Protected carotid artery stenting in patients with severe stenosis

Intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and ulcers are the major findings of unstable plaques. In addition, initial symptoms are associated with postprocedural complications after carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of this study was to determine the safety of CAS using an embolic protection device in symptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and unstable plaques such as IPH and ulcers. This retrospective study included 140 consecutive patients with severe carotid stenosis. These patients underwent preprocedural carotid vessel wall imaging to evaluate the plaque status. We analyzed the incidence of initial clinical symptoms, such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, after CAS. The primary outcomes analyzed were the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 30 days of CAS. Sixty-seven patients (47.9%) had IPH, and 53 (38.9%) had ulcers on carotid wall imaging/angiography. Sixty-three patients (45.0%) had acute neurological symptoms with positive diffusion-weighted image findings. Intraluminal thrombi on initial angiography and flow arrest during CAS were significantly higher in patients with IPH and symptomatic patients. Symptoms were significantly higher in patients with IPH than in those without (63.5% vs 35.1%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in clinical symptoms after stenting or in primary outcomes, regardless of IPH, ulcer, or initial symptoms. IPH and plaque ulceration are risk factors in symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, IPH and plaque ulceration were not a significant risk factors for cerebral embolism during protected carotid artery stent placement in patients with carotid stenosis. Protected CAS might be feasible and safe despite the presence of unstable plaques.

Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series

Background: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. Methods: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. Results: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77–1.25; I² = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72–1.48; I² = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82–1.21; I² = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0–2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0–2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that “real-world” outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.

Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting When Performed by a Single Vascular Surgeon

OBJECTIVES:

Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are 2 effective treatment options for carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The long-term outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) reported similar stroke and death rate between the 2 procedures. This study presents the short- and long-term outcomes of CEA and CAS of all risk patients performed by a single vascular surgeon in a real-world setting.

METHODS:

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent CEA and CAS from September 2005 to June 2017 at our institute. Student t test, χ², and Fisher exact tests were used to compare patient's characteristics. Multivariate logistic, cox regression models and survival analysis were used to compare postoperative and long-term outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS:

Over 2000 patients were evaluated for carotid artery stenosis during the study period, and 313 revascularization procedures were performed (CEA: 47%, CAS: 53%). Patients' age (Mean [95% confidence interval, CI] 68.8 [67.2-70.4] vs 69.7 [68.2-71.3], P = .40) was similar between CEA and CAS. Patients who underwent CAS had significantly higher comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], chronic heart failure [CHF], hyperlipidemia, and prior ipsilateral intervention, all P < .05). No difference was found in 30-day complications after CEA versus CAS including stroke (2.0% vs 1.2%), myocardial infarction (MI; 0.7% vs 1.2%), death (0% vs 1.2%) as well as combined major adverse events (stroke/death/MI; 2.7% vs 3.0%; all P > .05). Overall 7-year survival, stroke-free survival and restenosis-free survival were similar between the 2 groups ( P > .5). Significant predictors of mortality were diabetes (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.15-5.08]), chronic kidney disease (HR [95% CI]: 4.89 [1.97-12.13]), and COPD (HR [95% CI]: 3.31 [1.43-7.71]; all P values <.05). Statin use was protective with 71% reduction in risk of mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.12-0.67], P = .004).

CONCLUSION:

Our experience showed comparable short- and long-term outcomes of CAS and CEA performed for carotid artery stenosis by vascular surgeon. There was no difference between single institutional long-term outcomes and CREST outcomes following CEA and CAS.

Diagnosis of internal carotid artery stenosis in a patient referred to a physiotherapist for dizziness

