The CAPTURE registry: Predictors of outcomes in carotid artery stenting with embolic protection for high surgical risk patients in the early post-approval setting

Prognostic value of serum albumin to creatinine ratio in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of serum albumin-to-creatinine ratio (sACR) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) patients regarding in-hospital and 5-year outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients by admission albumin to creatinine ratio and categorized accordingly: T1, T2 and T3. 609 patients were included in the study. Serum albumin and creatinine levels at hospital admission were used to calculate the sACR. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. MACE consisted of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI) and death. All follow-up data were obtained from electronic medical records or by interview. The study was terminated after 60 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Serum albumin levels were found to be significantly lower in T1, while creatinine was found to be significantly higher in T1. T1 has the lowest sACR while T3 has the highest. In hospital, ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, MI and death were significantly higher in T1. In long-term outcomes, ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, and death were significantly higher in T1.

CONCLUSIONS

Low sACR values at hospital admission was independently associated with in-hospital and long-term mortality and major stroke in patients underwent CAS.

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting vs aggressive medical management on stroke or intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There are currently two main treatment strategies mainly for high-risk patients: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) and aggressive medical management (AMM). However, the choice between PTAS or AMM remains controversial for patients with stroke or intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS). The investigators searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing PTAS and AMM for patients with stroke or ICAS were selected. RevMan 5.3 was used to analyze the results and assess risk of bias. The primary endpoints are stroke and death within 30 days after enrollment, or ischemic stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days, and entire follow-up endpoints. The secondary outcomes were the disabling or fatal stroke, and incidence of death within 3 years. Four studies, 989 patients were included in this article. The AMM group was superior in the entire follow-up endpoint (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40, 0.79). The AMM also better in primary endpoint within 30 days (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.61). There was no significant difference beyond 30 days (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.63, 1.86). The remaining outcomes, such as stroke and death, were not significantly different (P > 0.05). This meta-analysis shows AMM is significantly more effective than PTAS in subjects with ICAS due to the high rate of periprocedural stroke (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.61) and stroke during the entire follow-up (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40, 0.79) associated with PTAS. Furthermore, PTAS offers no additional benefits over AMM beyond 30 days (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.63, 1.86).

Radial and ulnar approach for carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver™ double layer micromesh stent: Early and long-term follow-up

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) with a newly designed double-layer micromesh stent using wrist approach in patients with significant carotid disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and December 2021, 105 patients undergoing CAS with Roadsaver™ stent were enrolled in a single center prospective study. Follow-up assessments included neurological exams, duplex ultrasound (DUS), and 12-lead ECG. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite rate of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints included procedure success, access site complications, device success, target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis evaluated with DUS. Long-term outcomes up to 72 months of follow-up were assessed in all eligible patients.

RESULTS

The study population was predominantly male (69.5%) with a median age of 68 ± 8 years. Patients were symptomatic in 80% of the cases, and 35% fulfilled the high-risk criteria for surgical endarterectomy. The right internal carotid artery was the target artery in 56 (53.4%), and the left in 49 (46.6%) of the cases. All procedures were successfully completed from the right wrist, with right radial access in 94 (89.5%) cases and ulnar artery access with previous radial artery occlusion in 11 (10.5%) cases. All patients were treated successfully with the study device. The primary endpoint was met with a 30-day major adverse event rate of 0.9% (1/105). Up to 72 months of follow-up (median 30 ± 20 months) there were no strokes, neurological deaths, or target lesion revascularization of the treated lesion. Doppler ultrasound examination revealed nonsignificant in-stent restenosis in two asymptomatic patients. There was no hand ischemia detected in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study demonstrate the radial and ulnar access for CAS with double layer micromesh Roadsaver™ stent is safe and feasible and associated with favorable early and long-term follow-up.

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

The clinical application of a scoring protocol to select endarterectomy or stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Previously we described the protocol-based decision for choosing the proper surgical treatment option for carotid stenosis. The objective of this study is to describe our experiences of using this scoring protocol in the selection of endarterectomy or stenting for carotid stenosis. Between October 2014 and March 2018, the scoring protocol was applied to a total of 105 consecutive patients. Eighty (76.2%) patients had symptomatic stenosis ≥ 50%, and 25 (23.8%) patients had asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 80%. We also speculated about how effectively the protocol worked in the real clinical setting. Stenting was performed in 73 patients and endarterectomy in 32 patients. Overall, 98 (93.3%) patients were treated according to the protocol, while the protocol was violated in seven (6.7%) patients. Sixty-one (58.1%) patients received treatments that were decided by the protocol. There were 37 (35.2%) patients who had the same score for both treatment options. Among these patients, 28 patients underwent stenting and nine patients underwent endarterectomy. In the stenting cases, 90.4% of the patients followed the protocol and violations occurred in 9.6%. In the endarterectomy cases, all of the patients followed the protocol. Overall, one patient had a procedure-related complication without morbidity. During the 12-month follow-ups, there were no restenoses or major strokes. Minor strokes were diagnosed in three (2.8%) patients. In patients with carotid artery stenosis, stenting and endarterectomy should be considered simultaneously together, not against each other. Our scoring protocol can be used to weigh these options and applied in clinical practice.

The impact of carotid lesion calcification on outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The impact of carotid artery lesion calcification on adverse events following carotid artery stenting is not well-studied. Few reports associated heavily calcified lesions with high risk of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). With the advent of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we aimed to compare the outcomes of these two procedures stratified by the degree of lesion calcification.

