emphasized most. Furthermore, using potential errors as a basis for assessment of competency could reliably distinguish operators based on level of experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Competency-based simulation training is becoming more relevant as our surgical training paradigm shifts with the increased scrutiny within training programs of work-hour regulations and the need to develop a curriculum to assess our trainees\' ability to perform specific operations competently during their stipulated training period. Our review has given us an insight into the current efforts in this space regarding 2 specific procedures that are key for all vascular surgeons to master. Although many competency-based modules are available, there is a lack of standardization in the grading/rating system of what surgeons consider vital steps of each procedure to assess these simulation-based modules. Therefore, the next steps of curriculum development should be based on standardization efforts for the different protocols available.

This review aims to undertake a comprehensive review of the literature and investigate associations of age and gender on 30 days post carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and up to 5 years post CEA stroke, death, and combined stroke and death.
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Three main electronic databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from their inception to July 2022. Studies examining operative risks (i.e., stroke, death, and combined stroke and death following CEA) linked to age or gender were included. Two independent reviewers were responsible for study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all outcomes were calculated.
44609 studies were retrieved from the search. There were 127 eligible studies (80 studies of age, 72 studies of gender, 25 studies of age and gender) for pooling in the meta-analysis. With regards to stroke and death risks within 30 days post CEA; patients aged ≥75 had higher death (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.75) than patients aged <75. Patients aged ≥80 had higher stroke risk (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.07-1.27) and death risk (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.48-2.30) particular in asymptomatic patients (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.56-3.81). Pooled effect estimates by gender, at 30 days post CEA, showed that female was associated with increased risk of stroke (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.16-1.40), with more risk in asymptomatic female patients (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.14-1.99).
This meta-analysis highlights that older people is associated with increased stroke risk, particularly asymptomatic octogenarians who had higher likelihood of death within 30 days post CEA. In addition, female especially those with asymptomatic carotid stenosis had greater likelihood of stroke within 30 days post CEA surgery.