Very Early Carotid Endarterectomy After Intravenous Thrombolysis

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.

Brazilian Angiology and Vascular Surgery Society Guidelines for the treatment of extracranial cerebrovascular disease

Extracranial cerebrovascular disease has been the subject of intense research throughout the world, and is of paramount importance for vascular surgeons. This guideline, written by the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), supersedes the 2015 guideline. Non-atherosclerotic carotid artery diseases were not included in this document. The purpose of this guideline is to bring together the most robust evidence in this area in order to help specialists in the treatment decision-making process. The AGREE II methodology and the European Society of Cardiology system were used for recommendations and levels of evidence. The recommendations were graded from I to III, and levels of evidence were classified as A, B, or C. This guideline is divided into 11 chapters dealing with the various aspects of extracranial cerebrovascular disease: diagnosis, treatments and complications, based on up-to-date knowledge and the recommendations proposed by SBACV.

Complications and outcomes of carotid artery stenting in high-risk cases

OBJECTIVES

Carotid artery stenting is sometimes adapted for some at-risk cases; however, appropriate treatment timing with stroke onset is controversial. This study aims to identify factors that have an impact on complications and outcomes, especially in patients at high risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined the characteristics of 152 consecutive patients treated by carotid artery stenting between January 2018 and March 2022 and retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for complications and poor outcomes (modified-Rankin-Scale deterioration), such as patient background, carotid artery stenting risks (access route tortuosity, severe calcification, vulnerable plaque, estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, etc.), characteristics of the stenosis, details of treatment, and treatment timing.

RESULTS

The average North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria score was 68.3% and the lesion length was 20.5±9.7mm. Among patients, 107 (70.4%) had a carotid artery stenting risk. In high-risk carotid artery stenting cases, symptomatic complications occurred in 32 (30.0%), and the 90-day modified Rankin scale score deteriorated in 15 cases (14.0%). Multivariate analysis showed that cases with triple antithrombotic therapy (p=0.003), stenting within 7 days (p=0.0032), and after 28+ days (p=0.0035) of stroke onset were independently associated factors for complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that among risk factors, triple antithrombotic therapy in particular was a risk factor for perioperative complications. Carotid artery stenting for patients with stroke after 28 days of onset affects the prognosis. Therefore, although further study is warranted, waiting more than one month for treatment in patients requiring carotid artery stenting is a potential risk.

NIHSS score at admission can predict functional outcomes in patients with ischemic stroke undergoing carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of present study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score in patients undergoing acute CEA, and to assess clinical and morphological factors that could predict worse outcomes.

METHODS

The data of 183 consecutive patients who have undergone CEA after ischemic stroke was analyzed from January 2015 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups using the NIHSS cut off point of 4. Functional dependence was assessed on hospital discharge and 90 days after.

RESULTS

In total, 102 patients (55.7%) had a minor stroke (Group A: NIHSS ≤ 4), whereas 81 patients (44.3%) had a moderate-major stroke (Group B: NIHSS > 4). Group A and group B showed significant differences in their intracranial anatomic features: presence of incomplete Circle of Willis (7.8% vs 17.3%; p=.05), volume of Cerebral ischemic lesion volume ≥4000 mm³ (5.9 % vs 24.7%; p=<.001), and high ASPECTS of 8 to 10 (75.5% vs 44.4%; p=<.001). The overall rate of combined perioperative stroke/myocardial infarction/death was 1.1%, with no strokes recorded during the waiting time to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Patients in group A had a lower rate of functional dependence at discharge (4.9% vs. 35.8%; p = <.001) and at 90 days after index stroke event (2.5% vs. 19.6%; p = <.001) versus those in group B. Using multivariate binary logistic regression, admission NIHSS>4 was significantly associated with higher odds of functional dependence at discharge (OR= 7.9, 95%CI= 2.7-18.5, p = <.001) and at 90 days (OR= 10.4, 95%CI= 2.7-19.3, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

NIHSS>4 at admission will increase the risk of having higher mRS scores both at hospital discharge and at 90 days after index stroke event. acute CEA was safe and feasible in patients with ischemic stroke, even if they had previously undergone intravenous thrombolysis.

