A Clinical Validation Study of Anatomical Risk Scoring for Procedural Stroke in Patients Treated by Carotid Artery Stenting in the International Carotid Stenting Study

Unmasking the hidden culprit: Recurrent syncope in a 62-year-old man linked to severe internal carotid artery stenosis

Syncope, a brief loss of consciousness, has many potential causes, with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis being a relatively uncommon but serious one. We present the case of a 62-year-old man from Dhaka, Bangladesh, who experienced recurrent syncope over 6 months, characterized by a brief loss of consciousness, occasional dizziness, and blurred vision. Despite a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, initial cardiac and neurogenic investigations were inconclusive. Magnetic resonance angiography revealed 90% stenosis of the right ICA, which was confirmed by digital subtraction angiography. The patient was treated with antiplatelet therapy, statins, and antihypertensives, and underwent carotid artery stenting. His postoperative recovery was uneventful, and he remained symptom-free during follow-up. This case underscores the importance of considering ICA stenosis in patients with recurrent syncope and comorbid vascular disease, particularly in resource-limited settings where timely diagnosis and intervention can prevent serious cerebrovascular complications.

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.

Guideline on carotid surgery for stroke prevention: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. A trend towards personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

This guideline (GL) on carotid surgery as updating of "Stroke: Italian guidelines for Prevention and Treatment" of the ISO-SPREAD Italian Stroke Organization-Group, has recently been published in the National Guideline System and shared with the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and other Scientific Societies and Patient's Association.

METHODS

GRADE-SIGN version, AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions formulated according to the PICO model. Recommendations developed based on clinical questions by a multidisciplinary experts' panel and patients' representatives. Systematic reviews performed for each PICO question. Considered judgements filled by assessing the evidence level, direction, and strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel provided indications and recommendations for appropriate, comprehensive, and individualized management of patients with carotid stenosis. Diagnostic and therapeutic processes of the best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) according to the evidences and the judged opinions were included. Symptomatic carotid stenosis in elective and emergency, asymptomatic carotid stenosis, association with ischemic heart disease, preoperative diagnostics, types of anesthesia, monitoring in case of CEA, CEA techniques, comparison between CEA and CAS, post-surgical carotid restenosis, and medical therapy are the main topics, even with analysis of uncertainty areas for risk-benefit assessments in the individual patient (personalized medicine [PM]).

CONCLUSIONS

This GL updates on the main recommendations for the most appropriate diagnostic and medical-surgical management of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. This GL also provides useful elements for the application of PM in good clinical practice.

Predicting Transcarotid Artery Revascularization adverse outcomes by Imaging Characteristics

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 20-30% of ischemic strokes are caused by internal carotid artery stenosis. Stroke is the leading cause of disability and the second leading cause of death in the United States. Second generation Trans Carotid Arterial Revascularization (TCAR) stenting, using the ENROUTE flow reversal technology to prevent embolic stroke during the stenting process, has demonstrated stroke and death outcomes equivalent to CEA with reduced cranial nerve injury. However, at present, it is not known whether imaging characteristics obtained pre-operatively can predict outcomes of TCAR procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TCAR with flow reversal at 3 hospitals within a single hospital network who had CT angiography, MRI angiography or pre-operative diagnostic angiogram to determine whether carotid and lesion characteristics could predict patients who experienced Major Adverse Critical Events (MACE) versus those who did not. MACE was defined as myocardial infarction at 30 days, restenosis/persistent stenosis (peak systolic velocity within the stent >230cm/sec by post-operative ultrasound), stroke within any time of follow up or death within 1 year of TCAR. Student's t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to compare imaging characteristics, such as presence of pinpoint stenosis, calcification within the common carotid artery (CCA) at the take-off from the aorta, and plaque length in millimeters. Binomial logistic regression was used to examine the likelihood that imaging characteristics were associated with MACE.

RESULTS

Of 220 patients who underwent TCAR in our network, 7 were excluded because flow reversal was not used or appropriate imaging had not been performed prior to TCAR. Of the 213 patients that were included in analysis, the median length of follow up was 10.8 months (IQR: 3.4-33.1 months). Twelve percent (26/213) experienced a MACE, and a model based on imaging characteristics was statistically significant in predicting MACE with 68% accuracy (P=0.005). The presence of pinpoint stenosis was highly predictive of MACE (HR: 3.34, CI: 1.2 to 9.3, P=0.021). A shorter clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance was associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing a MACE (P=0.009), but it was weakly predictive (HR 1.03, CI: 1.01 to 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative imaging characteristics, such as pinpoint stenosis and clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance, can be used to predict adverse outcomes in TCAR placement.

External Validation of Risk Prediction Models to Improve Selection of Patients for Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The net benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is determined partly by the risk of procedural stroke or death. Current guidelines recommend CEA if 30-day risks are <6% for symptomatic stenosis and <3% for asymptomatic stenosis. We aimed to identify prediction models for procedural stroke or death after CEA and to externally validate these models in a large registry of patients from the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for prediction models of procedural outcomes after CEA. We validated these models with data from patients who underwent CEA in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017). We assessed discrimination using C statistics and calibration graphically. We determined the number of patients with predicted risks that exceeded recommended thresholds of procedural risks to perform CEA.

