Carotid stenosis management: a review for the internist

Limb-Shaking And Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Limb-shaking is one of the transient ischemic attacks (TIA) 'chameleons.' This literature review aims to evaluate the clinical, epidemiological profile, pathologic mechanisms, and management of limb-shaking TIA.

REVIEW SUMMARY

Relevant reports in Medline's (PubMed) database were identified and assessed by 2 reviewers without language restriction from 1985 to 2022. A total of 82 reports containing 161 cases that developed limb-shaking TIA were reported. The mean and median age were 61.36 (SD: 15.29) and 62 years (range: 4-93 y). Most of the individuals affected were males (64.34%). Limb-shaking was reported as unilateral in 83.33% of the patients. Limb-shaking presented with other neurological deficits in 44.33% of the individuals, in which the most common concurrent neurological deficit was the weakness of at least 1 limb. A recurrence of the "shaking" phenomenon was observed in 83 individuals. A trigger of limb-shaking was reported in 69 cases, and the most common was changing body position. The internal carotid artery was the most frequent vessel involved in limb-shaking. A chronically occluded internal carotid artery was observed in 42 individuals. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity. The management was conservative in 42.30% of the cases. The most frequent misdiagnoses were seizures. A full recovery was achieved in 56.60% of the individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Limb-shaking TIA could be defined as involuntary, rhythmic, brief (<5 min), recurrent, jerky movement usually precipitated by activities that may reduce cerebral blood flow. The "shaking" phenomenon was primarily described as a manifestation of symptomatic complete internal carotid artery obstruction.

Antithrombotic treatment of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: a medical dilemma

Carotid artery atherosclerosis (CAAS) is a common finding in asymptomatic subjects evaluated for cardiovascular (CV)-risk stratification. Besides the careful control of CV-risk factors, antithrombotic agents, and in particular aspirin, may be considered for primary prevention in patients at CV-risk. However, there is strong controversy on the use of aspirin in primary prevention. Even if several studies confirmed the association between CAAS and CV-events, CAAS is not universally recognized as an independent risk factor and the choice to use aspirin as primary prevention in these patients remains a medical dilemma. Here we review the available evidence on the prognostic value of asymptomatic CAAS for major CV-events and on the utility of antithrombotic agents in this population. We conclude that the detection of asymptomatic CAAS can not be considered as a direct indication to carry out primary prophylaxis with antithrombotic drugs, and the choice to use aspirin should be made only after the careful estimate of the individual's CV-and hemorrhagic risk.

Carotid revascularization: risks and benefits

Despite a decline during the recent decades in stroke-related death, the incidence of stroke has remained unchanged or slightly increased, and extracranial carotid artery stenosis is implicated in 20%–30% of all strokes. Medical therapy and risk factor modification are first-line therapies for all patients with carotid occlusive disease. Evidence for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% with either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is compelling, and several trials have demonstrated a benefit to carotid revascularization in the symptomatic patient population. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is more controversial, with the largest trials only demonstrating a 1% per year risk stroke reduction with CEA. Although there are sufficient data to advocate for aggressive medical therapy as the primary mode of treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there are also data to suggest that certain patient populations will benefit from a stroke risk reduction with carotid revascularization. In the United States, consensus and practice guidelines dictate that CEA is reasonable in patients with high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, a reasonable life expectancy, and perioperative risk of less than 3%. Regarding CAS versus CEA, the best-available evidence demonstrates no difference between the two procedures in early perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, and no difference in 4-year ipsilateral stroke risk. However, because of the higher perioperative risks of stroke in patients undergoing CAS, particularly in symptomatic, female, or elderly patients, it is difficult to recommend CAS over CEA except in populations with prohibitive cardiac risk, previous carotid surgery, or prior neck radiation. Current treatment paradigms are based on identifying the magnitude of perioperative risk in patient subsets and on using predictive factors to stratify patients with high-risk asymptomatic stenosis.