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.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the Management of Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review.

METHODS

We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing 5 questions: medical management vs. carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs. CAS in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible.

RESULTS

Medical management compared to carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in MI compared to CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs. CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using pre-planned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that over the long-term, CEA has superior outcome than transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from PAD, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared to a combined carotid intervention and CABG, had better outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated evidence summary will support the SVS clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2-14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

Emergency Carotid Endarterectomy Instead of Carotid Artery Stenting Reduces Delayed Hemorrhage in Thrombectomy Stroke Patients

PURPOSE

Data in the literature suggest that thrombectomy with emergency carotid artery stenting (CAS) in acute stroke is associated with an increased hemorrhage rate. As we perform thrombectomy with the patient under general anesthesia, we avoid emergency CAS and perform emergency carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as an alternative to CAS in the same anesthesia session in our angiography suite whenever needed and possible.

METHODS

We compared 27 thrombectomy patients with emergency CEA and 62 thrombectomy patients with emergency CAS and glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitors and/or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the same time span.

RESULTS

The symptomatic hemorrhage rate was 0% (0/27) in the CEA group and 8% (5/62) in the CAS group (p = 0.317). The parenchymal hemorrhage rate (PH2) was 7% (2/27) in the CEA group and 16% (10/62) in the CAS group (p = 0.333). Both cases of PH2 in the CEA group occurred during the intervention and were diagnosed on immediate postinterventional imaging, whereas in the CAS group only 2/10 cases of PH2 occurred during the intervention and the remaining 8 PH2 occurred within 3 days after the intervention (p = 0.048). Clinical outcome at 90 days was comparable with 39% of CEA and 51% of CAS patients achieving good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale, mRS 0-2, p = 0.452).

CONCLUSION

The use of CEA is a feasible alternative to CAS in acute stroke and has the advantage that DAPT/GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors are not needed. All PH2 in CEA patients occurred during the intervention, implying that hemorrhage in this group is likely to be caused by reperfusion injury, whereas delayed hemorrhage is likely to be caused by DAPT/GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors.

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 in acute period of ischemic stroke]

A review is devoted to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis in acute period of ischemic stroke. Patient selection criteria, dates of surgical intervention and perioperative risk were analyzed.

Combined surgical and interventional treatment of tandem carotid artery and middle cerebral artery embolus: A case report

BACKGROUND

The 2018 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines for early management of acute ischemic stroke recommend the use of retrievable stents for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery M1 occlusion that can be treated within 6 h from onset. For cases of carotid artery with ipsilateral middle cerebral artery tandem embolization, the operation is more complicated and challenging. We here report a case of a tandem embolism, and the anatomy of the aortic arch was complex. Direct carotid artery incision and thrombectomy can not only prevent the escape of the carotid embolus but also save time during establishment of the thrombectomy access.

CASE SUMMARY

The patient was a 70-year-old man. He was admitted to hospital due to sudden inability to speak and inability to move his right limb for 3 h. Imaging confirmed a diagnosis of a tandem embolism in the left carotid artery with left M1 occlusion. Carotid artery incision thrombectomy combined with stent thrombectomy was performed. The operation was successful, and 24 h later the patient was conscious and mentally competent but had motor aphasia. His bilateral limb muscle strength level was 5, and his neurologic severity scores score was 2.

