Multicenter Study of Resistant Arterial Hypertension Course After Classic and Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy

Aim of study. Analysis of the dynamics of resistant arterial hypertension (RAH) and the spectrum of adverse cardiovascular events in patients after classical carotid endarterectomy (CEE) with preservation of carotid body (CB) and eversion CEE with CB transection.

Material and methods. This cohort, comparative, retrospective, open-label study from January 2014 to December 2020 included 761 patients with hemodynamically significant stenosis of the internal carotid arteries (ICA) and RH lasting more than 3 years. Depending on the implemented revascularization strategy, 2 groups were formed: Group 1: 38.0% (n=289) — classical CEE with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch (made of diepoxy-treated xenopericardium or synthetic); Group 2: 62% (n=472) — eversion CEE with CB transection. To study the dynamics of systolic blood pressure (SBP) in the preoperative period for 4 days, and in the postoperative period, blood pressure was measured for 10 days (during the period when the patient was in intensive care - according to daily monitoring of blood pressure; in the department - 10 times per day, daily). The average SBP figures for all patients were taken into account when constructing a graph of BP fluctuations.

Results. In the postoperative period, the groups were comparable in the frequency of the following events: death (group 1: 0.34% (n=1), group 2: 0.63% (n=3); p=0.98; OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.05–5.21), myocardial infarction (group 1: 0.34% (n=1), group 2: 0.84% (n=4); p=0.71; OR 0, 40; 95% CI 0.04–3.65), ischemic stroke (group 1: 0.34% (n=1), group 2: 1.27% (n=6); p=0.36; OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.03–2.25), hemorrhagic transformation (group 1: 0%, group 2: 0.84% (n=4); p=0.29; OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.009–3.35). However, in terms of the number of all complications (death + myocardial infarction + ischemic stroke + hemorrhagic transformation) presented as a combined endpoint, patients after eversion CEE with CB transection were three times superior to classical surgery (group 1: 1.03% (n=3 ), group 2: 3.60% (n=17); p=0.05; OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.08–0.9).

Conclusion. The choice of a revascularization strategy in patients with hemodynamically significant ICA stenosis should be personalized and based on the conclusion of a multidisciplinary consultation, and not only on the preferences of the operating surgeon. In patients with RH, it is more expedient to use classical CEE with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch in view of the preservation of the CB during this operation. The intersection of the latter with eversion CEE provokes labile hypertension, progression of RAH and a statistically significant increase in the number of all unfavorable cardiovascular events. Thus, the use of carotid body preserving CEE in patients with RAH confirms the therapeutic mechanism of this manipulation in achieving the target SBP level. 

1. Frolova EV. Carotid endarterectomy operation in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Clinical Physiology of Circulation. 2018;15(4):261– 266 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24022/1814-6910-2018-15-4-261-266

2. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 Practice Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. Blood Press. 2018;27(6):314–340. PMID: 30380928 https://doi.org/10.1080/08037051.2018.1527177

3. Ripp TM, Mordovin VF. 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines about new methods of treatment of hypertension — “DEVICE-BASED TREATMENT”. Arterial’naya Gipertenziya (Arterial Hypertension). 2018;24(6):623–627. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/1607-419X-2018-24-6-623-627.

4. Kosacheva NB, Tuev AV, Agafonov AV, Mukhamadeev IS. Characteristics of blood pressure in patients with hypertension and carotid atherosclerosis before and after surgery on carotid arteries. Arterial’naya Gipertenziya (Arterial Hypertension). 2010;16(4):396–400. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/1607-419X-2010-16-4-396-400

5. Natsional’nye rekomendatsii po vedeniyu patsientov s zabolevaniyami brakhiotsefal’nykh arteriy. (in Russ.) Available at: http://www.angiolsurgery.org/recommendations/2013/recommendations_ brachiocephalic.pdf. [Accessed Nov 22, 2021]

6. Kazantsev AN, Chernykh KP, Lider RYu, Bagdavadze GSh, Andreychuk KA, Kalinin EYu, et al. Comparative results of conventional and eversion carotid endarterectomy. Kardiologiya i Serdechno-Sosudistaya Khirurgiya. 2020;13(6):550–555. https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio202013061550

7. Kazantsev AN1, Tarasov RS, Burkov NN, Shabaev AR, Lider RYu, Mironov AV. Carotid Endarterectomy: Three-Year Results of Follow Up Within the Framework of a Single-Centre Register. Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2018;24(3):101–108. (in Russ.).

8. Vinogradov RA, Pykhteev VS, Lashevich KA. Remote Results of Open Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Internal Carotid Artery Stenoses. Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2017;23(4):164–170. (in Russ.).

