Carotid Endarterectomy Following Intravenous Thrombolysis in the UK

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.

Complications of Carotid Interventions for Symptomatic Lesions after Systemic Thrombolysis

BACKGROUND

Series detailing complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS) for patients presenting with neurologic symptoms that are treated with systemic thrombolysis (ST) are sparse. We sought to determine if treatment with ST was associated with a higher rate of post-carotid intervention complications.

METHODS

A multispecialty, institutional, prospectively maintained database was queried for symptomatic patients treated with CEA or tfCAS from 2007 to 2019. The primary outcomes of interest were bleeding complications (access/wound complications, hematuria, intracranial hemorrhage) or need for reintervention, stroke, and death. We compared rates of these outcomes between patients who were and were not treated with ST. To adjust for preoperative patient factors and confounding variables, propensity scores for assignment to ST and non-ST were calculated.

RESULTS

There were 1,139 patients included (949 [82%] CEA and 190 [17%] tfCAS. All treated lesions were symptomatic (550 [48%] stroke, 603 [52%] transient ischemic attack). Fifty-six patients (5%) were treated with ST. Fifteen of 56 patients also underwent catheter-based intervention for stroke. ST was administered 0 to 1 day preoperatively in 21 (38%) patients, 2 to 6 days preoperatively in 27 (48%) patients, and greater than 6 days preoperatively in 8 (14%) patients. ST patients were more likely to present with stroke (93% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and have higher preoperative Rankin scores. Unadjusted rate of bleeding/return to operating room was 3% for ST group and 3% for non-ST group (P = 0.60). Unadjusted rate of stroke was 4% for ST group and 3% for the non-ST group (P = 0.91), while perioperative mortality was 5% for ST group and 1% for non-ST group (P = 0.009). After adjusting for patient factors, preoperative antiplatelet/anticoagulation, and operative factors, ST was not associated with an increased odds of perioperative bleeding/return to the operating room (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.63; P = 0.309) or stroke (odds ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-2.40; P = 0.493).

CONCLUSIONS

ST does not convey a higher risk of complications after CEA or tfCAS. After controlling for other factors, patients that received ST had similar rates of local complications and stroke when compared to non-ST patients. Early carotid intervention is safe in patients that have received ST, and delays should be avoided in symptomatic patients given the high risk of recurrent stroke.

Carotid Endarterectomy After Intracranial Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Recent randomised controlled trials demonstrated the benefit of intracranial endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischaemic stroke. There is no consensus, however, on how to treat concomitant extracranial carotid artery stenosis after EVT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome in patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after EVT, comparing complication rates among patients undergoing CEA for stroke without previous EVT.

METHODS

This was a registry study of all patients (n = 3 780) treated with CEA after stroke in Sweden and the capital Helsinki region, Finland, from January 2011 to September 2020. Sixty three patients (1.7%; 0.5% 2011, 4.3% 2019) underwent EVT prior to CEA. The primary outcome was 30 day stroke and death rate.

RESULTS

The EVT+CEA group had major stroke as the qualifying neurological event (QNE) in 79%, but just 5.9% had this in the CEA only group (p < .001). Intravenous thrombolysis was administered before EVT in 54% of patients in the EVT+CEA group, but in just 12% in those receiving CEA only (p < .001). The combined stroke and death rate at 30 days for EVT+CEA was 0.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0 - 5.7). One patient had a post-operative TIA, none had post-operative intracerebral or surgical site haemorrhage. CEA was performed within a median of seven days (interquartile range 4, 15) after QNE, and 75% had CEA ≤14 days from QNE. The main reason to postpone CEA was an infarct larger than one third of the middle cerebral artery territory. The stroke and death rate in patients treated with CEA only was 3.7% (95% CI 3.2 - 4.4), CEA was performed a median of eight days after QNE, and in 79.7% in ≤14 days. The three year survival after EVT+CEA was 93% (95% CI 85 - 100), compared with 87% (95% CI 86 - 88) after CEA only. Cox regression analysis adjusting for age showed no increased all cause mortality after EVT+CEA (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 - 2.7, p = .52).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that CEA is safe to perform after previous successful EVT for acute ischaemic stroke. Results were comparable with those undergoing CEA only, despite the EVT+CEA patients having more severe stroke symptoms prior to surgery, and timing was similar.

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.