Practice patterns of carotid endarterectomy as performed by different surgical specialties at a single institution and the effect on perioperative stroke and cost of preoperative imaging.

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently performed by various surgical specialties with varying outcomes. This study analyzes different surgical practice patterns and their effect on perioperative stroke and cost.

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 1000 consecutive CEAs performed at our institution by three different specialties: general surgeons (GS), cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS), and vascular surgeons (VS).

Results: VS did 474 CEAs, CTS did 404, and GS did 122. VS tended to operate more often on symptomatic patients than CTS and GS: 40% vs 23% and 31%, respectively (P < .0001). Preoperative workups were significantly different between specialties: duplex ultrasound (DUS) only in 66%, 30%, and 18%; DUS and computed tomography angiography in 27%, 35%, and 29%; and DUS and magnetic resonance angiography in 6%, 35%, and 52% for VS, CTS, and GS, respectively (P < .001). The mean preoperative carotid stenosis was not significantly different between the specialties. The mean heparin dosage was 5168, 7522, and 5331 units (P = .0001) and protamine was used in 0.2%, 19%, and 8% (P < .0001) for VS, CTS, and GS, respectively. VS more often used postoperative drains; however, no association was found between heparin dosage, protamine, and drain use and postoperative bleeding. Patching was used in 99%, 93%, and 76% (P < .0001) for VS, CTS, and GS, respectively. Bovine pericardial patches were used more often by CTS and ACUSEAL (Gore-Tex; W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) patches were used more often by GS (P < .0001). The perioperative stroke/death rates were 1.3% for VS and 3.1% for CTS and GS combined (P = .055); and were 0.7% for VS and 3% for CTS and GS combined for asymptomatic patients (P < .034). Perioperative stroke rates for patients who had preoperative DUS only were 0.9% vs 3.3% for patients who had extra imaging (computed tomography angiography/magnetic resonance angiography; P = .009); and were 0.9% vs 3% for asymptomatic patients (P = .05). When applying hospital billing charges for preoperative imaging workups (cost of DUS only vs DUS and other imaging), the VS practice pattern would have saved $1180 per CEA over CTS and GS practice patterns; a total savings of $1,180,000 in this series.

Conclusions: CEA practice patterns differ between specialties. Although the cost was higher for non-VS practices, the perioperative stroke/death rate was somewhat higher. Therefore, educating physicians who perform CEAs on cost-saving measures may be appropriate.