Safety of Early Carotid Endarterectomy after Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Urgent Carotid Artery Revascularization Fraught with Higher Rates of Neurovascular Events in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic carotid artery stenosis requires timely intervention to reduce risk of recurrent stroke. However, the optimal timing of revascularization remains debated. This study evaluates outcomes in patients undergoing urgent (<48 hr), early (3-14 days), or delayed (>14 days) carotid artery revascularization.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 186 interventions in symptomatic patients categorized by timing of intervention defined as urgent (<48 hr from symptom onset, n = 47), early (3-14 days, n = 90), and delayed (>14 days, n = 49). Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes were analyzed. Outcome measures included perioperative stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, and mortality at 30 days and on follow-up.

RESULTS

The cohort's mean age was 71.3 ± 9.6 years, with no difference among groups, and with a balanced sex distribution (P = 0.75). Comorbidities included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease, which were similar across groups (P > 0.05). National Institutes of Health stroke scale on admission was significantly different between groups (urgent: 4.7 ± 4.6; early: 8.2 ± 8.1; delayed: 4.0 ± 5.2; P = 0.01). The level of disability measured through the modified Rankin scale at discharge demonstrated no significant difference between groups (urgent: 0.9 ± 1.3; early: 1.1 ± 1.3; delayed: 0.5 ± 1.0; P = 0.09). At 30 days, ipsilateral strokes/TIA occurred in 3 (6.4%) patients in the urgent group, and none in either the early group or delayed group (P = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality was observed in 2 (4.3%) patients in the urgent group and 1 (1.1%) in the early group (P = 0.23). The 30-day composite of stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, or death was significantly higher in the urgent group (urgent: 8.5%, early: 1.1%, delayed: 0.0%; P = 0.02). At a mean follow-up of 14.6 ± 16.9 months, ipsilateral stroke rates were similar across groups (urgent: 4.3%, early: 5.6%, delayed: 4.1%; P = 1.00). All-cause mortality at follow-up occurred in 21.3% of urgent, 10.0% of early, and 10.2% of delayed patients (P = 0.17). Restenosis and reintervention rates at follow-up were significantly higher in the urgent (10.6%) and delayed (14.3%) groups than the early group (2.2%; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Urgent carotid revascularization is associated with higher perioperative stroke/TIA rate than early and delayed interventions. Mid-term outcomes were comparable across groups. Restenosis and reintervention rates were higher in the urgent and delayed groups than the early intervention group.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the mainstay of treatment for patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, whereas carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is indicated in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, the impact of prior IVT on the outcomes of CEA (IVT-CEA) is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine whether IVT may create additional stroke and death risk for CEA, compared with CEA performed in the absence of a history of recent IVT, and to determine the optimal timing for CEA after IVT.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of IVT-CEA vs CEA, using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

We included 11 retrospective comparative studies, in which 135,644 patients underwent CEA and 2070 underwent IVT-CEA. The pooled rate of perioperative stroke was 4.2% in the IVT-CEA group and 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.58; P = .21), with a high heterogenicity (I2 = 93%). The rate of stroke/death was 5.9% in patients undergoing IVT-CEA 1.9% in those receiving CEA only (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.14; I2 = 92%; P = .09); after exclusion of studies including TIA as presenting symptom, stroke/death risk was 3.6% in IVT-CEA and 3.0% in CEA (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.53; I2 = 50%; P = .11). The risk of stoke decreased with a delay in the performance of CEA (P = .268). Using results of the metaregression, the calculated delay of CEA that allows for a <6% risk was 4.6 days. Compared with CEA, patients undergoing IVT-CEA had a significantly higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2.5% vs 0.1%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.21; I2 = 28%; P < .001) and neck hematoma requiring reintervention (3.6% vs 2.3%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I2 = 0%; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke, CEA can be safely performed after a prior endovenous thrombolysis, maintaining a stroke/death risk of <6%. After IVT, CEA should be deferred for ≥5 days to minimize the risk for intracranial hemorrhage and neck bleeding.

Acute ischemic stroke: The role of emergency carotid endarterectomy in isolated extracranial internal carotid artery occlusion

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of choice for acute and isolated extracranial internal carotid artery (eICA) occlusion remains, to date, controversial. Although intravenous thrombolysis is recommended, its effectiveness is generally low. This retrospective study aims to assess the clinical outcome and the role of CT perfusion in symptomatic patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for acute occlusion of the eICA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the 21 patients presented with stroke-in-evolution, complete patency of intracranial circulation, no evidence of hemorrhagic transformation at CT and a minimum ASPECTS of 6. Clinical improvement was assessed by evaluating the variation of NIHSS and the mRS. We investigated the relationship between NIHSS and the timing of the surgery, the ASPECT score, and the volume of ischemic penumbra at CT perfusion.

