Propensity Score-Adjusted Comparative Analysis of Modified Eversion Versus Conventional Carotid Endarterectomy: Early Clinical Outcomes and Survival

Abstract

Background

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the standard surgical intervention for carotid stenosis. While the conventional CEA (cCEA) and eversion techniques have been widely investigated, data on the clinical implications of modified eversion CEA (meCEA), which employs a limited arteriotomy of the carotid bulb, remain scarce. This study aimed to compare the early and mid-term outcomes of meCEA with those of cCEA using adjusted analyses.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 206 patients who underwent CEA between 2015 and 2025 at Daegu Catholic University Hospital were included. Patients were divided into the cCEA (n = 170) and meCEA (n = 36) groups. Baseline characteristics, operative profiles, and postoperative complications were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for potential confounding. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were evaluated using IPTW-adjusted Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

The meCEA group showed marked intraoperative advantages, including a significantly lower rate of patch angioplasty (25.0% vs 87.1%), shorter operative time (94.3 ± 24.5 vs 139.8 ± 43.7 min), and reduced internal carotid artery clamp time (35.0 ± 12.7 vs 48.5 ± 12.5 min; all P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in postoperative stroke, transient ischemic attack, or in-hospital mortality after PSM adjustment. IPTW-adjusted survival analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.38-3.14, P = 0.87) or EFS (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.52-3.23, P = 0.581) between the groups. However, interpretation of long-term outcomes was limited by a shorter follow-up duration in the meCEA group (22.7 vs 63.9 months).

Conclusions

The meCEA technique offers significant operative benefits while demonstrating comparable early and mid-term safety profiles to conventional CEA. Although no significant survival difference was observed after adjustment, the results suggest that meCEA may serve as an effective alternative to cCEA. Further prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings.