Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: Results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy

Comparison of Perioperative Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Current management guidelines for the treatment of carotid stenosis are controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and endarterectomy.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 10, 2022, for randomized controlled trials that compared CAS with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among patients with carotid stenosis. The analyzed outcomes mainly included stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), cranial nerve palsy, the cumulative incidence of mortality, stroke, or MI and the cumulative incidence of death or stroke in the perioperative periods. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated and pooled. Subgroup analyses were based on whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials with 12,277 participants (6514 and 5763 in the CAS and CEA groups, respectively) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that compared with CEA, CAS was associated with decreased risks of perioperative MI (RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.29∼0.77) and perioperative cranial nerve palsy (RR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01∼0.06) but higher risks of perioperative stroke (RR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.18∼1.87) and cumulative incidence of death or stroke (RR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.20∼1.93).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative safety was equivalent between CAS and CEA. However, CEA may be preferred when considering both procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke.

Risk Factors for Carotid Restenosis in Patients After Eversion Endarterectomy vs Stenting: A Single-Center Experience

The primary aim of the presented study is to analyze and compare the rate of carotid restenosis in patients after eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA), primary carotid angioplasty and stenting (CASp), and stenting for carotid artery restenosis after previous eCEA (CASr). The secondary aim is to compare clinical outcomes in patients with carotid restenosis. The total number of patients with evident carotid restenosis was 223 (24.8%). In patients with eCEA, significant carotid restenosis rate was 12.7%, in the CASp group 18.7%, and CASr 6.7%. Patients with carotid restenosis were asymptomatic in 95.1% of cases. Patients in the CASp group experienced transient ischemic attack more than patients with eCEA (P = .007), while no difference was observed regarding cerebrovascular insult (CVI). The incidence of carotid restenosis was higher in CASp patients, and increased during the follow-up. The majority of patients are asymptomatic post-procedural and the degree of carotid restenosis does not correlate with the occurrence of postoperative symptoms. High low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, smoking, and a history of vascular surgery correlate with higher degrees of carotid restenosis. The most important factor in the prevention of carotid restenosis is risk factor control as well as adequate pharmacological therapy.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Stenting in Patients with Isolated Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis or Post-Surgical Restenosis

The aim was to evaluate the outcome of stenting in patients with isolated distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or post-surgical restenosis, as no data are currently available in the literature. Sixty-six patients (men, N = 53; median age: 66 [IQR, 61–73] years) with ≥50% distal ICA (re)stenosis were included in this single-center retrospective study. The narrowest part of the (re)stenosis was at least 20 mm from the bifurcation in all patients. Patients were divided into two etiological groups, atherosclerotic (AS, N = 40) and post-surgical restenotic (RES, N = 26). Postprocedural neurological events were observed in two patients (5%) in the AS group and in two patients (7.7%) in the RES group. The median follow-up time was 40 (IQR, 18–86) months. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group had an in-stent restenosis (ISR) ≥ 50%, but none in the RES group. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group and seven patients (26.9%) in the RES group died. None of the deaths in the RES group were directly related to stenting itself. The early neurological complication rate of stenting due to distal ICA (re)stenoses is acceptable. However, the mid-term mortality rate of stenting for distal ICA post-surgical restenoses is high, indicating the vulnerability of this subgroup.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

ANALYSIS OF SPIN IN VASCULAR SURGERY RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS WITH NONSIGNIFICANT OUTCOMES

OBJECTIVES

Spin is the manipulation of language that distorts the interpretation of objective findings. The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of spin found in statistically nonsignificant randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis (CS), and endovascular repair (EVAR) to open repair (OR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials was performed in June 2020 for studies published describing AAA or CS. All phase three RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes comparing OR to EVAR or CEA to CAS were included. Studies were appraised for the characteristics and severity of spin using a validated tool. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the association of spin grade to (1) funding source (commercial vs non-commercial) and (2) the publishing journal's impact factor.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 355 articles captured were included for analysis. Spin was identified in nine abstracts (9/18) and 13 main texts (13/18) of AAA articles and seven abstracts (7/13) and ten main texts (10/13) of CS articles. For both AAA and CS articles, spin was most commonly found in the manuscript discussion section, with the most commonly employed strategy being the interpretation of statistically nonsignificant primary results to show treatment equivalence or rule out adverse treatment effects. Increasing journal impact factor was associated with a statistically significant lower likelihood of spin in the study title or abstract conclusion (βOR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94 - 0.98, p < 0.01) while no significant association could be found with funding source (βOR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.30-5.92, p = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of statistically nonsignificant RCTs contain interpretations that are inconsistent with their results. These findings should prompt authors and readers to appraise study findings independently and to limit the use of spin in study interpretations.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

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.

Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series

Background: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. Methods: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. Results: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77–1.25; I² = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72–1.48; I² = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82–1.21; I² = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0–2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0–2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that “real-world” outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.

Methodological quality and redundancy of systematic reviews that compare endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid stenosis

A review of systematic reviews (SRs) and a critical appraisal study was conducted at Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). The objectives of this review are (1) to identify all published SRs comparing the effectiveness and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenosis, (2) to assess their methodological quality and (3) to compare the primary studies contained in each SR. We included 17 SRs published between 2005 and 2017. None of the SRs fulfilled all items of AMSTAR-2. The overall confidence in the results was graded as critically low for 16 SRs (94%) and low for 1 SR (6%). Five items were judged inadequate in all SRs: reference to a published protocol, explanation to the selection of study design, comprehensive search of the literature, methods for statistical combination of findings and consideration of the risk of bias on the results of meta-analysis. In total, 15 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included at least in one SR. The number of included RCTs in each SR was inconsistent (4 to 15) and was not related to the year of publication of the SR. Our study found redundant and low methodological quality SR comparing CAS versus CEA for carotid stenosis.

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.

Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Editor's Choice - Overview of Primary and Secondary Analyses From 20 Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Carotid Artery Stenting With Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to carry out primary and secondary analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 20 RCTs (126 publications) was carried out.

RESULTS

Compared with CEA, the 30 day death/stroke rate was significantly higher after CAS in seven RCTs involving 3467 asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.64) and in 10 RCTs involving 5797 symptomatic patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38-2.11). Excluding procedural risks, late ipsilateral stroke was about 4% at 9 years for both CEA and CAS, i.e., CAS was durable. Reducing procedural death/stroke after CAS may be achieved through better case selection, e.g., performing CEA in (i) symptomatic patients aged > 70 years; (ii) interventions within 14 days of symptom onset; and (iii) situations where stroke risk after CAS is predicted to be higher (segmental/remote plaques, plaque length > 13 mm, heavy burden of white matter lesions [WMLs], where two or more stents might be needed). New WMLs were significantly more common after CAS (52% vs. 17%) and were associated with higher rates of late stroke/transient ischaemic attack (23% vs. 9%), but there was no evidence that new WMLs predisposed towards late cognitive impairment. Restenoses were more common after CAS (10%) but did not increase late ipsilateral stroke. Restenoses (70%-99%) after CEA were associated with a small but significant increase in late ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.96-7.67; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS confers higher rates of 30 day death/stroke than CEA. After 30 days, ipsilateral stroke is virtually identical for CEA and CAS. Key issues to be resolved include the following: (i) Will newer stent technologies and improved cerebral protection allow CAS to be performed < 14 days after symptom onset with risks similar to CEA? (ii) What is the optimal volume of CAS procedures to maintain competency? (iii) How to deliver better risk factor control and best medical treatment? (iv) Is there a role for CEA/CAS in preventing/reversing cognitive impairment?

Timing of carotid intervention

Flimsy evidence

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.

Influence of stenting with open-cell stents vs close-cell stents on the outcomes of patients with bilateral carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an effective way to prevent stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. However, several studies comparing the outcomes of stenting with open-cell stents (OCS) vs closed-cell stents (CCS) have yielded inconclusive results. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CAS with OCS vs CCS in the same patients.

METHODS

From year 2000 to 2016, we included 52 patients with severe bilateral carotid stenosis who underwent OCS deployment in one artery and CCS deployment in the contralateral artery. Stents were selected according to arterial anatomy and lesion morphology, and the peri-procedural and long-term outcomes of treatment with OCS vs CCS, were compared in terms of rates of ischemic spot development on early post-procedural diffusion-weighted imaging (ISDWI), in-stent restenosis (ISR), and recurrent stroke.

RESULTS

After stenting with OCS vs CCS, the number (rate) of arteries with no lesion, < 5 lesions, and ≥ 5 lesions on DWI was 9 (32%) vs 8 (27%), 8 (29%) vs 17 (57%), and 11 (39%) vs 5 (17%) (p = .10); number (rate) of arteries with 0%, < 50%, and >50% ISR was 34 (65%) vs 34 (65%), 9 (17%) vs 11 (21%), and 9 (17%) vs 7 (13%) (p = .71); number (rate) of recurrent strokes after CAS was 2 (4%) vs 0 (0%).

CONCLUSION

The rates of peri-procedural cerebral ischemic insult, long-term stent patency, and stroke recurrence indicate that no one carotid stent cell design is superior to the other. We suggest both OCS and CCS are reasonable options for the treatment of severe carotid stenosis.

Carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy in the management of carotid artery stenosis: Lessons learned from randomized controlled trials

Background:

Carotid artery stenosis, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, has been well studied with several multicenter randomized trials. The superiority of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to medical therapy alone in both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis has been well established in previous trials in the 1990s. The consequent era of endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) has offered another option for treating carotid artery stenosis. A series of randomized trials have now been conducted to compare CEA and CAS in the treatment of carotid artery disease. The large number of similar trials has created some confusion due to inconsistent results. Here, the authors review the trials that compare CEA and CAS in the management of carotid artery stenosis.

Methods:

The PubMed database was searched systematically for randomized controlled trials published in English that compared CEA and CAS. Only human studies on adult patients were assessed. The references of identified articles were reviewed for additional manuscripts to be included if inclusion criteria were met. The following terms were used during search: carotid stenosis, endarterectomy, stenting. Retrospective or single-center studies were excluded from the review.

Results:

Thirteen reports of seven large-scale prospective multicenter studies, comparing both interventions for symptomatic or asymptomatic extracranial carotid artery stenosis, were identified.

Conclusions:

While the superiority of intervention to medical management for symptomatic patients has been well established in the literatures, careful selection of asymptomatic patients for intervention should be undertaken and only be pursued after institution of appropriate medical therapy until further reports on trials comparing medical therapy to intervention in this patient group are available.

Endarterectomy versus stenting for stroke prevention

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has recently prepared updated guidelines for the management of patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid artery disease, with specific reference to the roles of best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). In symptomatic patients, there is a drive towards performing carotid interventions as soon as possible after onset of symptoms. This is because it is now recognised that the highest risk period for recurrent stroke is the first 7–14 days after onset of symptoms. The guidelines advise that there is a role for both CEA and CAS, but the levels of evidence are slightly lower for CAS than for CEA. This is because 30-day risks of death/stroke in the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were significantly higher than after CEA (especially in the first 7–14 days after onset of symptoms) and there are concerns that the results obtained in the RCTs may not be generalisable into routine clinical practice. In asymptomatic patients, the 2018 ESVS guidelines were the first to recommend that CEA/CAS should be targeted into a smaller cohort of patients who may be ‘higher risk for stroke’ on medical therapy. As with symptomatic patients, the ESVS guidelines advise that there is a potential role for both CEA and CAS, but the levels of evidence are again slightly lower for CAS than for CEA. This is because 30-day risks of death/stroke in the two largest RCTs, which used credentialed (experienced CAS practitioners), were only just within the accepted 3% risk threshold and there remain concerns that the results obtained in RCTs may not be generalisable into routine clinical practice.