METHODS

Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative database for carotid artery stenting. Patients with missing information on the degree of carotid artery calcification were excluded. Patients were stratified into two groups: >50% (heavy) calcification and ≤50% (no/mild) calcification. The Student t test and the χ² test were used to compare patients' baseline characteristics and crude outcomes, as appropriate. Clinically relevant and statistically significantly variables on univariable analysis were added to a logistic regression model clustered by center identifier.

RESULTS

A total of 11,342 patients were included. Patients with >50% calcification were older, had more comorbidities, and more contralateral occlusion. There were more patients with prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy in the ≤50% calcification group. In patients who underwent TCAR, there were no significant differences between those who had >50% vs ≤50% carotid calcification in the odds of in-hospital adverse outcomes. However, in patients with heavy calcification who underwent TFCAS, there was a 50% to 60% increase in the odds of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.5; P = .03), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .013), and stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.08; P = .039). Compared with TFCAS in patients with heavy calcification, TCAR was associated with a 40% to 90% reduction in the odds of contralateral stroke (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.4; P = .001), contralateral stroke/TIA (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.87; P = .024), any stroke/TIA (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .02), death (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.13-0.72; P = .006), stroke/death (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.8; P = .004), and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = .008). There were no significant differences in the odds of stroke and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TFCAS vs TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database, TCAR demonstrated favorable outcomes compared with TFCAS among patients with calcification greater than 50% of the carotid circumference. Advance burden of carotid artery calcification was associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing TFCAS but not TCAR. These results are consistent with previously demonstrated superiority of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection devices. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes and confirm the durability of TCAR in heavily calcified lesions.

The Predictive Role of a Novel Risk Index in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory mechanisms play an important role in both atherosclerosis and stroke. There are several inflammatory peripheral blood count markers associated with carotid artery stenosis degree, symptomatic carotid artery lesions and carotid artery stent restenosis that reported in previous studies. However, the prognostic role of the blood cell counts and their ratios in predicting in-hospital and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) has not been comprehensively investigated. Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) proved its' efficiency in patients with solid tumors and its' role was rarely examined in cardiovascular disorders and stroke. The current study evaluated the effect of this novel risk index on in-hospital and long-term outcomes in a large patient population who underwent CAS.

METHOD

A total of 732 patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS were enrolled to the study. SII was calculated using the following formula: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio × total platelet count in the peripheral blood (per mm3) and the patients were stratified accordingly: T1, T2 and T3. In-hospital and 5-year outcomes were compared between the tertiles of SII.

RESULTS

During the hospitalization, major stroke, ipsilateral stoke, myocardial infarction, death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates were significantly higher in high SII level (T3) compared to SII levels (T1 and 2). In long-term outcomes, ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, transient ischemic attack, death, and MACE were significantly higher in the patients with higher SII level (T3). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall survival for T1, T2, and T3 were 97.5%, 96.7% and 86.0% respectively. In-hospital and 5-year regression analyses demonstrated that high SII was independently associated with MACE and mortality.

CONCLUSION

SII was independently associated with in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CAS. Immune and inflammation status, as assessed easily and quickly using SII, has a good discriminative value in these patients.

Assessing the Suitability of the Carotid Bifurcation for Stenting: Anatomic and Morphologic Considerations

OBJECTIVE

Over the years where stents have been used to treat carotid lesions, a great deal has been learned about which anatomical characteristics lead to adverse outcomes. This review summarizes the anatomic and morphologic characteristics of the carotid vasculature that can help guide patient selection and clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Each of the carotid artery anatomy and lesion characteristics that are relevant to carotid stenting are described in detail. These are accompanied with evidence-based outcomes and results.

RESULTS

Data on the prevalence of carotid artery lesions that are unsuitable for stenting are summarized and the implications of these data for practice are discussed, especially as they pertain to transcarotid artery revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS can be viable option for carotid revascularization, but the lesion must be acceptable and safe for stent placement. There should be thorough assessment to rule out the presence of severe tortuosity, long-segment disease, severe calcification (circumferential or exophytic), mobile-plaque, swollen ICA sign, and carotid diameters outside the acceptable range. In carefully chosen lesions with the absence of the unfavorable characteristics described-TCAR may offer improved periprocedural success, and CAS may attain better long-term durability.

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increasingly emerged as an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Optimal timing for CAS after symptoms onset remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS when performed in an emergency setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of CAS patients admitted to our CSC with symptomatic extracranial carotid occlusion or significant stenosis from January 2014-September 2019. Emergency CAS was defined as CAS performed during the same hospitalization from TIA/stroke onset, whereas elective CAS as CAS performed on a subsequent admission. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death related to the procedure at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications and the rate of restenosis/occlusion at follow-up. Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to compare outcomes and restenosis at follow-up.

RESULTS

We identified 75 emergency and 104 elective CAS patients. Emergency CAS patients had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral carotid occlusion (17% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and use of general anesthesia (19% vs. 4%, p = 0.001) than elective CAS. There were no significant differences between emergency and elective CAS in the primary (5.7% vs. 1%, p = 0.161) and secondary (9% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.232) outcomes. We did not find differences in the rate of restenosis/occlusion (7% vs. 11.6%; log-rank test p = 0.3) at a median of 13 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In our study, emergency CAS in symptomatic patients might have a similar safety and efficacy profile to elective CAS at 3 months and long-term follow-up.

