Carotid endarterectomy: to shunt or not to shunt. Local versus general anaesthesia in carotid surgery. A prospective, randomised study.
Because of controversies in the cerebrovascular literature regarding the use of an intraluminal shunt in carotid endarterectomy, we report a randomized prospective study of 118 consecutive symptomatic patients receiving surgery within a single neurosurgical practice. Over 4 years, 138 carotid endarterectomies were performed in the 118 patients, 63 operations with intraluminal shunting and 75 without. Standard rationale for surgery included ipsilateral cerebral infarction in 38% of the operations and ipsilateral transient ischemic attacks in 36%. Unilateral angiographic stenosis of greater than 90% was seen in 58% of the operations; there were no ipsilateral occlusions. Surgery was performed under general anesthesia with barbiturate induction and mild blood pressure elevation. The 30-day complication rate included a mortality rate of 0.7% with a 5.1% incidence of postoperative neurologic deficit and a 1.4% rate of myocardial infarction. In the 24 hours after surgery there were no cerebral infarctions in the shunted group and six in the unshunted group. This 8% rate in the unshunted group compared with 0% in the shunted group was significant at p = 0.023 with a power of 0.95 by Fisher's exact test and chi 2 analysis. This suggests that in our neurosurgical practice (resident training program) the use of an intraluminal shunt during carotid endarterectomy significantly reduces the risk of intraoperative neurologic deficit without increasing the incidence of other complications. A randomised, prospective study was performed to compare local (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) in carotid surgery with special emphasis on complications and the need for intra-operative shunting. Fifty-six patients were randomised to LA and 55 to GA. Eight patients in the LA group required a GA for various reasons. During the same period 14 patients were not randomised. Seven perioperative neurological deficits occurred (5.6%), four in the LA group, two in the GA group, and one in the non-randomised group (NS). Selective shunting was used, in the Ga group according to stump pressure or in cases with a previous stroke and in the LA group according to the appearance of neurological symptoms. In the GA group 25 patients were shunted and in the LA group five patients (P less than 0.001) needed a shunt. If strict pressure criteria for shunting had been used in the LA patients, ten would have been shunted and three of the patients who developed symptoms during clamping would not have been shunted. During surgery the highest recorded systolic pressure was significantly higher in the LA group (210 mmHg versus 173 mmHg, P less than 0.001). LA for carotid endarterectomy is comparable with general anaesthesia regarding peroperative complications but produces significantly higher blood pressures than general anaesthesia. On the other hand it allows the possibility of neurologic monitoring of the patient and leads to significantly less use of an intra-operative shunt.
This review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy. It was suggested that large scale randomised trials between routine shunting versus selective shunting were required. No one method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.