RESULTS

Median NIHSS on admission was 9 (range 1-24) and it decreased to 4 (range 0-35) 24 h after surgery, improving in 76.2% of patients. Patients with an ASPECTS of 6 (3 patients) showed an improvement of 66.7%, while it was of 81.8% in those starting with a score of 9 or 10 (11 patients). A mRS between 0 and 2 after 3 months was achieved in 12 out of 21 patients. The average time elapsing between surgery and symptom onset was 410 min (range 70-1070 min). Fourteen patients treated within 8 h from symptoms onset showed a clinical improvement of 85.7%, compared to a 57.1% for those which underwent later surgery. Four patients underwent thrombolytic therapy before CEA showing postoperative clinical improvement and no intracranial hemorrhage. Among the 14 patients who underwent CT perfusion, the median ischemic penumbra volume was 112 cc in those with clinical improvement (10 patients) and only 84 cc in those with worse clinical outcomes (4 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CEA in isolated eICA occlusion has proved to be a safe and effective treatment option in selected patients. CT perfusion, imaging the ischemic penumbra and quantifying the tissue suitable for reperfusion, offers a valid support in the diagnostic-therapeutic workup. Indeed, we can infer that the area of the ischemic penumbra is directly proportional to the margin of clinical improvement after revascularization, supposing that the appropriate intervention timing is respect.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peri-Procedural Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Interventions Following Thrombolysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after thrombolytic therapy (TT).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients who underwent CEA/CAS after TT.

RESULTS

In 25 studies (n = 147 810 patients), 2 557 underwent CEA (n = 2 076) or CAS (n = 481) following TT. After CEA, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3 - 7.5) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.6). After CAS, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 14.9% (95% CI 11.9 - 18.2) and ICH was 5.5% (95% CI 3.7 - 7.7). In case control studies comparing CEA outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural death/stroke was non-significantly higher after TT (4.3% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% CI 0.74 - 7.47), but ICH was significantly higher after TT (2.2% vs. 0.12%; OR 7.82, 95% CI 4.07 - 15.02), as was local haematoma formation (3.6% vs. 2.26%; OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.33). In case control studies comparing CAS outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural stroke/death was significantly higher after TT (5.2% vs. 1.5%; OR 8.49, 95% CI 2.12 - 33.95) as was ICH (5.4% vs. 0.7%; OR 7.48, 95% CI 4.69 - 11.92). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated an inverse association between the time interval from intravenous (IV) TT to undergoing CEA and the risk of peri-procedural stroke/death (p = .032). Peri-operative stroke/death was 13.0% when CEA was performed three days after TT and 10.6% when performed four days after TT, with the risk reducing to within the currently accepted 6% threshold after six-seven days had elapsed.

CONCLUSION

Peri-procedural ICH and local haematoma were significantly more frequent in patients undergoing CEA after TT (vs. no TT), although there were no randomised comparisons. Peri-procedural hazards were also significantly higher for CAS after TT. The inverse relationship between timing to CEA and peri-procedural stroke/death mandates careful patient selection and suggests that it may be safer to defer CEA for six-seven days after TT.

Safety of urgent carotid endarterectomy following thrombolysis

INTRODUCTION

Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the incidence of ischemic stroke is predicted to increase in coming years. Carotid atherosclerotic occlusive disease accounts for up to 20% of all ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence suggests that, in the setting of an acute ischemic stroke due to carotid disease, earlier treatment with carotid intervention results in better outcomes. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, systemic or intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has revolutionized ischemic stroke therapy, and intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) has become the principal treatment for acute ischemic stroke when administered within 3 to 4.5 hours of neurologic symptom onset. Given these trends in acute ischemic stroke therapy, vascular specialists are increasingly asked to perform carotid intervention following IVT, but reports in the literature examining outcomes in this circumstance are scarce, and the data regarding the appropriate interval from IVT to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains controversial.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature searches were performed in PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ovid examining journal articles published between January 1st, 1998 and September 30th, 2019. The search terms used were: "urgent carotid endarterectomy," "carotid endarterectomy" AND "thrombolysis," "acute stroke and thrombolysis," "timing of carotid endarterectomy," and various combinations of these terms.