CONCLUSION

Carotid artery incision thrombectomy combined with stenting for carotid artery plus cerebral artery tandem embolization is clinically feasible. For patients with a complicated aortic arch and an extremely tortuous carotid artery, carotid artery incision can be chosen to establish the interventional path.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Background and Purpose- The purpose of these guidelines is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive set of recommendations in a single document for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. The intended audiences are prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators. These guidelines supersede the 2013 Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines and are an update of the 2018 AIS Guidelines. Methods- Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statements Oversight Committee, representing various areas of medical expertise. Members were not allowed to participate in discussions or to vote on topics relevant to their relations with industry. An update of the 2013 AIS Guidelines was originally published in January 2018. This guideline was approved by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. In April 2018, a revision to these guidelines, deleting some recommendations, was published online by the AHA. The writing group was asked review the original document and revise if appropriate. In June 2018, the writing group submitted a document with minor changes and with inclusion of important newly published randomized controlled trials with >100 participants and clinical outcomes at least 90 days after AIS. The document was sent to 14 peer reviewers. The writing group evaluated the peer reviewers' comments and revised when appropriate. The current final document was approved by all members of the writing group except when relationships with industry precluded members from voting and by the governing bodies of the AHA. These guidelines use the American College of Cardiology/AHA 2015 Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence and the new AHA guidelines format. Results- These guidelines detail prehospital care, urgent and emergency evaluation and treatment with intravenous and intra-arterial therapies, and in-hospital management, including secondary prevention measures that are appropriately instituted within the first 2 weeks. The guidelines support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care in both the prehospital and hospital settings. Conclusions- These guidelines provide general recommendations based on the currently available evidence to guide clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. In many instances, however, only limited data exist demonstrating the urgent need for continued research on treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Thrombolysis is an Independent Risk Factor for Poor Outcome After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Thrombolysis is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke patients presenting in the appropriate time window. Studies suggest that the risk of recurrent ischemia is lower if carotid revascularization is performed early after the index event. The safety of early carotid revascularization in this patient population is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of carotid revascularization in patients who received thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients admitted through the emergency room with a primary diagnosis of carotid stenosis and/or occlusion. Each patient was reviewed for administration of thrombolysis, carotid endarterectomy, (CEA) or carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). Primary endpoints were intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), postprocedural stroke (PPS), poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality. Potential risk factors were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 310 257 patients were analyzed. Patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and underwent either CEA or CAS had a significantly higher risk of developing an ICH or PPS than patients who underwent either CEA or CAS without tPA administration. The increased risk of ICH or PPS in tPA-treated patients who underwent carotid revascularization diminished with time, and became similar to patients who underwent carotid revascularization without tPA administration by 7 d after thrombolysis. Patients who received tPA and underwent CEA or CAS also had higher odds of poor outcome and in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Thrombolysis is a strong risk factor for ICH, PPS, poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality in patients with carotid stenosis/occlusion who undergo carotid revascularization. The increased risk of ICH or PPS due to tPA declines with time after thrombolysis. Delaying carotid revascularization in these patients may therefore be appropriate. This delay, however, will expose these patients to the risk of recurrent stroke. Future studies are needed to determine the relative risks of these 2 adverse events.

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.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Very Urgent Carotid Intervention for Symptomatic Carotid Disease

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing of carotid intervention for symptomatic carotid stenosis remains unclear. The objective was to investigate outcomes of very urgent (< 48 h from neurological event) in comparison to urgent (≥ 48 h from neurological event) carotid intervention for symptomatic carotid disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out of randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting peri-procedural outcomes of carotid intervention in relation to the length of time since the neurological event (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42017075766). Ipsilateral stroke and death were defined as the primary outcome endpoints. Transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and myocardial infarction (MI) were secondary outcome parameters. Comparative outcomes were calculated and reported as dichotomous outcome measures using the odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for very urgent (< 48 h since neurological event) versus urgent (≥ 48 h) intervention. The combined overall effect size was calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies and one RCT representing 5751 interventions, 5385 carotid endarterectomies (CEAs) and 366 carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures, were included in quantitative synthesis. Very urgent carotid intervention was associated with increased risk of stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with urgent carotid intervention (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, p < .001). No significant difference was found in mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.81-2.96, p = .19), TIA (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.55-3.19, p = .52) or MI (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-4.33, p = .64).

CONCLUSIONS

Very urgent carotid intervention was found to be associated with increased risk of stroke.

