Surgical treatment for bilateral carotid arterial stenosis

Feasibility and Safety of Simultaneous Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting for Bilateral Carotid Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience using a Hybrid Procedure

BACKGROUND

The treatment for bilateral carotid stenosis (BCS) is challenging, and the optimal treatment strategy is not clear. We report our experience of treating 8 patients with BCS by simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS), thereby providing an alternative for vascular surgeons.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and August 2014, 8 patients (5 males and 3 females; range, 53-82 years; mean, 69 ± 8.8 years) underwent simultaneous CEA and CAS in our hospital. CEA before CAS was done in 5 patients, and CAS before CEA was done in 3 patients. One patient also underwent simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting due to unstable angina. Intraoperative transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, carotid shunts, patches, and embolic protection devices were used in all patients. Instances of hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS), hemodynamic depression, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death were recorded.

RESULTS

All patients completed the procedure. One patient developed postprocedural HPS. After systemic treatment, he recovered completely. There were no deaths, major and/or minor strokes, or MI, nor did any patient exhibit lower palsy in cranial nerves in the perioperative period (<30 days) or on clinical follow-up (3 and 6 months). We observed no restenosis and no recurrent symptoms during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

After careful preoperative assessment and preparation, simultaneous CEA and CAS for high-grade BCS may be considered as an alternative management strategy in carefully selected patients.

Simultaneous Bilateral vs Unilateral Carotid Artery Stenting: 30-Day and 1-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (sbCAS) compared with unilateral CAS (uCAS).

METHODS

The database in our institution was queried to identify all patients treated with CAS from January 2005 to December 2012. In this time frame, 120 (18.8%) patients (mean age 64.9 ± 7.7 years; 96 men) underwent sbCAS and 517 (81.2%) patients (mean age 65.7 ± 7.7 years; 421 men) received uCAS. The primary endpoint was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or any ipsilateral stroke within 1 year.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rates of the primary endpoint between the sbCAS and uCAS groups (6.7% vs 4.6%, p=0.358). The rates of the primary endpoint among symptomatic patients was 8.0% in the sbCAS group and 5.0% in the uCAS group (p=0.299) and 3.1% and 4.0%, respectively (p=0.821) among asymptomatic patients. During the 30-day periprocedural period, the rates of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between the sbCAS and uCAS groups among all patients (5.8% vs 4.4%, p=0.479), symptomatic patients (6.8% vs 5.0%, p=0.594), or asymptomatic patients (3.1% vs 3.5%, p>0.999). After this period, the incidences of any ipsilateral stroke were similarly low (0.8% and 0.2%, respectively; p=0.342).

CONCLUSION

The study showed that simultaneous bilateral CAS had no more adverse events than unilateral CAS during the periprocedural period or within 1 year. This 1-stage strategy may become a valuable alternative in the treatment of patients with severe bilateral carotid stenosis.

Surgical Outcomes for Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis: Treatment Strategy for Bilateral Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are beneficial procedures for patients with high-grade cervical carotid stenosis. However, it is sometimes difficult to manage patients with bilateral carotid stenosis. To decide the treatment strategy, one of the most important questions is whether contralateral stenosis increases the risk of patients undergoing CEA.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 201 patients with carotid stenosis who underwent a total of 219 consecutive procedures (CEA 189/CAS 30). We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in patients with carotid stenosis who were treated with either CEA or CAS and evaluated whether or not contralateral lesions increases the risk of patients undergoing CEA or CAS. Furthermore, we retrospectively verified our treatment strategy for bilateral carotid stenosis.

RESULTS

The incidences of perioperative complications were 5.3% in the CEA patients and 6.7% in the CAS patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between these 2 groups. The existences of contralateral occlusion and/or contralateral stenosis were not associated with perioperative complications in both the groups. There were 32 patients with bilateral severe carotid stenosis (>50%). Of those, 13 patients underwent bilateral revascularizations; CEA followed by CEA in 8, CEA followed by CAS in 3, CAS followed by CEA + coronary artery bpass grafting in 1, and CAS followed by CAS in 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our date showed that the existence of contralateral carotid lesion was not associated with perioperative complications, and most of our cases with bilateral carotid stenosis initially underwent CEA.

Treatment strategy for bilateral carotid stenosis: 2 cases of carotid endarterectomy for the symptomatic side followed by carotid stenting

Since the introduction of carotid stenting (CAS), a combined treatment for bilateral lesions using carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS has been developed. However, there has been only 1 report about CEA then CAS. Herein we describe 2 patients with bilateral severe carotid stenosis who were treated by CEA for the symptomatic side and CAS for the contralateral asymptomatic side. A 71-year-old man underwent CEA for the symptomatic side. Although the patient suffered hyperperfusion syndrome after CEA, he recovered fully after 3 weeks of rehabilitation. Two months later, CAS was performed for the asymptomatic side, and he was discharged with no deficit. A 67-year-old man underwent CEA for the symptomatic side. The patient developed no postoperative neurologic deficits except for hoarseness. Four weeks later, CAS was performed for the contralateral asymptomatic side. After the procedure, however, severe hypotension occurred, and treatment by continuous injection of catecholamine was necessary to maintain systematic blood pressure. The patient was ultimately discharged with no deficit. The combined therapy of CAS for the asymptomatic side and then CEA for the symptomatic side has been recommended by several authors. However, one of the problems of this strategy is the higher incidence of postprocedural hemodynamic complications, and hypotension after CAS may be dangerous for the symptomatic hemisphere. We suggest a combined therapy using CEA for the symptomatic side and then CAS for the asymptomatic side can be 1 beneficial treatment option for patients with bilateral carotid stenosis without coronary artery disease.