Prospective Randomized Study of Carotid Endarterectomy with Fluoropassiv™ Thin Wall Carotid Patch versus Venous Patch

AbstractIntroductionThe practice of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty is more effective compared to primary closure. However, the type of patch material remains a controversy. The Fluoropassiv™ thin wall carotid patch is a polyester patch with an interpenetrating, nanometer-scale, solvent-applied surface modification, based on a biocompatible fluoropolymer. The present pilot study is the first clinical trial evaluating results of CEA with Fluoropassiv™ versus venous patch.Materials/MethodsEighty-seven patients were randomized to 42 Fluoropassiv™ patching and 45 venous patching. Patients were observed by a vascular surgeon and a neurologist and scanned using duplex ultrasound with a follow-up of 2 years. No patients were lost to follow-up. Restenosis was defined as a Peak Systolic Velocity ratio >2.6, lumen reduction >50%.ResultsPerioperative stroke rate was 2.4% in the Fluoropassiv™ group and 8.9% in the venous group (p=0.02; 1 regressive, 4 non-regressive strokes). Multivariate analysis showed that bilateral carotid stenosis and stroke as indication for CEA were related to perioperative stroke. There was no link between perioperative stroke and patch type after correction for these factors. Patch type had no influence on operation time, clamp time, cranial nerve damage, hypertension, hematoma, infections, time to discharge, or early thromboembolic events. There were no significant differences between the Fluoropassiv™ and the venous group for cumulative mortality (respectively 4.4 vs 4.8%), patch occlusion (4.8 vs 2.2%), or stroke rate during 2 year follow-up (2.2 vs 2.4%).ConclusionThis first clinical study with the Fluoropassiv™ thin wall carotid patch showed no enhanced thrombogenicity compared to a venous patch. The Fluoropassiv™ patch is not related to a higher rate of postoperative bleeding events either