This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 34/2/524    most recent 01.STR.0000051729.79990.FBv1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barth, A. Articles by Bassetti, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barth, A. Articles by Bassetti, C. Related Collections Carotid Stenosis Primary and Secondary Stroke Prevention Carotid endarterectomy

(Stroke. 2003;34:524.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Patient Selection for Carotid Endarterectomy

How Far Is Risk Modeling Applicable to the Individual?

From the Departments of Neurosurgery (A.B.) and Neurology (C.B.), University Hospital of Berne, Berne, and Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Zürich (C.B.), Switzerland.

Reprint requests to Alain Barth, MD, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Berne, CH-3010 Berne, Switzerland. E-mail alain.barth{at}insel.ch

Background and Purpose— Risk-factor modeling has been proposed to identify patients with carotid stenosis who will most benefit from surgery. Validation by independent institutions performing carotid endarterectomy is necessary to determine the applicability of such models to the individual patient.

Methods— A series of patients with a recently symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis were selected for surgery according to current guidelines and were consecutively operated on in a single institution. In addition, a prognostic model was applied to the patients to analyze the concordance of both selection methods.

Results— The study included 134 patients operated on between 1999 and 2001. The risk model predicted that 49% of the patients should have been excluded from surgery because the operation was found to be possibly harmful in 1 patient (1%) and not significantly beneficial in 65 patients (48%). This resulted from the predominant negative weight of the surgical risk factors in the model. However, this predominance was negated in our series by the fact that only 1 major complication (0.75%) occurred during follow-up.

Conclusions— Exclusion of single patients on the basis of risk modeling may be problematic when the rate of perioperative complications is very low.

Key Words: carotid endarterectomy • carotid stenosis • patient selection • risk assessment