9. Kazantsev AN, Tarasov RS, Burkov NN, Volkov AN, Grachev KI, Yakhnis EYa, et al. In-Hospital Outcomes of Transcutaneous Coronary Intervention and Carotid Endarterectomy in Hybrid and Staged Regimens. Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2019;25(1):101–107. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33529/angio2019114

10. Antsupov KA, Lavrentiev AV, Vinogradov OA, Dadashov SA, Marynich AA. Peculiarities of Glomus-Sparing Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy. Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2011;17(2):119–123. (In Russ.)

11. Vinogradov RA, Matusevich VV. Carotid Body Saving Techniques in Carotid Artery Surgery. Medical News of North Caucasus. 2017;12(4):467– 468. https://doi.org/10.14300/mnnc.2017.12130

12. Kazantsev AN, Chernykh KP, Zarkua NE, Leader RYu, Kubachev KG., Bagdavadze GSh, et al. “Chik-chirik” carotid endarterectomy. The Bulletin of Bakoulev Center. Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020;21(4):414– 428. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24022/1810-0694-2020-21-4-414-428

13. Kazantsev AN, Chernykh KP, Zarkua NE, Lider RYu, Kubachev KG, Bagdavadze GS, et al. Novel method for glomus-saving carotid endarterectomy sensu A. N. Kazantsev: cutting the internal carotid artery on the site from external and common carotid artery. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(8):3851. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-3851

14. Kazantsev AN, Chernykh KP, Leader RYu, Zarkua NE, Kubachev KG, Bagdavadze GSh, et al. Glomus-Saving Carotid Endarterectomy by A. N. Kazantsev. Hospital And Medium-Remote Results. Circulation Pathology and Cardiac Surgery. 2020;24(3):70–79. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21688/1681-3472-2020-3-70-79

15. Pokrovsky AV, Beloyartsev DF, Kolosov RV. What Influences The Standards Of “Quality” of Carotid Endarterectomy? Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2003;9(3):80–89. (in Russ.).

16. Belov IuV, Lysenko AV, Komarov RN, Stonogin AV. How do we do it: eversion endarterectomy. Kardiologiya i Serdechno-Sosudistaya Khirurgiya. 2016;9(3):9–12. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio2016939-12

17. Vinogradov RA, Zdanovskaya IN, Khalafyan AA, Akinshina VA. Carotid Endarterectomy Vs Stenting: Treatment Selection Depending on Comorbidity. Postgraduate Doctor. 2017;83(4):4–11. (in Russ.).

18. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1991;265(24):3255–3264. PMID: 2046107

19. Tsujimoto T, Kajio H. Thiazide Use and Decreased Risk of Heart Failure in Nondiabetic Patients Receiving Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment. Hypertension. 2020;76(2):432–441. PMID: 32639892 https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15154

20. Basu S, Sussman JB, Rigdon J, Steimle L, Denton BT, Hayward RA. Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials. PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002410. PMID: 29040268 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002410 eCollection 2017 Oct.

21. Bilen O, Wenger NK. Hypertension management in older adults. F1000Res. 2020;9:F1000 Faculty Rev-1003. PMID: 32850119 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20323.1 eCollection 2020

22. Marrocco-Trischitta MM, Cremona G, Lucini D, Natali-Sora MG, Cursi M, Cianflone D, et al. Peripheral baroreflex and chemoreflex function after eversion carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):136–144.e1. PMID: 23632295 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2012.11.130

23. Vachev AN, Frolova EV, Nefedova DV. Treatment of Resistant Arterial Hypertension in the Remote Period after Carotid Endarterectomy. Angiology and Vascular Surgery. 2017;23(1):170–174. (in Russ.).

24. Nouraei SA, Al-Rawi PG, Sigaudo-Roussel D, Giussani DA, Gaunt ME. Carotid endarterectomy impairs blood pressure homeostasis by reducing the physiologic baroreflex reserve. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41(4):631–637. PMID: 15874927 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2005.01.009

25. Fokin AA, Treiger GA, Vladimirskiy VV. Evaluation of the Effect of Preserving the Nerves of the Carotid Glomus to Compensation Dysregulated Autonomic and Central Hemodynamics when Performing Reconstructions of Carotid Arteries. Vestnik chelyabinskoy oblastnoy klinicheskoy bol’’nitsy. 2018;42(4):16–20. (in Russ.).

26. Demirel S, Bruijnen H, Attigah N, Hakimi M, Böckler D. The effect of eversion and conventional-patch technique in carotid surgery on postoperative hypertension. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(1):80–86. PMID: 21276680 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.11.106

27. Taurino M, Filippi F, Persiani F, Tirotti C, Dito R, Brancadoro D, et al. Hemodynamic changes in Chevalier eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48(5):514–520. PMID: 25245165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.08.005