Impact of Carotid Artery Angioplasty and Stenting on Management of Recurrent Carotid Artery Stenosis

Repeated carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting for patients with carotid restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Carotid restenosis (CRS) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an issue that cannot be ignored. This study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of repeated CEA (redo CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for CRS after CEA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic analysis using the search terms "CEA restenosis," "carotid restenosis," or "CEA recurrent stenosis" in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. After applying the inclusion criteria, all available data were summarized to evaluate the effects of redo CEA and CAS for patients with CRS after prior CEA.

RESULTS

Fifty articles (9 comparative studies and 41 noncomparative studies) involving 4,399 patients were included. No differences were observed in the 30-day perioperative mortality, stroke and transient ischemic attack rates in the comparative studies (P > .05) and the noncomparative studies (P > .05). Patients undergoing redo CEA suffered more cranial nerve injuries (CNIs) than those undergoing CAS (P < .05), but most of these cases recovered within 3 months. Patients treated with redo CEA exhibited similar myocardial infarction (MI) rates to those treated with CAS in the comparative studies (P = .53), but the rate was higher in the noncomparative studies (P < .01). However, a nonsignificant difference was noted in freedom from stroke at 36 months in the comparative studies (P = .47) and at 12 months in the noncomparative studies (P = .89). The risk of restenosis was greater in the CAS patients than in the redo CEA patients (P < .05 for comparative and noncomparative studies).

CONCLUSION

Both redo CEA and CAS are safe and feasible for CRS after CEA. Although the incidences of CNI and MI were increased in the redo CEA group, most of the CNI cases were reversible. Patients treated with CAS were more likely to develop restenosis than those treated with redo CEA over long-term follow-up.

The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting in carotid revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization has been carotid endarterectomy. Several randomized trials demonstrate that it is more efficacious than medical management in stroke prevention for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients when performed with low surgical morbidity. However, many high-risk patients not included in these trials are now being referred for carotid revascularization. Endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis with angioplasty and stenting has become an established alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for these patients. We provide a review of the current role of carotid stent and angioplasty.

METHODS

We reviewed our procedural techniques for carotid artery stenting (CAS) with an emphasis on the need for medical therapy before and after the procedure to reduce thromboembolic complications. We also retrospectively analysed our clinical outcomes and incidence of restenosis after CAS.

RESULTS

We evaluated 139 of 252 patients treated over a 10-year period who had a minimum of 6-month clinical and imaging (ultrasound and/or angiography) follow-up (average f/u=60 months). Our rate of major stroke, MI or death was 3%, and rate of peri-operative TIAs was 2%. Morbidity related to femoral sheath placement has been 1.5%, with one 'cold foot' resolved with heparin and one retroperitoneal hematoma requiring transfusion. Recurrent stenosis after CAS occurred in 4% of patients, predominately following radiation treatment where it was 15%.

DISCUSSION

Although CEA is the gold standard procedure to prevent stroke from carotid stenosis, CAS has an expanding role for revascualrization, particularly in high-risk patients. Several randomized prospective trials are ongoing to better define the indications for CAS versus CEA.

Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

Background

There is significant variation in the indications for intervention in patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to describe these indications in a contemporary cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the indications for carotid intervention in patients with recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) that were published between 1990 and 2012.

Results

There were 50 studies reporting on a total of 3524 patients undergoing a carotid procedure; of these, 3478 underwent CEA as the initial intervention. Reintervention was by CEA in 2403 patients and by CAS in 1121. Only 54·7 per cent of the patients were treated for any symptoms and, importantly, just 444 (23·1 per cent of 1926 symptomatic patients) underwent intervention for documented ipsilateral symptoms. None of the studies reported whether the patients were evaluated for other sources of emboli. The remaining 45·3 per cent of patients had asymptomatic restenosis and in the majority of the studies were treated when the degree of stenosis exceeded 80 per cent. The time to repeat intervention was significantly longer in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis, in asymptomatic patients and in patients undergoing CEA.