RESULTS

After screening 788 reports, 15 studies describing 17 prediction models were included. Nine were developed in populations including both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, 2 in symptomatic and 5 in asymptomatic populations. In the external validation cohort of 26 293 patients who underwent CEA, 702 (2.7%) developed a stroke or died within 30-days. C statistics varied between 0.52 and 0.64 using all patients, between 0.51 and 0.59 using symptomatic patients, and between 0.49 to 0.58 using asymptomatic patients. The Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry model that included symptomatic status, diabetes, heart failure, and contralateral occlusion as predictors, had C statistic of 0.64 and the best concordance between predicted and observed risks. This model identified 4.5% of symptomatic and 2.1% of asymptomatic patients with procedural risks that exceeded recommended thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 17 externally validated prediction models, the Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry risk model had most reliable predictions of procedural stroke or death after CEA and can inform patients about procedural hazards and help focus CEA toward patients who would benefit most from it.

Renal Dysfunction is the Strongest Prognostic Factor After Carotid Artery Stenting According to Real-World Data

PURPOSE

Through the progression of devices, the adaptation of carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been expanded according to the non-inferiority of CAS for carotid endarterectomy reported by several randomized control trials. To maintain favorable outcomes, identifying prognostic factors is essential for optimizing treatment indications and periprocedural management. This study focused on the prognostic factors of CAS using real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study aimed to identify the prognostic factors after CAS using real-world data from the stroke registry of Yokohama (STrOke Registry of Yokohama; STORY) from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2021. Patient characteristics, procedural factors, complications, and prognoses were collected using medical records.

RESULTS

Data from 107 patients were enrolled in this study after excluding those with insufficient data (2 cases). The mean participant age was 74.9±8.2 years, and 66 patients (61.7%) were symptomatic. Symptomatic lesions were a significant prognostic factor in the overall analysis (p=0.003). A multivariate analysis showed that the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (odds ratio: 1.11, p=0.003) and staged CAS (odds ratio: 38.9, p=0.04) were independent prognostic factors. The odds ratio and relative risk of mRS deterioration when eGFR was under 49 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with when eGFR was above 49 mL/min/1.73 m² were 5.2 and 3.74, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world multicenter study, we established independent prognostic factors for CAS using high totality data. For patients with symptomatic lesions and low eGFR (≤49 mL/min/1.73 m²), indication for treatment should be considered strictly.

Anatomical Considerations for Endovascular Intervention for Extracranial Carotid Disease: A Review of the Literature and Recommended Guidelines

Patient selection for endovascular intervention in extracranial carotid disease is centered on vascular anatomy. We review anatomical considerations for non-traumatic disease and offer guidelines in patient selection and management. We conducted a systematic literature review without meta-analysis for studies involving anatomical considerations in extracranial carotid intervention for non-traumatic disease. Anatomical considerations discussed included aortic arch variants, degree of vessel stenosis, angulation, tortuosity, and anomalous origins, and atheromatous plaque morphology, composition, and location. Available literature suggests that anatomical risks of morbidity are largely secondary to increased procedural times and difficulties in intervention system delivery. We recommend the prioritization of endovascular techniques on an individual basis in cases where accessible systems and surgeon familiarity provide an acceptable likelihood of rapid access and device deployment.

Poor concordance between definitions of type III arch and implications for risk prediction and assessment for carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The type III arch configuration has been inconsistently reported as a stroke risk factor during carotid artery stenting. However, at least three different methods for the definition of type III arch can be identified in the literature, related to the level of the origin of the innominate artery (IA). According to Casserly's definition, a type III arch presents with an origin of the IA below the horizontal plane of the inner curvature. According to Madhwal's definition, a type III arch has a distance greater than twice the diameter of the left common carotid artery between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. According to MacDonald's definition, a type III arch presents with a distance of ≥2 cm between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. Our aim was to assess the level of concordance between these different methods.

METHODS

Anonymized thoracic computed tomography scans of 100 healthy patients were reviewed. Two of us independently stratified the selected cases as a type I to III arch, according to the three considered definitions. The interobserver level of concordance for each type III arch classification and level of concordance among the three definitions were assessed.

RESULTS

The 100 selected patients (64% male) were 76 ± 7 years old. For each definition, the interobserver repeatability was almost perfect for all three (Madhwal, κ = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.99; MacDonald, κ = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; Casserly, κ = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). The level of concordance among the different definitions was very low (Madhwal vs MacDonald, 85% [P = .002]; 33% for type III arch; Madhwal vs Casserly, 60% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch; MacDonald vs Casserly, 75% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch).

CONCLUSIONS

The three definitions of the type III arch have a very low level of concordance, which might account for the varying clinical relevance of this configuration. Our findings have relevant implications for risk prediction for carotid artery stenting based on the presence of a type III arch, for comparisons of the results from different studies, and for comparisons of different datasets from multicenter trials.

Type III Arch Configuration as a Risk Factor for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Guidelines on Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Type III arch configuration is frequently reported as a stroke risk factor for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). We reviewed contemporary guidelines on management of carotid artery stenosis to assess the clinical relevance attributed to this anatomic feature in current clinical practice.

METHODS

The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all guidelines on extracranial carotid disease published between January 2008 and March 2020. A total of 435 articles were screened. For multiple guidelines from the same writing group, only the most recent updated version was considered. Eighteen documents were identified for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Four guidelines specifically reported type III arch as a predictive factor of periprocedural complications after CAS. Two of them also provided a low level of evidence of their recommendation. None of the documents indicated the exact criteria for aortic arch classification. Three different methods to describe type III arch configuration were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Type III arch configuration is inconsistently included among stroke risk factors for CAS in contemporary guidelines, and variably defined. Further studies on the level of concordance between the 3 existing definition criteria are warranted.