ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021
Treatment of patch infection after carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staged endovascular and open repair of infected carotid artery pseudoaneurysm after carotid endarterectomy.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
- Brazilian Angiology and Vascular Surgery Society Guidelines for the treatment of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty is a widely used method for treating carotid artery stenosis. Patch infections are extremely rare, but the consequences may be serious. The current gold standard for treatment is patch excision and reconstruction with autologous material. However, no consensus has been reached and other options may be valuable as well in certain cases. The objective of this study was to evaluate the various treatment options for carotid patch infection after CEA with patch angioplasty on the basis of their outcomes (reinfection, ischemic stroke, and infection-related mortality). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The electronic bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched. Case series and case reports were included. Studies in languages other than English were excluded. Patients who developed a post-operative patch infection of CEA with patch angioplasty were included. Angioplasty could be performed with any type of patch. Patch infection needed to be confirmed by clinical presentation in combination with imaging, culture, or during the operation. The primary outcome measures were reinfection, ischemic stroke, and infection-related mortality. Eleven retrospective case series, two prospective case series, and seventeen case reports were included. The study size was 165 patients (mean age 69.7 years, M/F ratio 1.75:1). One hundred and seventy-one patches developed a patch infection after CEA with patch angioplasty and needed treatment. Treatment strategies included conservative treatment (14.0%), endovascular treatment (4.7%), and open surgery (81.4%). Mean follow-up was 34.8 months and extended up to 180 months. Reinfection rate was 4.7%, ischemic stroke rate 5.8%, and infection-related mortality rate 2.3%. No statistical comparison between treatment options could be performed, because of the heterogeneity of the included studies. Autologous material should be the primary choice of treatment if patch infection is diagnosed after CEA with patch angioplasty. In emergency situations, endovascular treatment, carotid ligation, or abscess drainage could be considered. Endovascular treatment and abscess drainage are temporary solutions. After the patient has recovered sufficiently, a more durable treatment i.e., open surgery is advised. Endo vacuum assisted closure (EndoVAC) seems to be promising. Further research is needed to determine the applicability of each treatment option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.