Poststent ballooning during transcarotid artery revascularization

BACKGROUND

Poststent ballooning/angioplasty (post-SB) have been shown to increase the risk of stroke risk after transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the advancement of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with dynamic cerebral blood flow reversal, we aimed to study the impact of post-SB during TCAR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between September 2016 and May 2019 were included and were divided into three groups: those who received prestent deployment angioplasty only (pre-SB, reference group), those who received poststent deployment ballooning only (post-SB), and those who received both prestent and poststent deployment ballooning (prepost-SB). Patients who did not receive any angioplasty during their procedure (n = 367 [6.7%]) were excluded because these represent a different group of patients with less complex lesions than those requiring angioplasty. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 5161 patients undergoing TCAR, 34.7% had pre-SB only, 25% had post-SB only, and 40.3% had both (prepost-SB). No differences in the rates of in-hospital and 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death were observed among the three groups; in-hospital stroke/death in the pre-SB group was 1.4% (n = 25), post-SB 1.2% (n = 16), and prepost-SB 1.4% (n = 29; P = .92). However, patients undergoing post-SB and prepost-SB had higher rates of in-hospital transient ischemic attacks (TIA) (post-SB, 0.9%; prepost-SB, 1% vs pre-SB, 0.2%, P < .01) and postprocedural hypotension (16.6% and 16.8% vs 13.1%, respectively; P < .001). Post-SB also had longer operative times, as well as flow reversal and fluoroscopy times. On multivariable analysis, no association was seen between post-SB and the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke/death (post-SB odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.73; prepost-SB OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Similarly, no significant differences were noted in terms of postprocedural hemodynamic instability and 30-day outcomes. However, post-SB and prepost-SB were associated with four times the odds of in-hospital TIA compared with pre-SB alone (post-SB OR, 4.24 [95% CI, 1.51-11.8]; prepost-SB OR, 4.76 [95% CI, 1.53-14.79]; P = .01). Symptomatic patients had higher rates of in-hospital stroke/death compared with their asymptomatic counterparts; however, there was no significant interaction between symptomatic status and ballooning in predicting the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-SB was used in 65.3% of TCAR patients. This maneuver seems to be safe without an increase in the odds of postoperative in-hospital stroke/death. However, the increased rates of TIA associated with post-SB requires further investigation.

Usefulness of CHA2DS2-VASc Score to predict clinical outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting

The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score predicts stroke and mortality risk in several cardiovascular diseases regardless of atrial fibrillation. In this study, we aimed to investigate the ability of CHA₂DS₂-VASc score to predict in-hospital and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). The study population included 558 patients undergoing CAS. The patients were stratified into three groups based on their CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores [low (≤ 2, n = 123), moderate (3-5, n = 355) and high (6-8, n = 80)]. In-hospital and 3-year outcomes were compared between the groups. In-hospital rates of ipsilateral and major strokes and death were significantly different between the groups (1.6% vs. 3.9% vs. 16.2%; 1.6% vs. 4.5% vs. 16.2%; 0.8% vs. 3.1% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001 for all, respectively). At 3 years of follow-up, rates of ipsilateral and major strokes and death were significantly increased in patients with highscore compared to those with moderate and low scores (1.6% vs. 5.8% vs. 13%, p = 0.005; 0.8% vs. 5.2% vs. 13%, p = 0.001; 1.6% vs. 8.4% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.002, respectively). After adjusting for multi-model Cox regression analysis, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score persisted as an independent prognostic factor for mortality and major stroke in patients undergoing CAS. Higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score predicted increased risk of in-hospital and 3- year stroke and mortality in patients undergoing CAS.

Aortic arch types and postoperative outcomes after carotid artery stenting in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the aortic arch type on technical and clinical success of carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure.

METHODS

Clinical and anatomical data of consecutive patients who underwent CAS from 2010 to 2018 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was technical success, define as successful stent delivery and deployment and <30% residual carotid stenosis. Secondary outcomes were death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) rates at 30 days after CAS. Subgroups analysis with asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were also performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 523 patients were enrolled and analyzed. Among these, 176 (33.6%) had Type I, 227 (43.4%) had Type II and 120 (23.0%) had Type III or bovine aortic arch (BAA) type. Technical success rate was achieved in 96.0% of cases. At 30 days, if compared with Type I or II, patient with Type III or BAA experienced a higher death rate (0 vs. 0 vs. 1.8%, respectively; P=0.056) and combined postoperative stroke/TIA rate (3% vs. 2.8% vs. 9.9%, respectively; P=0.012). No differences for same outcomes between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were described, although the latter group experienced more postoperative MI. A multivariate analysis revealed Type III or BAA as an independent risk factor for postoperative stroke/TIA (HR 3.23, IC95% 1.40-7.45; P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients, death and postoperative neurological complications rates were associated with Type III or BAA, irrespective of symptomatic patients' status. Extremely attention is required during perioperative period in patients who were candidate to CAS and with challenging aortic arch anatomy.

Prognostic significance of pre-procedural prognostic nutritional index in patients with carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Inflammation and malnutrition play a critical role in the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). Prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is commonly utilized to evaluate the peri-operative immune-nutritional status of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and is independently associated with survival. We assessed the association between immune-nutritional status, indexed by PNI, and outcomes in CAS patients.

METHODS

A total of 615 patients hospitalized for CAS in a tertiary heart center were enrolled in the study. PNI was calculated using the following formula: 10× serum albumin value (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood (per mm3). In-hospital and 5-year outcomes (ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality) were compared between the tertiles of PNI.