Comparison of long-term results of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis

This article summarizes the current study situation on treatment of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and discusses the evidence situation in the literature. The 10-year results of the ACST study have shown that in comparison to conservative treatment, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has retained a positive long-term effect on the reduction of all forms of stroke. All multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing CEA with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and, in particular the SAPHIRE and CAVATAS studies, have in common that despite a basic evidence level of Ib, the case numbers of asymptomatic patients are too small for a conclusive therapy recommendation. In the overall assessment of the CREST study the resulting difference in the questionable endpoint of “perioperative myocardial infarction” in favor of the CAS methods, could not be confirmed for exclusively asymptomatic patients. In the long-term course of the CREST study, both methods were classified as equivalent, even when the 4‑year results of periprocedural and postprocedural stroke rates in the separate assessment of the asymptomatic study participants clearly favored the CEA. The results of the ACST-1 study showed an equivalent effect of both treatment methods with respect to all investigated endpoints; however, the unequal sizes of the groups in addition to the statistically insufficient case numbers put a question mark on the validity of the study results. The results of the ASCT-2 and CREST-2 studies are to be awaited, which also investigate the significance of “CEA versus CAS” (ASCT-2) and “CEA/CAS + best medical treatment (BMT) versus BMT alone” in only asymptomatic stenoses. The current S3 guidelines allow operative therapy to be considered in patients with a 60–99% asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, because the risk of stroke is statistically significantly reduced.

Predictors of Perioperative Stroke/Death after Carotid Artery Stenting: A Review Article

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Only a few studies have analyzed clinical/anatomical and technical variables that affect perioperative outcomes of CAS. Following a comprehensive Medline search, it was reported that clinical factors, including age of >80 years, chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus, symptomatic indications, and procedures performed within 2 weeks of transient ischemic attack symptoms, are associated with high perioperative stroke and death rates. They also highlighted that angiographic variables, e.g., ulcerated and calcified plaques, left carotid intervention, >90% stenosis, >10-mm target lesion length, ostial involvement, type III aortic arch, and >60°-angulated internal carotid and common carotid arteries, are predictors of increased stroke rates. Technical factors associated with increased perioperative risk of stroke include percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) without embolic protection devices, PTA before stent placement, and the use of multiple stents. This review describes the most widely quoted data in defining various predictors of perioperative stroke and death after CAS. (This is a review article based on the invited lecture of the 45th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for Vascular Surgery.)

Long-term efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Many recent trials have investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of endarterectomy versus stenting in treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. We aimed to determine the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of both procedures by pooling this evidence in a meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published until May 6, 2016. Randomized controlled trials, which reported outcomes of interest with a median follow-up of at least 4-year, were included.

Results

Eight trials involving 7005 patients and 41824 patient-years of follow-up were included. In terms of the periprocedural outcomes, stenting was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80; P = 0.003) but a higher risk of death or stroke (the composite endpoint, OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.25; P < 0.0001), a result that was primarily driven by minor stroke (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.01; P < 0.0001), less so by periprocedural death (OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.44; P = 0.16) and major stroke (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.09; P = 0.09). In terms of the long-term outcomes, stenting was associated with a higher risk of stroke (OR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.73; P < 0.0001) and the composite outcome of death or stroke (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.48; P = 0.01). No difference was found in long-term all-cause mortality between stenting and endarterectomy (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.26; P = 0.21) and restenosis (OR: 1.48 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.35; P = 0.10). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was found in any of the analyses.

Conclusions

Carotid endarterectomy was found to be superior to stenting for short- and long-term outcomes, although endarterectomy was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. Carotid endarterectomy should be offered as the first choice for carotid stenosis at present, however, more evidence is needed because rapid progress in concurrent devices and medical treatments is being made.

Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid angioplasty for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CE) compared with carotid angioplasty (CA) in preventing stroke. Whether the use of CE is more efficient in preventing stroke than CA is a matter of debate.

METHODS

Data were gathered from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of CE compared with CA on the risk of stroke. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were performed to identify studies till November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials performed on patients who received either CE or CA for stroke prevention were included.

RESULTS

Nine relevant trials (n = 7163) that met the inclusion criteria were identified. In a pooled analysis, CE resulted in 35 % reduction in relative risk (RR) for short-term stroke [RR, 0.65; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.89; P = 0.007)] and 22 % reduction in RR for long-term stroke (RR, 0.78; 95 % CI: 0.66-0.93; P = 0.006) relative to CA. However, CE also increased the risk of 30-day myocardial infarction by 114 % compared with CA (RR, 2.14; 95 % CI: 1.30-3.53; P = 0.003). Sensitivity analyses suggested that CE might influence the risk of 30-day major vascular events and 1-year major vascular events compared with CA.

