Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists during carotid artery stenting:

Eptifibatide bridging therapy for staged carotid artery stenting and cardiac surgery: Safety and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an effective strategy to reduce perioperative stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis who require cardiothoracic surgery (CTS). Staging both procedures (CAS-CTS) during a single hospitalization presents conflicting demands for antiplatelet therapy and the optimal pharmacologic strategy between procedures is not established. The purpose of this study is to present our initial experience with a "bridging" protocol for staged CAS-CTS.

METHODS

A retrospective review of staged CAS-CTS procedures at a single referral center was performed. All patients had multivessel coronary and/or valvular disease and severe carotid stenosis (>70%). Patients not previously on aspirin were also started on aspirin prior to surgery, followed by eptifibatide during CAS (intraprocedural bolus followed by post-procedural infusion which was continued until the morning of surgery). Pre- and perioperative (30 days) neurologic morbidity and mortality was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

11 CAS procedures were performed in 10 patients using the protocol. The median duration of eptifibatide bridge therapy was 36 h (range 24-288 h). There was one minor bleeding complication (1/11, 9.1%) and no major bleeding complications during the bridging and post-operative period. There was one post-operative, non-neurologic death and zero perioperative ischemic strokes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing staged CAS-CTS, Eptifibatide bridging therapy is a viable temporary antiplatelet strategy with a favorable safety profile. This strategy enables a flexible range of time-intervals between procedures.

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated.

METHODS

We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.

Acute administration of tirofiban versus aspirin in emergent carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting requires antiplatelet therapy for prevention of in-stent thrombosis. Patients suffering from acute ischemic stroke undergoing intravenous thrombolysis and emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) are at high risk for intracranial bleeding. We assessed efficacy and safety of acute administration of intravenous tirofiban versus aspirin in these patients.

METHODS

A retrospective, single center, cohort study was carried out of 32 patients who underwent eCAS (18 received tirofiban, 14 received aspirin) at our comprehensive stroke center (2008-2016).

RESULTS

Of our 32 consecutive eCAS patients, favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin scale ≤ 2) were achieved in eight (47%) tirofiban patients and six (46%) aspirin patients ( p = 0.96). Overall rates were similar for symptomatic intracranial bleeding (tirofiban 22%, aspirin 29%, p = 0.68) and mortality (tirofiban 18%, aspirin 23%, p = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban and aspirin demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in thrombolyzed stroke patients who underwent eCAS in our cohort. Intravenous tirofiban with its short half-life might represent an alternative to aspirin in select patients.

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.)

Standards of anesthesiology practice during neuroradiological interventions

Interventional radiology is a rapidly growing discipline with an expanding variety of indications and techniques in pediatric and adult patients. Accordingly, the number of procedures during which monitoring either under sedation or under general anesthesia is needed is increasing. In order to ensure high-quality care as well as patient comfort and safety, implementation of anes-thesiology practice guidelines in line with institutional radiology practice guidelines is paramount [1]. However, practice guidelines are no substitute for lack of communi-cation between specialties. Interdisciplinary indications within neurosciences call for efficient co-operation among radiology, neurology, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, anesthesiology and intensive care. Anesthesia team and intensive care personnel should be informed early and be involved in coordinated planning so that optimal results can be achieved under minimized risks and pre-arranged complication management.

State of the art in carotid artery stenting: trial data, technical aspects, and limitations

The volume of carotid artery stenting (CAS) safety and efficacy data has grown exponentially over the last decade. Recent comparative data with carotid endarterectomy, the utility of embolic protection devices, peri-procedural medications, basic technical aspects of CAS, developments in carotid stent design, potential complications of CAS, and complication risk factors are discussed in this review.

How Safe is Eptifibatide during Urgent Carotid Artery Stenting?

Background: Glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors are occasionally utilized during carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the presence or absence of a visualized intra-operative thrombus.

Objective: We assess the hemorrhagic and clinical outcomes associated with the use of eptifibatide during CAS.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients with the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis underwent CAS in a single center. We identified those who received intravenous eptifibatide intra-operatively and compared to the rest of the cohort. Hemorrhagic outcomes included intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or groin hematoma that occurred during the hospital stay.

Results: In this analysis, 81 patients had CAS during a 3-year span; 16 of those had received 15 mg of intravenous eptifibatide intra-operatively. The mean age of the treated and untreated patients was similar (65.6 ± 13.4 versus 65.4 ± 10.2; P = 0.13). One patient (1.2%) in this series had ICH in the perioperative period that occurred in the non-eptifibatide group. Five patients (6.2%) in this series had groin hematoma; only one in the non-eptifibatide group required surgical repair. No mortality was reported and clinical outcomes including discharge modified Rankin scale, NIH stroke scale, as well as discharge destination were similar in both groups. A stratified analysis among those who underwent an urgent CAS showed no significant differences in the risks of hemorrhages or any clinical outcome (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The use of eptifibatide during CAS is safe. The risk of any hemorrhagic complication is rare in this series; however, a prospective study to validate this observation will be helpful.

Predictors of Neurological Events Associated With Carotid Artery Stenting in High-Surgical-Risk Patients

Background—

Comorbid and anatomic characteristics that portend higher procedural risk are well defined for carotid endarterectomy but less so for carotid artery stenting.

Methods and Results—

We pooled carotid stent data from 4 Cordis-sponsored trials (n=2104) with similar patient cohorts and end point determination to identify predictors of neurological death or stroke within 30 days of the procedure. Median age was 74 years (24% >80 years), 36% were women, and 24.2% were symptomatic in the previous 6 months. There were 88 (4.2%) neurological deaths or strokes at 30 days. Among symptomatic patients, the risk of adverse neurological outcome declined with increasing time between the incident neurological event and carotid stent procedure. In a logistic regression model that included preprocedural and procedural variables, significant multivariable predictors of 30-day neurological death or stroke were older age (continuous), black race, angiographically visible thrombus in symptomatic patients, procedural use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, procedural transient ischemic attack, final residual stenosis >30%, and periprocedural use of protamine or vasopressors.

Conclusions—

In this pooled analysis, a number of preprocedural and procedural factors predicted higher risk of stroke and neurological death within 30 days of a carotid stent procedure. Identification of such predictors may help to guide patient selection and further refine procedural technique.