ABSTRACT PURPOSEThe purpose of this report is to describe the diagnostic focus of the clinical decision-making process for a patient referred to a physiotherapist for treatment of persistent dizziness, who was subsequently diagnosed with severe stenosis of the internal carotid arteries. CASE DESCRIPTIONThe patient was a 79-year-old man who was referred to a physiotherapist by his primary care physician for the treatment of persistent intermittent dizziness. The patient’s dizziness began 6 months prior insidiously; it was worsening over time and now interfered with activities of daily living. The patient denied cervical pain or headaches, numbness or tingling in his extremities, difficulty maintaining balance with walking, unsteadiness, muscle weakness, dysphagia, drop attacks, diplopia or dysarthria. At the physiotherapist’s initial evaluation, cervical range of motion was moderately restricted in all motions and his dizziness was elicited with changes in head position. The patient’s neurological examination was unremarkable. Due to positional complaints of dizziness, a Dix–Hallpike test was used to screen for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, which was positive for symptoms reproduction; however, no nystagmus was noted. The patient also became diaphoretic and exhibited significant discoloration of his face during the test. OUTCOMESDue to concern over vascular compromise, carotid duplex ultrasonography and magnetic resonance angiography were completed and revealed near complete occlusion of the left internal carotid artery at its origin. The patient subsequently underwent a left internal carotid endarterectomy with resolution of symptoms and a return to all activities of daily living. DISCUSSIONCarotid artery stenosis, although frequently asymptomatic until severe, may manifest as complaints of dizziness that mimic peripheral vestibular dysfunction. Appropriate and prudent screening and referral is necessary if clinical symptoms suggestive of vascular compromise are present.

Complication-Specific In-Hospital Costs After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Artery Stenting

Purpose: To quantify and compare the incremental cost associated with in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 100,185 patients (mean age 70.7±9.5 years; 58.3% men) who underwent CEA (n=86,035) or CAS (n=14,150) between 2009 and 2015 and were entered into the Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariate logistic models and generalized linear models were used to analyze binary outcomes and hospitalization costs, respectively. Outcomes are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: CAS was associated with 1.6 times higher adjusted odds of stroke [aOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.77), p<0.001] and with 2.6 times higher odds of death [aOR 2.60 (95% CI 2.14 to 3.17), p<0.001] compared with CEA. There was no significant difference in MI risk between the 2 procedures. The adjusted incremental cost of death and MI were similar between the 2 procedures. However, the adjusted incremental cost of stroke was significantly higher in CEA compared with CAS by an estimated $2000. When stratified with respect to symptomatic status, the increased adjusted incremental cost of stroke in CEA was mainly seen in asymptomatic patients ($5284 vs $2932, p<0.01). Conclusion: The incremental cost of in-hospital stroke is relatively higher in CEA compared to CAS. However, CEA remains a more cost-effective carotid intervention due to lower complication rates and baseline costs compared with CAS. Long-term cost-effectiveness studies are needed before definite conclusions are made.

Clinical Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting According to Provider Specialty and Volume

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated better outcomes for carotid endarterectomy with high-volume hospitals and providers. However, only a few studies have reported on the impact of operator specialty/volume on the perioperative outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study will analyze the correlation of CAS outcomes and provider specialty and volume.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of CAS procedures done at our institution during a 10-year period were analyzed. Major adverse events (MAEs; 30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, and death) were compared according to provider specialty (vascular surgeons [VSs], interventional cardiologists [ICs], interventional radiologists [IRs], interventional vascular medicine [IVM]), and volume (≥5 CAS/year vs. <5 CAS/year).

RESULTS

Four hundred fourteen CAS procedures (44% for symptomatic indications) were analyzed. Demographics/clinical characteristics were somewhat similar between specialties. MAE rates were not significantly different between various specialties: 3.1% for IC, 6.3% for VS, 7.1% for IR, 6.7% for IVM (P = 0.3121; 6.3% for VS and 3.8% for others combined, P = 0.2469). When physicians with <5 CAS/year were excluded: the MAE rates were 3.1% for IC, 4.7% for VS, and 6.7% for IVM (P = 0.5633). When VS alone were compared with others, and physicians with <5 CAS/year were excluded, the MAE rates were 4.7% for VS vs. 3.6% for non-VS (P = 0.5958). The MAE rates for low-volume providers, regardless of their specialty, were 9.5% vs. 4% for high-volume providers (P = 0.1002). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio of MAE was 0.4 (0.15-1.1, P = 0.0674) for high-volume providers, while the odds ratio for VS was 1.3 (0.45-3.954, P = 0.5969).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative MAE rates for CAS were similar between various providers, regardless of specialties, particularly for vascular surgeons with similar volume to nonvascular surgeons. Low-volume providers had higher MAE rates.