RESULTS

In-hospital outcomes were similar between the groups except the increased mortality in decreasing tertiles of PNI. During a mean follow-up duration of 51.1 months, the lower PNI tertile was related to unfavorable outcomes. After adjusting for multi-model Cox regression analysis, PNI persisted as an independent prognostic factor for mortality and major stroke.

CONCLUSION

PNI was independently associated with long-term mortality and major stroke in CAS patients. Malnutrition and inflammation, which can be assessed easily and quickly using PNI, have an important prognostic value in the patients undergoing CAS.

Complexity of Aortic Arch Anatomy Affects the Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been shown to have half the rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, and death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). Successful outcomes of TFCAS require careful patient selection. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of TFCAS versus TCAR in both simple (type I) and complex (type II and III) aortic arches.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing TFCAS versus TCAR with simple and complex aortic arches using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from August 2011 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death.

RESULTS

About 6,108 carotid artery interventions were analyzed, including 3,536 (57.9%) patients with type I, 2,013 (33.0%) with type II, and 559 (9.2%) with type III aortic arch. In 3,535 patients with a simple arch, 1,917 underwent TFCAS and 1,619 had TCAR. Mean age was 70.6 (±9.5) years, and 2,382 (67.4%) patients were males. The primary outcome of postoperative TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in those undergoing TCAR compared with TFCAS in simple arches (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43-0.94; P = 0.0236). Although the individual outcome of death occurred less often in TCAR (P = 0.0025), there was no difference in the occurrence of in-hospital stroke (P = 0.8836) or TIA (P = 0.4608). On multivariable analysis, TCAR was associated with improved outcomes (P = 0.0062). A worse outcome was associated with increasing age (P < 0.001), a prior stroke (P < 0.0001), and increasing number of stents (P = 0.0483). In 2,572 patients with a complex arch, 1,416 underwent TFCAS and 1,156 had TCAR. Mean age was 73.0 (±9.1) years, and 1,655 (64.4%) were males. In complex arch anatomy, the primary outcome of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death was seen significantly less frequently in TCAR compared with TFCAS (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.77; P = 0.0022). Again noted was a significant difference in death, with better outcomes in TCAR (P = 0.0133). Although the occurrence of in-hospital TIA was no different between the 2 approaches (P = 0.6158), there were significantly fewer strokes in those treated with TCAR (P = 0.0132). TCAR (P = 0.0146) was associated with improved outcomes. A worse outcome was seen with advancing age (P = 0.0003), prior strokes (P = 0.01), and a left-sided lesion (P = 0.0176).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR has improved outcomes of TIA/stroke/death compared with TFCAS in both simple and complex aortic arch anatomy. In simple aortic arches, there is no difference in neurologic outcomes between both approaches. In complex arch anatomy, TCAR has fewer strokes.

Thirty-Day Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting in Elderly Patients: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in elderly patients is controversial. The aims of this study were to evaluate 30-day outcomes after CAS in elderly patients (≥70 years old) and to investigate risk factors for postoperative incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) to improve CAS safety based on clinical evidence in this specific subgroup of patients.

METHODS

The data set included patients who underwent CAS between 2001 and 2017 at Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University. The primary outcome variable was 30-day postoperative incidence of the following MACE: death, myocardial infarction, and ipsilateral stroke. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify high-risk patients and procedural characteristics associated with MACE.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 elderly patients who underwent CAS for carotid artery stenosis were identified and analyzed. The incidence of postoperative MACE was 3.01% (n = 31 cases [5 deaths, 24 strokes, and 2 myocardial infarctions]). After multivariate analysis, independent predictors of MACE included a family history of stroke (odds ratio [OR] = 3.817; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.227-11.876; P = 0.021), symptomatic status (OR = 2.650; 95% CI, 1.210-5.806; P = 0.015), and modified Rankin Scale score ≥3 (OR = 4.594; 95% CI, 1.708-12.352; P = 0.003). Hyperlipidemia was not an independent risk factor (OR = 1.597; 95% CI, 0.745-3.425; P = 0.229).

CONCLUSIONS

At our center, CAS was safely performed in elderly patients. A family history of stroke, symptomatic status, and modified Rankin Scale score ≥3 indicating a neurologic deficit increased the risk of 30-day postoperative MACE.

Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

CEA vs. stent in patients with acute strokes: are they equally effective?

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Review of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute stroke, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.

Carotid artery stenting: Current state of evidence and future directions

Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are common treatments for carotid artery stenosis. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared CEA to CAS in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. These studies have suggested that CAS is more strongly associated with periprocedural stroke; however, CEA is more strongly associated with myocardial infarction. Published long-term outcomes report that CAS and CEA are similar. A reduction in complications associated with CAS has also been demonstrated over time. The symptomatic status of the patient and history of previous CEA or cervical radiotherapy are significant factors when deciding between CEA or CAS. Numerous carotid artery stents are available, varying in material, shape and design but with minimal evidence comparing stent types. The role of cerebral protection devices is unclear. Dual antiplatelet therapy is typically prescribed to prevent in-stent thrombosis, and however, evidence comparing periprocedural and postprocedural antiplatelet therapy is scarce, resulting in inconsistent guidelines. Several RCTs are underway that will aim to clarify some of these uncertainties. In this review, we summarize the development of varying techniques of CAS and studies comparing CAS to CEA as treatment options for carotid artery stenosis.

