No abstract

To determine the benefit of carotid patch angioplasty, a retrospective study of 1000 consecutive carotid endarterectomies was done. Based on the type of carotid endarterectomy closure, patients were divided into four groups: 250 had primary closure, 250 had expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch, 250 had Dacron patch, and 250 had saphenous vein patch. On the basis of operative technique or type of carotid artery closure, no statistical difference was found in the incidence of postoperative stroke (p greater than 0.25): primary closure 1.6% (4), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene 2.0% (5), Dacron patch 1.6% (4), and saphenous vein patch (0). Postoperative carotid patency was determined by B-mode ultrasonography, and 717 patients were evaluated in follow-up extending to 6 years (mean 37.8 months). Based on the method of carotid endarterectomy closure, no significant difference (p greater than 0.25) was found in the incidence of significant restenosis (greater than 50% diameter reduction): primary closure 4.0% (7), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene 4.0% (6), Dacron 5.4% (9), and saphenous vein 1.0% (2). Significant restenosis was most frequent in habitual smokers (93%, 25/28) and females (78%, 22/28) despite the method of carotid endarterectomy closure. No statistical difference was found in the incidence of late ipsilateral stroke either (p greater than 0.25): primary closure 2.9% (5), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene 2% (3), Dacron 5% (3), and saphenous vein 0%. These results indicate that the incidence of postoperative stroke, regardless of method of arterial closure, was not statistically different. The method of carotid closure did not appear to affect the occurrence of late ipsilateral stroke or restenosis; however, patch angioplasty with saphenous vein appears appropriate in habitual smokers, and likely in patients with small internal carotid arteries.

The CISB and EISB midterm primary and secondary patency and limb salvage rates were statistically similar. In smaller veins (< 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter), however, EISB is not appropriate because overly aggressive instrumentation may cause intimal trauma, with resultant early graft failure. With the avoidance of a long leg incision in the EISB group, wound complications and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced, which lowered hospital charges and justified the additional cost of the endovascular instruments. When in situ bypass grafting is contemplated, EISB in appropriate patients is a safe, minimally invasive, and cost-effective alternative to CISB.

Level of respiratory protection was associated with the odds of reporting respiratory symptoms and diseases. Training, selection, fit testing, and consistent use of RPE should be emphasized among emergency responders.

If EISV bypass long-term patency rates remain similar to classic in situ bypass patency results, the additional benefits of decreased hospital LOS, reduced wound-related complications, shortened recuperation, and therefore increased health care savings gives this endovascular technique strong consideration as the possible future operation for infrainguinal saphenous veins in situ bypass.