Timing of carotid endarterectomy after recent minor to moderate stroke

OBJECTIVE

Early carotid endartectomy is generally favored by vascular surgeons in patients after a minor to moderate stroke. Herein, we compared the results of early versus delayed carotid endartectomy in patients presenting with similar National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale findings after a recent minor to moderate stroke.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 101 patients undergoing carotid endartectomy after a recent stroke in the distribution of the branches of the middle cerebral artery with >70% internal carotid artery stenosis from 2000 to February 2018 was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty patients had carotid endartectomy within 2 weeks (group A) and 41 had carotid endartectomy within 2-8 weeks of stroke (group B). Associated factors, such as coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, nicotine abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and renal failure, were similar in both groups. However, there was preponderance of male patients in group B (0.01). In group A, 35 patients presented with minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 1-4) and 25 had a moderate stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 5-15). In group B, 21 had a minor stroke and 20 had a moderate stroke (P = .54). Perioperative stroke occurred in 4 patients in group A and none in group B (P = .14), with perioperative stroke and death rate of 4.0%. Postoperative seizures occurred in 1 patient in group A and three in group B (P = .30).

CONCLUSION

Early as well as delayed carotid endartectomy in patients with minor to moderate stroke results in a satisfactory outcome. To prevent recurrent stroke in the waiting period, early carotid endartectomy should be preferred.

Combined interventional and surgical treatment of tandem middle cerebral artery embolus and internal carotid artery occlusion: case report

Tandem internal carotid artery (ICA) origin occlusion and middle cerebral artery (MCA) thromboembolism is a life-threatening condition with poor neurological outcome. The authors report on a patient presenting with acute ischemic stroke from a tandem ICA and MCA occlusion with penumbra. Emergency MCA mechanical thrombectomy was performed through percutaneous cervical ICA access due to the inability to cross the cervical carotid occlusion. Emergency carotid endarterectomy to reperfuse the poorly collateralized hemisphere and repair the ICA access site was performed 2 hours after completion of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) infusion. This case illustrates the shortest reported interval between tPA infusion and open surgical intervention for carotid revascularization, as well as the role of direct carotid artery access for mechanical thrombectomy. The authors also describe the use of a temporizing femoral artery-to-ICA shunt to maintain cerebral perfusion in the setting of ICA occlusion.

Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: Surgery, Stenting, or Medical Therapy?

OPINION STATEMENT

Symptomatic carotid artery disease is a significant cause of ischemic stroke, and these patients are at high risk for recurrent vascular events. Patients with symptoms of stroke or transient ischemic attack attributable to a significantly stenotic vessel (70-99% luminal narrowing) should be treated with intensive medical therapy. Intensive medical therapy is a combination of pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions consistent with best-known practices as follows: initiation of antiplatelet agent or anticoagulation if medically indicated, high potency statin medication, blood pressure control with goal blood pressure of greater than 140/90, Mediterranean-style diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. Further, patients who have extracranial culprit lesions should be considered for revascularization with either carotid endarterectomy or carotid angioplasty and stenting depending on several factors including the patient's anatomy, age, gender, and procedural risk. Based on current evidence, patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis should be managed with intensive medical therapy, including the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for the first 90 days following the ischemic event. While the literature has shown a stronger benefit of revascularization of extracranial symptomatic disease among certain subgroups of patients with greater than 70% stenosis, there is less benefit from revascularization with endarterectomy in patients with moderate stenosis of 50-69% if the surgeon's risk of perioperative stroke or death rate is greater than 6%.

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

BACKGROUND

The timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is still a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of early carotid interventions in patients treated with thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using prospectively collected data from consecutive patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis within 14 days after the index neurological event during the period from January 2013 to July 2016. Patients who had undergone IVT before CEA were identified. The primary outcome measures were any stroke and death rate at 30 days, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and surgical site bleeding requiring intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were included for the final analysis. Among these, 13 (14.0%) patients had undergone IVT before CEA while 80 (86.0%) patients had CEA only. The median time interval between IVT and CEA was 2 days (range: 0-13). A subgroup of 6 patients underwent CEA within 24 hours of administration of IVT. The 30-day combined stroke and death rate was 7.7% (1 of 13) among patients undergoing IVT before CEA and 5.0% (4 of 80) among those undergoing CEA only (P = 0.690). In the IVT group, there were no cerebral hemorrhages or significant surgical site bleeding events requiring reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience indicates that CEA performed early after IVT for acute ischemic stroke, aiming not only to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence but also to achieve neurological improvement by reperfusion of the ischemic penumbra, may be safe and can lead to favorable outcomes.