Recent advances in the treatment of carotid artery disease

Transfemoral carotid stenting has struggled to become a suitable alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid disease because of higher perioperative stroke risks, even with use of embolic protection devices. To reduce the perioperative stroke rates associated with carotid stenting, several advancements in stent design, embolic protection systems, and technical approaches have been developed. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) was also recently introduced as a novel carotid artery stenting option which circumvents several of the high embolic-risk maneuvers found in transfemoral carotid stenting and employs a flow reversal system that provides continuous embolic protection throughout the procedure. Early results from this technique have shown low stroke/death rates comparable to carotid endarterectomy while maintaining the minimally invasive benefits of carotid stenting. TCAR has a strong potential to become the preferred method of carotid stenting in the near future and may challenge carotid endarterectomy as the preferred carotid artery revascularization method.

Effect of aortic arch type on technical indicators in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting

Objective

This study was performed to explore the effect of the aortic arch type on technical indicators in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS).

Methods

The data of 224 consecutive patients who underwent unilateral CAS from January 2011 to December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. The requirement for placement of the guiding catheter into the common carotid artery with assistance of an angiographic catheter, fluoroscopy time, contrast agent dose, and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The fluoroscopy time was significantly longer and the contrast agent dose was significantly higher in patients with Type III than Type I and II arches. Significantly more patients with Type III than Type I and II arches required placement of the guiding catheter with assistance of an angiographic catheter (46.2% vs. 15.0%, respectively). The procedural success rate was significantly lower in patients with Type III than Type I and II arches (96.2% vs. 100.0%, respectively). The incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and all types of stroke was significantly higher in patients with Type III than Type I and II arches (7.7% vs. 1.7%, respectively).

Conclusions

The aortic arch type is an important influential factor in CAS. Type III arches are associated with more difficulties and complications.

Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Intervention or Best Medical Therapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Provide a current overview regarding the optimal strategy for managing patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in asymptomatic patients. However, CAS is associated with a higher risk of peri-procedural stroke. Improvements in best medical therapy (BMT) have renewed uncertainty regarding the extent to which results from older randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes following carotid intervention can be generalised to modern medical practise. 'Average surgical risk' patients with an asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 60-99% and increased risk of late stroke should be considered for either CEA or CAS. In patients deemed 'high risk' for surgery, CAS is indicated. Use of an anti-platelet, anti-hypertensive and statin, with strict glycaemic control, is recommended. Results from ongoing large, multicentre RCTs comparing CEA, CAS and BMT will provide clarity regarding the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Efficacy of carotid artery stenting on stroke prevention of octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

Octogenarians account for a third of ischemic stroke (IS) patients and applying endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS), as a secondary prevention, in these patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate peri-procedural and long term clinical and angiographic impact of CAS on octogenarians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, 102 patients aged over 80 years old with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis presenting by non-disabling IS or transient ischemic attack and having undergone CAS were evaluated prospectively from January 2012 to July 2016. All patients received standard stroke care during the study follow up period. Peri-procedural complication, cerebrovascular accidents, restenosis in target vessel and mortality rate were recorded and the collected data were analyzed to evaluate safety and durability of CAS in octogenarians.

RESULTS

48 (47.06%) males and 54 (52.9%) females with the mean age of 83.39 ± 2.53 (range, 80-88) years were followed in a mean period of 24.5 ± 14.1 months (6-50 months). Success rate of CAS was 100%; whereas, the peri-procedural complication rate was 5.8% (only one patient experienced acute ischemic stroke during the procedure). Restenosis and recurrent cerebrovascular accidents were observed in 3.9% and 9.8% of the cases, respectively. Recurrent cerebrovascular accident leading to death was seen in 2.9% of the cases. The median patient event-free survival was 20 months.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular CAS seems to be a safe and durable method for secondary prevention in ischemic stroke following symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in octogenarians.

Risk of Stroke or Death Is Associated With the Timing of Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Secondary Data Analysis of the German Statutory Quality Assurance Database

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses from randomized trials indicate that the time interval between the neurologic index event and carotid artery stenting is associated with periprocedural stroke and death rates in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article is to analyze whether this observation holds true under routine conditions in Germany.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Secondary data analysis was done on 4717 elective carotid artery stenting procedures that were performed for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The patient cohort was divided into 4 groups according to the time interval between the index event and intervention (group I 0-2, II 3-7, III 8-14, and IV 15-180 days). Primary outcome was any in-hospital stroke or death. For risk-adjusted analyses, a multilevel multivariable regression model was used. The in-hospital stroke or death rate was 3.7% in total and 6.0%, 4.4%, 2.4%, and 3.0% in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed a decreased risk for any stroke or death in group III, a decreased risk for any major stroke or death in groups III and IV, and a decreased risk for any death in groups II and III compared to the reference group I.

CONCLUSIONS

A short time interval between the neurologic index event and carotid artery stenting of up to 7 days is associated with an increased risk for stroke or death under routine conditions in Germany. Although results cannot prove causal relationships, carotid artery stenting may be accompanied by an increased risk of stroke or death during the early period after the index event.

