Purpose: The EVEREST Trial was designed to determine whether the surgical technique influences the durability and complications of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The current report focuses on the study design and preliminary results. Methods: EVEREST is a randomized multicenter trial. A total of 1353 patients with carotid stenosis requiring surgical treatment were randomly assigned to received standard (n = 675) or eversion (n = 678) CEA. Primary end points included carotid occlusion, major stroke, death, and restenosis rate. Results: The rate of perioperative major stroke and death (1.3 for each study group) and the incidence of early carotid occlusion (0.6% for eversion vs 0.4% for standard) were similar. No significant differences were found between eversion and standard CEA with respect to incidence of perioperative transient ischemic accident, minor stroke, cranial nerve injuries, neck hematoma, myocardial infarction, or surgical defects as detected with intraoperative quality controls. Clamping time was significantly shorter for eversion CEA compared with patch standard procedures (31.7 +/- 15.9 vs 34.5 +/- 14.4 minutes, p = 0.02). A shunt was inserted in 11% of patients undergoing eversion CEAs and in 16% of patients undergoing standard procedures. Overall 30-day events occurred in 13.3% of the eversion group and in 11.4% of the standard group (p = 0.3). At a mean follow-up of 14.9 months (range, 1 to 38 months), 16 (2.4%) restenoses occurred in the eversion group and 28 (4.1%) occurred in the standard group (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.1; p = 0.08). Conclusion: The preliminary results of the EVEREST Trial suggest that eversion CEA is a safe and rapid procedure with low major complication-rates. No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between eversion and standard CEA at the available follow-up. Longer-term results are necessary to assess whether the eversion technique influences the durability of CEA.
A randomized study on eversion versus standard carotid endarterectomy: Study design and preliminary results: The EVEREST Trial
CAO, Piergiorgio;DE RANGO, PAOLA;PARLANI, Gianbattista;VERZINI, Fabio;DI GIOVANNI, Maria Vittoria;MOGGI, Luigi;NENCI, Giuseppe Giorgio;DEL FAVERO, Albano;
1998
Abstract
Purpose: The EVEREST Trial was designed to determine whether the surgical technique influences the durability and complications of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The current report focuses on the study design and preliminary results. Methods: EVEREST is a randomized multicenter trial. A total of 1353 patients with carotid stenosis requiring surgical treatment were randomly assigned to received standard (n = 675) or eversion (n = 678) CEA. Primary end points included carotid occlusion, major stroke, death, and restenosis rate. Results: The rate of perioperative major stroke and death (1.3 for each study group) and the incidence of early carotid occlusion (0.6% for eversion vs 0.4% for standard) were similar. No significant differences were found between eversion and standard CEA with respect to incidence of perioperative transient ischemic accident, minor stroke, cranial nerve injuries, neck hematoma, myocardial infarction, or surgical defects as detected with intraoperative quality controls. Clamping time was significantly shorter for eversion CEA compared with patch standard procedures (31.7 +/- 15.9 vs 34.5 +/- 14.4 minutes, p = 0.02). A shunt was inserted in 11% of patients undergoing eversion CEAs and in 16% of patients undergoing standard procedures. Overall 30-day events occurred in 13.3% of the eversion group and in 11.4% of the standard group (p = 0.3). At a mean follow-up of 14.9 months (range, 1 to 38 months), 16 (2.4%) restenoses occurred in the eversion group and 28 (4.1%) occurred in the standard group (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.1; p = 0.08). Conclusion: The preliminary results of the EVEREST Trial suggest that eversion CEA is a safe and rapid procedure with low major complication-rates. No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between eversion and standard CEA at the available follow-up. Longer-term results are necessary to assess whether the eversion technique influences the durability of CEA.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