EVIDENCE SYTNHESIS

A total of 21 published reports detailing outcomes in 1165 patients have been published to date, with an average interval from IVT to CEA of 7.1 days, a cumulative 30-day stroke and death rate of 4.1% (0-18%) and a mean frequency of intracranial hemorrhage of 2.6% (0-18%). The aggregate data from the 21 reported series suggest that CEA can be performed safely within the first 14 days after the onset of neurologic symptoms in patients receiving antecedent IVT, however, data regarding the safety of urgent CEA within 48 to 72 hours of thrombolysis is conflicting, with some series reporting excellent results and others showing an increased risk of ICH, stroke, and/or death in these select patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the trend toward expedited treatment of acute ischemic stroke with subsequent transfer to regional referral centers, vascular specialists will be confronted with an increasing number of patients who may require urgent CEA after antecedent IVT. Further study is warranted to clearly delineate the appropriate interval from IVT to CEA and, specifically, to establish the safety of CEA with 72 hours of tPA administration.

Carotid endarterectomy after systemic thrombolysis in a stroke population

OBJECTIVE

Vascular specialists are increasingly being requested to perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for stroke patients, raising concerns about hemorrhagic complications. Few case series and registry reports have assessed the question, and even fewer studies have included a control group. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall outcome of patients undergoing CEA after IVT and to compare them with contemporary patients with CEA after simple stroke (non-IVT group). It also aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes of stroke patients requiring CEA between nonvascular and vascular centers.

METHODS

The data of 169 consecutive patients who have undergone CEA after stroke in a single center was analyzed from January 2011 to December 2016, 27 of them (16%) having undergone previous IVT. A comparative analysis between the non-IVT and the IVT groups was performed. The time between stroke diagnosis and referral to a vascular specialist was also studied.

RESULTS

Age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities were similar in both groups. Median time between stroke and CEA was 13 days (Q1-Q3, 8-23 days), with 16 of the 27 patients (59%) in the IVT group undergoing CEA less than 14 days after the initial event. There were three intracranial hemorrhages (2.1%) in the non-IVT group versus one (3.7%) in the IVT group (P = NS). The overall 30-day combined stroke and death rate was 7.1% (6.3% in the non-IVT group vs 11.1% in the IVT group; P = .70). The incidence of postoperative cervical hematoma requiring reoperation was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.7%; P = NS). The median time between diagnosis of stroke and referral to a vascular specialist was higher for patients in nonvascular centers compared with vascular centers (3.5 days vs 1.0 day; P < .001), which translated to fewer patients referred from nonvascular centers undergoing surgery in the 14-day window period (38% vs 67%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, CEA after IVT showed similar outcomes when compared with the overall CEA after stroke population. Stroke patients diagnosed in nonvascular centers were referred later than those in vascular centers and, although postoperative outcomes were similar, that was correlated with fewer patients undergoing surgery in a timely fashion.

Surgery of acute occlusion of the extracranial internal carotid artery - a meta-analysis

Acute occlusion of the extracranial internal carotid artery (eICA) is associated with poor prognosis. Surgical desobliteration has not received adequate attention in recent years. We therefore conducted a literature review and meta-analysis of surgical studies published after 2000 that treated eICA occlusion surgically in an emergency setting. The search identified 10 relevant articles that included a total of 175 patients. The outcomes analysed included rates of recanalization (93 %), early neurological improvement (66 %), modified Rankin Scale 0-2 (62 %), mortality (5 %), early reocclusion (4 %), in-hospital stroke (4 %) and symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (4 %). In conclusion, acute surgical desobliteration of eICA occlusion leads to high rates of recanalization and a majority of patients experience early neurological improvement and achieve favourable outcome. Rates of mortality, early reocclusion, in-hospital stroke and sICH are acceptable in the view of unfavourable natural history.

Timing of Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Snapshot of Current Trends and Systematic Review of Literature on Changing Paradigm towards Early Surgery

Carotid revascularization has been recommended as the maximally beneficial treatment for stroke prevention in patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (SCS). The appropriate timing for performing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the first 14 d after the occurrence of the index event remains controversial. We aim to provide a snapshot of the pertinent current literature related to the timing of CEA for patients with SCS. A systematic review of literature was conducted to study the timing of CEA for SCS. The guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) were followed. A total of 63 articles were identified as relevant to this topic. A summary of 15 articles favoring urgent CEA (within 48 h) for SCS within 48 h of index event and 9 articles not favoring urgent CEA is presented. A consensus is still to be achieved on the ideal timing of CEA for SCS within the 14-d window presently prescribed. The current literature suggests that patients who undergo urgent CEA (within 48 h) after nondisabling stroke as the index event have an increased periprocedural risk as compared to those who had transient ischemic attack (TIA) as the index event. Further prospective studies and clinical trials studying this question with separate groups classified as per the index event are required to shed more light on the subject. The current literature points to a changing paradigm towards early carotid surgery, specifically targeted within 48 h if the index event is TIA, and within 7 d if the index event is stroke.