Predictors of Perioperative Stroke/Death after Carotid Artery Stenting: A Review Article

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Only a few studies have analyzed clinical/anatomical and technical variables that affect perioperative outcomes of CAS. Following a comprehensive Medline search, it was reported that clinical factors, including age of >80 years, chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus, symptomatic indications, and procedures performed within 2 weeks of transient ischemic attack symptoms, are associated with high perioperative stroke and death rates. They also highlighted that angiographic variables, e.g., ulcerated and calcified plaques, left carotid intervention, >90% stenosis, >10-mm target lesion length, ostial involvement, type III aortic arch, and >60°-angulated internal carotid and common carotid arteries, are predictors of increased stroke rates. Technical factors associated with increased perioperative risk of stroke include percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) without embolic protection devices, PTA before stent placement, and the use of multiple stents. This review describes the most widely quoted data in defining various predictors of perioperative stroke and death after CAS. (This is a review article based on the invited lecture of the 45th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for Vascular Surgery.)

Periprocedural Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy especially in patients with high risk of carotid endarterectomy. Older age (≥80 years old) was recognized as one of the high risk factors of carotid endarterectomy. However, the association between older age and increased risk of adverse events for carotid artery stenting has been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between age and periprocedural outcomes after carotid artery stenting.

METHODS

A total of 126 symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of carotid artery stenosis were treated with tailored carotid artery stenting. The type of stents and embolic protection devices were chosen according to clinical and morphologic characteristics of the patients. Procedural, imaging, and clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed and compared between the elderly patients group (≥80 years old) and the non-elderly patients group (<80 years old).

RESULTS

Clinical and morphologic characteristics except for dyslipidemia were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Periprocedural neurologic complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .095). Minor stroke occurred more frequently in the elderly patients group (P = .021). However, the frequency of major stroke was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 1). Presence of new ischemic lesions on postprocedural examination was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .84). Myocardial infarction and death did not occur in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid artery stenting can be performed safely in elderly patients, comparable with non-elderly patients.

Predicting ischemic stroke after carotid artery stenting based on proximal calcification and the jellyfish sign

OBJECTIVE Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been considered to prevent ischemic strokes caused by stenosis of the cervical carotid artery. The most common complication of CAS is new cerebral infarction. The authors have previously reported that the jellyfish sign-the rise and fall of the mobile component of the carotid plaque surface detected by carotid ultrasonography-suggests thinning and rupture of the fibrous cap over the unstable plaque content, such as the lipid-rich necrotic core or internal plaque hemorrhage. The authors' aim in the present study was to evaluate the risk of a new ischemic lesion after CAS by using many risk factors including calcification (size and location) and the jellyfish sign. METHODS Eighty-six lesions (77 patients) were treated with CAS. The presence of ischemic stroke was determined using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Risk factors included calcification of the plaque (classified into 5 groups for size and 3 groups for location) and the jellyfish sign, among others. Multiple linear regression analysis (stepwise analysis and partial least squares [PLS] analysis) was conducted, followed by a machine learning analysis using an artificial neural network (ANN) based on the log-linearized gaussian mixture network (LLGMN). The additive effects of the jellyfish sign and calcification on ischemic stroke after CAS were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the Steel-Dwass test. RESULTS The stepwise analysis selected the jellyfish sign, proximal calcification (proximal Ca), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and patient age for the prediction model to predict new DWI lesions. The PLS analysis revealed the same top 3 variables (jellyfish sign, proximal Ca, and LDL cholesterol) according to the variable importance in projection scores. The ANN was then used, showing that these 3 variables remained. The accuracy of the ANN improved; areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the stepwise analysis, the PLS analysis, and the ANN were 0.719, 0.727, and 0.768, respectively. The combination of the jellyfish sign and proximal Ca indicates a significantly increased risk for ischemic stroke after CAS. CONCLUSIONS The jellyfish sign, proximal Ca, and LDL cholesterol were considered to be important predictors for new DWI lesions after CAS. These 3 factors can be easily determined during a standard clinical visit. Thus, these 3 variables-especially the jellyfish sign and proximal Ca-may be useful for reducing the ischemic stroke risk in patients with stenosis of the cervical carotid artery.

Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery

Background and Purpose—

Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk.

Methods—

We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0–7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied.

Results—

Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 ( P value for interaction with time interval 0.06).

Conclusions—

In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Anatomical and technical predictors of perioperative clinical outcomes after carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

A few other studies have reported the effects of anatomical and technical factors on clinical outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study analyzed the effect of these factors on perioperative stroke/myocardial infarction/death after CAS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 409 of 456 patients who underwent CAS during the study period. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effects of anatomical and technical factors on perioperative stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (major adverse events [MAEs]).

RESULTS

The MAE rate for the entire series was 4.7% (19 of 409), and the stroke rate was 2.2% (9 of 409). The stroke rate for asymptomatic patients was 0.46% (1 of 218; P = .01). The MAE rates for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) were 7% (11 of 158) vs 3.2% (8 of 251) for other indications (P = .077). The stroke rates for heavily calcified lesions were 6.3% (3 of 48) vs 1.2% (4 of 332) for mildly calcified/noncalcified lesions (P = .046). Differences in stroke and MAE rates regarding other anatomical features were not significant. The stroke rate for patients with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) before embolic protection device (EPD) insertion was 9.1% (2 of 22) vs 1.8% (7 of 387) for patients without (P = .07) and 2.6% (9 of 341) for patients with poststenting PTA vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without. The MAE rate for patients with poststenting PTA was 5.6% (19 of 341) vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without (P = .0536). The MAE rate for patients with the ACCUNET (Abbott, Abbott Park, Ill) EPD was 1.9% (3 of 158) vs 6.7% (16 of 240) for others (P = .029). The differences between stroke and MAE rates for other technical features were not significant. A regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for stroke was 0.1 (P = .031) for asymptomatic indications, 13.7 (P = .014) for TIA indications, 6.1 (P = .0303) for PTA performed before EPD insertion, 1.7 for PTA performed before stenting, and 5.4 (P = .0315) for heavily calcified lesions. The MAE odds ratio was 0.46 (P = .0858) for asymptomatic indications, 2.1 for PTAs performed before EPD insertion, 2.2 for poststent PTAs, and 2.2 (P = .1888) for heavily calcified lesions. A multivariate analysis showed that patients with TIA had an odds ratio of stroke of 11.05 (P = .029). Patients with PTAs performed before EPD insertion had an OR of 6.15 (P = .062). Patients with heavily calcified lesions had an odds ratio of stroke of 4.25 (P = .0871). The MAE odds ratio for ACCUNET vs others was 0.27 (P = .0389).