Conclusion

The reported criteria for retreatment of carotid stenosis were not rigorous and there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the indications for intervention.

Contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion impairs early but not 30-day stroke rate following carotid endarterectomy

Neurological complications and mortality within 30 days following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) alone or with concomitant cardiac surgery/cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were assessed in patients with or without contralateral occlusion of the internal carotid artery (CO-ICA).Of 335 patients undergoing CEA, 173 underwent concomitant cardiac surgery with CPB. Group A consisted of 260 patients without CO-ICA and group B of 75 patients with CO-ICA. The neurological complications (peripheral nerve damage, transient ischemic attack [TIA], prolonged reversible ischemic neurological deficit [PRIND], and stroke) and the Rankin index within 24 hours and 30 days postoperatively were compared. Strokes within 24 hours were significantly increased (P = .006) in group B (11%) compared with A (3.1%); TIA and PRIND did not differ (P = .33). The overall neurological complications and in particular for peripheral neurological damage, TIA/PRIND, and stroke did not differ within the 30-day-period postsurgery. A significantly higher stroke rate within 24 hours postsurgery occurred in patients with CO-ICA.

Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: incidence and endovascular management

SUMMARY

Surgical procedures designed to restore vascular patency for a recurrent stenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are burdened with technical difficulties as well as with the possibility of serious neurological complications. An endovascular approach employing transluminal percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) is a promising solution to these problems. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of carotid artery restenosis following CEA, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating post-CEA restenosis with an endovascular technique (PTAS). One hundred and two patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis were included in the analysis. Clinical and sonographic follow-up examinations identified carotid artery restenosis in 16 patients, who fulfilled our criteria for endovascular treatment. Carotid PTAS was performed on symptomatic patients with a stenosis over 60% of the artery lumen (n=7) and in asymptomatic patients with a stenosis over 80% (n=9). The post-PTAS patients were evaluated by duplex sonography every three months over a 24 month follow-up period for evidence of restenosis. The cumulative incidence of post-CEA carotid restenosis qualifying for PTAS was 9.3% during an average 12-month follow-up interval. The average time from CEA to carotid PTAS was 11 months. All 16 endovascular procedures were technically successful. All of the carotid arteries were widely patent following PTAS. There were no immediate perioperative complications. One patient died two days after carotid PTAS from a cerebral hemorrhage. Thirteen of the 16 patients remained asymptomatic and had no sonographic evidence of significant restenosis during the 24- month post-PTAS follow-up period. One patient developed a symptomatic 80% restenosis proximal to the stent six months after carotid PTAS. Another patient developed an asymptomatic 60% restenosis proximal to the stent at 24 months. One patient was lost to follow-up. Following CEA, there is a significant risk of developing a symptomatic or high-grade carotid artery restenosis requiring correction. Endovascular treatment (PTAS) of a recurrent stenosis after CEA is a safe and effective alternative to repeat carotid surgery.

Carotid angioplasty and stent placement for restenosis after endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent carotid stenosis following endarterectomy is a common complication, and reoperation may be associated with increased morbidity. The goal of this study was to determine the procedural safety and long-term complication rates of carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent stenosis.

METHODS

Of 248 consecutive carotid angioplasty and/or stenting procedures performed at our institution between March 1996 and November 2005, 83 procedures for recurrent stenosis following endarterectomy were performed in 75 patients (mean age 68 years; 43 men, 32 women) without cerebral protection devices. The patients' medical records were retrospectively reviewed for vascular imaging reports and available clinical follow-up. Procedural and long-term complication rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Recurrent stenosis was reduced from a mean of 80.6% to no significant stenosis in 82 of 83 procedures. The procedural stroke rate was 3 out of 83 procedures (3.6%). The procedural transient ischemic attack (TIA) rate was 2 out of 83 procedures (2.4%). Mean follow-up was 22.4 months (range 0.1 to 86.7 months) with at least 6 months follow-up for 54 of 83 procedures (65%). There were five TIAs and no strokes on follow-up (new TIAs at 25.5 and 43.4 months; recurrent TIAs at 1, 11.1, and 12 months, all with normal angiograms). The composite 30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, or death rate was 5 of 83 procedures (6.0%).

