Abstract
Introduction Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard intervention for patients experiencing transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) or embolic strokes with >50% internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis supplying index hemispheric territory. The recommended period for CEA is 14 days post-index event; this period carries a heightened risk for second ischemic events. However, implementation of this stringent timeline often encounters delays stemming from multifaceted factors. The centralization of vascular services, designed to enhance patient care, introduces a paradigm shift. Centralization's efficacy in improving patient outcomes, particularly in the CEA pathway, is a subject of ongoing investigation. Our study aims to discern the impact of centralized services on the timeliness of CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, shedding light on this complex interplay of factors. Methods This retrospective study analyzed CEA data at the Bedfordshire, Luton, and Milton Keynes Vascular Network between January 2021 and June 2023. Eligible patients exhibited symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, with asymptomatic cases; those unfit for surgery or receiving best medical therapy only were excluded. Patients were categorized by their primary referral location: Hub, Spoke-1, or Spoke-2. Demographic and referral data were collected, and timelines from symptom onset to surgery were recorded. Continuous variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as counts and percentages. Box plots illustrated the relationship between referral origin and surgery timing, and the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) assessed second events. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher's exact and chi-square tests, with p<0.05 indicating significance. Results A total of 148 patients underwent CEA after implementing exclusion criteria. 35.5% (n=53) of patients were referred from the Hub, while 45.6% (n=67) and 18.8% (n=28) were from Spoke-1 and Spoke-2, respectively. 40% (n=59) received CEA within the recommended timeframe, and 15.4% (n=23) experienced a second ischemic event pre-surgery. Time from TIA clinic review to referral was 5.5±8 days and 16.4±20 days from vascular referral to surgery. Patterns of delays were observed, with Spoke-2 exhibiting the most significant delays. Notably, amaurosis fugax and embolic stroke correlated with recurrent ischemic events, emphasizing the importance of timely care in CEA. Conclusion Our study underscores the significant benefits and challenges of the Hub and Spoke model in vascular surgery. The growing referral delays from Spoke sites are concerning, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary team approach within Spoke sites to ensure efficient and standardized care delivery.