CONCLUSIONS

Calcific lesions and PTA before EPD insertion or after stenting were associated with higher stroke or MAE rates, or both. The ACCUNET EPD was associated with lower MAE rates. There was no correlation between other anatomical/technical variables and CAS outcome.

Clinical Comparison of Outcomes of Early versus Delayed Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Cerebral Watershed Infarction due to Stenosis of the Proximal Internal Carotid Artery

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of early versus delayed carotid artery stenting (CAS) for symptomatic cerebral watershed infarction (sCWI) patients due to stenosis of the proximal internal carotid artery. We retrospectively collected clinical data of those who underwent early or delayed CAS from March 2011 to April 2014. The time of early CAS and delayed CAS was within a week of symptom onset and after four weeks from symptom onset. Clinical data such as second stroke, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NHISS) score, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score and periprocedural complications were collected. The rate of second stroke in early CAS group is lower when compared to that of delayed CAS group. There was no significant difference regarding periprocedural complications in both groups. There was a significant difference regarding mean NHISS score 90 days after CAS in two groups. Early CAS group had a significant better good outcome (mRS score ≤ 2) than delayed CAS group. We suggest early CAS for sCWI due to severe proximal internal carotid artery stenosis as it provides lower rate of second stroke, comparable periprocedural complications, and better functional outcomes compared to that of delayed CAS.

Recent advances in carotid angioplasty and stenting

Atherosclerotic carotid stenosis accounts for about 15% of ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy reduces the risk of stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting has emerged as a potentially less invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, randomized clinical trials in patients with symptomatic stenosis have shown that carotid artery stenting is associated with a higher risk of peri-procedural stroke compared with carotid endarterectomy. Carotid artery stenting is associated with a lower risk of peri-procedural myocardial infarction and local complications (cranial nerve palsies, access site hematoma) and appears to be as durable as carotid endarterectomy in terms of long-term protection against ipsilateral stroke and risk of restenosis. The main risk factors for peri-procedural stroke in patients treated with carotid artery stenting are age >70 years and high burden of white-matter lesions on brain imaging. Patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis receiving modern medical treatment have a low risk (<1%/year) of ipsilateral stroke and it is uncertain whether the benefit of revascularization still justifies the procedural risk of stroke or death. In particular, the small excess of procedural risk of stroke associated with carotid artery stenting (compared with carotid endarterectomy) may offset the small benefit (if any) of carotid endarterectomy versus medical therapy in unselected patients. Randomized clinical trials are ongoing to solve this issue.

Time is brain: an update

The '6-month' threshold for treating symptomatic patients is obsolete. There is compelling evidence that the highest-risk period for stroke (after suffering a transient ischemic attack) is the first 2 weeks, especially the first few days, and that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) confers maximal benefit when performed early. Despite well-documented anxieties, there is increasing evidence that CEA can be performed safely within the first 7 days after onset of symptoms, although risks may be higher when performed within 48 h. The role for carotid artery stenting in the hyperacute period remains uncertain. Centers performing carotid artery stenting within 14 days of symptom onset with risks equivalent to CEA should be encouraged to continue and help others to achieve similar outcomes. For the majority, however, CEA will probably remain the safer option. 'Best medical therapy' and risk factor modification should be started as soon as a transient ischemic attack is suspected, while the early introduction of dual antiplatelet therapy may reduce recurrent events prior to CEA, without increasing perioperative bleeding complications.

Outcomes of middle cerebral artery angioplasty and stenting with Wingspan at a high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

This study was to investigate the periprocedural stroke rates, safety, and long-term effect of Wingspan stenting for symptomatic severe stenosis of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) at a high-volume center.

METHODS

Between July 2007 and April 2013, 196 consecutive patients with severe MCA atherosclerotic stenosis (≥70%) who were treated with Wingspan stenting were retrospectively studied. All patients had arterial stenosis-related temporary ischemic attack or strokes. The demographic data, cerebral angiography, technical success rate, periprocedural complications, and clinical and imaging follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

The successful stenting rate was 98.0%, and the stenosis rate was improved from pre-stenting (80.6 ± 8.3 %) to post-stenting (15.5 ± 6.8%). The 30-day periprocedural stroke or death rate was 7.1%, with a disabling or fatal rate of 2.6%. The perioprocedural stroke rate was significantly (P < 0.01) greater in the early learning stage (16.0%) than in the later technical maturation stage (4.1%). The total periprocedural ischemic and perforator stroke rates were greater in patients with the most stenosis in the distal MCA 1/3 segment (6.8 and 5.7%, respectively) than in the proximal and middle 2/3 segments (0.9 and 0%, respectively). The ipsilateral stroke or death rate beyond 30 days (6-69 months, mean 30 ± 16) was 4.8%, with the 1- and 2-year cumulative stroke rates of 9.6 and 12.1%, respectively. Imaging follow-up 6-69 months (mean 10.9 ± 8.5) revealed restenosis in 21 cases (20.4 %).