CONCLUSION

In this series, angioplasty and stenting were effective in relieving stenosis secondary to recurrent carotid disease after endarterectomy, and have low rates of ischemic complications.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for postendarterectomy stenosis: Long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been proposed as an alternative to redo CEA. Although early results are encouraging, the extended durability remains unknown. We present the long-term surveillance results of CAS for post-CEA restenosis.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2004, 57 CAS procedures were performed in 55 patients (36 men) with a mean age of 70 years. The mean interval between CEA and CAS was 83 months (range, 6 to 245). Nine patients (16%) were symptomatic.

RESULTS

CAS was performed successfully in all patients. No deaths or strokes occurred. A periprocedural transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in two patients. During a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 12 to 72 months), two patients exhibited ipsilateral cerebral symptoms (1 TIA, 1 minor stroke). In 11 patients (19%), in-stent restenosis (> or =50%) was detected post-CAS at month 3 (n = 3), 12 (n = 3), 24 (n = 2), 36 (n = 1), 48 (n = 1), and 60 (n = 1). The cumulative rates of in-stent restenosis-free survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 93%, 85%, 82%, and 76%, respectively. Redo procedures were performed in six patients, three each received repeat angioplasty and repeat CEA with stent removal. The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 96%, 94%, 90%, and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent stenosis after CEA can be performed with a low incidence of periprocedural complications with durable protection from stroke. The rate of in-stent recurrent stenosis is high, however, and does not only occur early after CAS but is an ongoing process.

Patient selection for carotid stenting versus endarterectomy: A systematic review

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of severe extracranial carotid stenosis in patients with anatomic or clinical factors that increase their risk of complications with surgery, yet there remains a substantial amount of variability and uncertainty in clinical practice in the referral of patients for stenting vs endarterectomy. By undertaking a thorough review of the literature, we sought to better define which subsets of patients with "high-risk" features would be likely to preferentially benefit from carotid stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Although only a single randomized trial comparing the outcomes of carotid stenting with distal protection and endarterectomy has been completed, a wealth of observational data was reviewed. Relative to endarterectomy, the results of carotid stenting seem favorable in the setting of several anatomic conditions that render surgery technically difficult, such as restenosis after prior endarterectomy, prior radical neck surgery, and previous radiation therapy involving the neck. The results of stenting are also favorable among patients with severe concomitant cardiac disease. Carotid endarterectomy, alternatively, seems to represent the procedure of choice among patients 80 years of age or older in the absence of other high-risk features. Overall, existing data support the concept that carotid stenting and endarterectomy represent complementary rather than competing modes of therapy. Pending the availability of randomized trial data to help guide procedural selection, which is likely many years away, an objective understanding of existing data is valuable to help select the optimal mode of revascularization therapy for patients with severe carotid artery disease who are at heightened surgical risk.

Carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent stenosis

Object

The use of endovascular management for recurrent carotid artery (CA) stenosis is rapidly expanding due to the increased surgical risk associated with repeated carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent CA stenosis offers a less invasive strategy with fewer procedural complications and may provide a more durable treatment. The authors report on their experience with this procedure in the management of recurrent CA stenosis.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed to evaluate clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes after CA angioplasty and stent placement. Twenty-three vessels in 22 patients with severe recurrent stenosis (> 80%) post-CEA were treated with balloon angioplasty and stent placement without distal protection. There were no perioperative neurological or cardiac complications in this series. Over a mean follow-up period of 36 months, one patient (5%) suffered recurrent stenosis requiring retreatment with angioplasty alone.

Conclusions

The use of CA angioplasty and stent placement provides a safe and effective treatment for recurrent CA stenosis. The use of drug-eluting and/or bioactive stents in the future will likely further improve the efficacy of this procedure for recurrent CA stenosis.