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

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.

Risk of Stroke Recurrence After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

To assess if intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) affects the risk of recurrent preoperative cerebrovascular events before carotid surgery or stenting in patients with symptomatic ≥ 50% carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Three cohorts of symptomatic ≥ 50% carotid stenosis patients were merged. To make the control group relevant, we excluded patients not presenting with stroke on the day of symptom onset. The risk of preoperative cerebrovascular events up to 30 days was compared between the IVT-treated and non-IVT-treated.

RESULTS

In total, 316 patients were included, 64 (20%) treated with IVT. Those treated with IVT had similar risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke or retinal artery occlusion (12% at day 7, 12% at day 30) as those not treated (9% at day 7, 15% at day 30; adjusted HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-2.2). There was a tendency (p = 0.09) towards time-dependency in the data where the recurrence risk was higher in IVT-treated at day 0 (6% in IVT-treated, 1% in non-IVT-treated, OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.2-25.4, p = 0.03). This was not significant when adjusting for co-factors (adjusted OR 4.4, 95% CI 0.9-21.8, p = 0.07) and was offset by a later risk decrease, with no remaining risk difference between IVT-treated and non-IVT-treated at day 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous thrombolysis treatment does not seem to affect the risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke in patients with symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis: The risk is high in both IVT-treated and non-IVT-treated. However, there might be a risk increase on the day of IVT treatment that is offset by a risk decrease during the first week.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting has been used effectively to treat internal carotid artery stenosis since 1989 (Mathias et al. in World J Surg. 25(3):328-34, 2001), with refined and expanded techniques and tools presently delivering outstanding results in percutaneous endoluminal treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

PURPOSE

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is directed at interventional radiologists and details the guidelines for carotid artery stenting, as well as the different implementation techniques. In addition to updating all previously published material on the different clinical indications, it will provide all technical details reflective of European practice for carotid artery stenting. CIRSE Standards of Practice documents do not aim to implement a standard of clinical patient care, but rather to provide a realistic strategy and best practices for the execution of this procedure.

METHODS

The writing group, which was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee, consisted of five clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in carotid artery stenting procedures. The writing group reviewed existing literature on carotid artery stenting procedures, performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select relevant publications in the English language from 2006 to 2022.

RESULTS

Carotid artery stenting has an established role in the management of internal carotid artery stenosis; this Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for its safe performance.

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.

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.