CONCLUSION

Intracranial stenting of MCA stenoses may have the potential of better clinical outcomes if patients are properly selected and treated by an experienced operator at a high-volume center.

Demographic and Technical Risk Factors of 30-Day Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, and/or Death in Standard- and High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is an accepted treatment to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for major complications after CAS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study that was conducted at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in southern Iran from March 2011 to June 2014. Consecutive patients undergoing CAS were enrolled. Both standard- and high-risk patients for endarterectomy were enrolled. Demographic data, atherosclerotic risk factors, site of stenosis, degree of stenosis, and data regarding technical factors were recorded. Thirty-day stroke, myocardial infarction, and/or death were considered as the composite primary outcomes of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were recruited (mean age: 71.1 ± 9.6 years; male: 65.3%). Of these, 178 (70.9%) were symptomatic, 73 (29.1%) were diabetic, 129 (51.4%) were hyperlipidemic, 165 (65.7%) were hypertensive, and 62 (24.7%) patients were smokers. CAS was performed for left internal carotid artery (ICA) in 113 (45.4%) patients. Fourteen (5.6%) patients had sequential bilateral stenting. Mean stenosis of operated ICA was 80.2 ± 13.8%. An embolic protection device was used in 203 (96.2%) patients. Pre- and postdilation were performed in 39 (18.5%) and 182 (86.3%) patients, respectively. Composite outcomes were observed in 3.6% of patients (3.2% stroke, 0% myocardial infarction, and 1.2% death). Left-sided lesions and the presence of diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with poor short-term outcome (p = 0.025 and p = 0.020, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There was a higher risk of short-term major complications in diabetic patients and for left carotid artery intervention.

Symptomatic intracranial vertebral artery atherosclerotic stenosis (≥70%) with concurrent contralateral vertebral atherosclerotic diseases in 88 patients treated with the intracranial stenting

PURPOSE

To investigate the safety, effect and instent restenosis rate of Wingspan stenting in treating patients with intracranial vertebral artery atherosclerotic stenosis (70-99%) concurrent with contralateral vertebral artery atherosclerotic diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight patients with severe symptomatic intracranial vertebral artery atherosclerotic stenosis (≥70%) combined with contralateral vertebral artery atherosclerotic diseases were treated with the Wingpsan stent. All the baseline, cerebral angiography, success rate, perioperative complications, clinical and imaging follow-up data were prospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The success rate of stenting was 100%, and the mean stenotic rate was reduced from prestenting (84.9±6.8)% to poststenting (17.2±5.9)%. The perioperative stroke rate was 1.1%. Among eighty patients (90.9%) with clinical follow-up 8-62 months (mean 29.3±17.2) poststenting, five (6.3%) had posterior circulation TIA only, three (3.8%) had mild stroke in the posterior circulation but recovered completely, and another five patients greater than 70 years old died of non-ischemic stroke. Imaging follow-up in 46 patients (52.3%) 5-54 months (mean 9.9±9.9) following stenting revealed instent restenosis in 12 patients (26.1%) including 7 (58.3%) symptomatic restenosis. Age and residual stenosis were the two factors to significantly (P<0.05) affect instent restenosis.

CONCLUSION

Wingspan stenting in the intracranial vertebral artery atherosclerotic stenosis combined with contralateral vertebral artery atherosclerotic diseases has a low perioperative stroke rate and a good preventive effect on long-term ischemic stroke, but the instent restenosis rate is a little high.

A Protocol-Based Decision for Choosing a Proper Surgical Treatment Option for Carotid Artery Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

There are two established surgical treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been accepted as a gold standard for surgical treatment while carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently become an alternative option. Each treatment option has advantages and disadvantages for the treatment outcomes. We propose a protocol for selection of a proper surgical treatment option for carotid artery stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 192 published articles on management of carotid artery stenosis were reviewed. Preoperatively considerable factors which had been repeatedly noted in those articles for the risk/benefits of CEA or CAS were selected. According to those factors, a protocol with four categories was established.

RESULTS

CEA or CAS is indicated when the patient has a symptomatic stenosis ≥ 50%, or when the patient has an asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 80%. Each treatment option has absolute indications and favorable indications. Each absolute indication is scored with three points, and each favorable indication, one point. Based on the highest scores, a proper treatment option (CEA or CAS) is selected.

CONCLUSION

We have been treating patients according to this protocol and evaluating the outcomes of our protocol-based decision because this protocol might be helpful in assessment of risk/benefit for selection of a proper surgical treatment option in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Debate: Whether carotid endarterectomy is safer than stenting in the hyperacute period after onset of symptoms

The carotid artery has been a regular battleground for debates regarding many issues, including appropriate management of symptomatic and asymptomatic lesions, the conduct, timing, and safety of such interventions, and now, whether endarterectomy or stenting is safer in the hyperacute period. Our discussants agree that, as a prophylactic procedure, a carotid intervention should occur early after index symptoms to prevent as many strokes as possible. However, which intervention is best?