CONCLUSIONS

CE could reduce the risk of stroke (whether short term or long term), but resulted in a relative increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. This study might guide appropriate judgments about treatment approach. It also provided evidence to justify general guidelines for patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate both short-term and long-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials Register Centers, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. After identifying relevant randomized controlled trials, methodological quality was assessed by using Cochrane tools of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan software, and subgroup analyses according to different follow-up periods were also conducted.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles of nine randomized controlled trials containing 6,984 patients were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with high risks of stroke during periprocedural 30 days (risk ratio [RR]=1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.88), 48 months (RR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.70), and >48 months (RR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.34-2.31). There was no significant difference in the aspects of death, disabling stroke, or death at any time between the groups. For other periprocedural complications, CAS decreased the risk of myocardial infarction (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75), cranial nerve palsy (RR=0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.22) and hematoma (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68) compared with CEA, while it increased the risk of bradycardia or hypotension (RR=8.45, 95% CI 2.91-24.58).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CEA, CAS reduced hematoma, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and cranial nerve palsy, while it was associated with higher risks of both short-term and long-term nondisabling stroke. And they seemed to be equivalent in other outcome measures. As regards to its minimal invasion, it should be applied only in specific patients.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study

There are disparities among the results of meta-analyses under different circumstances of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. This study aimed to assess the efficacies of CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis at 5-year intervals and worldwide.Comparative studies simultaneously reporting CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis with at least 10 patients in each group were identified by searching PubMed and Embase in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles.The studies were stratified into different subgroups according to the publication year, location in which the study was mainly performed, and randomized and nonrandomized study designs.Thirty-five comparative studies encompassing 27,525 patients were identified. The risk ratios (RRs) of stroke/death when CAS was compared with CEA within 30 d of treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.32-1.74, P < 0.001) for overall, 1.50 (95% CI 1.14-1.98, P = 0.004) from 2011 to 2015, 1.61 (95% CI 1.35-1.91, P < 0.001) from 2006 to 2010, 1.59 (95% CI 1.27-1.99, P < 0.001) in North America, 1.50 (95% CI 1.24-1.81, P < 0.001) in Europe, 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.02, P < 0.001) for randomized, and 1.44 (95% CI 1.20-1.73, P < 0.001) for nonrandomized comparative studies. CEA decreased the risks of transient ischemic attack at 30 d (RR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.50-2.85, P < 0.001) and restenosis at 1-year (RR: 1.97, 95% CI 1.28-3.05, P = 0.002). Data from follow-up showed that the RRs of stroke/death were 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99, P = 0.04) at 1 year, 1.24 (95% CI 1.04-1.46, P = 0.01) at 4 year, and 2.27 (95% CI 1.39-3.71, P = 0.001) at 10 year. This systematic review, compared with those of other meta-analyses, included all available comparative studies and analyzed them at 5-year intervals, in different continents, and under different study designs. Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of CEA is superior to CAS for freedom from stroke/death within 30 d, especially from 2006 to 2015, in North America and Europe. Meanwhile, the superiority was also observed for restenosis at 1-year, transient ischemic attack within 30 d, and stroke/death at 4- and 10-year follow-ups.

Stenting or endarterectomy for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis

Carotid artery stenting is a less invasive alternative to endarterectomy to treat symptomatic carotid stenosis. Clinical trials showed a higher periprocedural risk of nondisabling stroke with stenting, and a higher periprocedural risk of myocardial infarction, cranial nerve palsy, and access site hematoma with endarterectomy. The excess in procedure-related strokes with stenting is mainly seen in patients aged 70 and over. After the procedural period, stenting and endarterectomy are equally effective in preventing stroke and recurrent carotid stenosis in the medium to long term. The choice of stenting versus endarterectomy should take into account risks of both procedures in individual patients.

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background:

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

Methods:

A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity.

Results:

Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21).

Conclusions:

In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications.

When is carotid angioplasty and stenting the cost-effective alternative for revascularization of symptomatic carotid stenosis? A Canadian health system perspective

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid revascularization procedures can be complicated by stroke. Additional disability adds to the already high costs of the procedure. To weigh the cost and benefit, we estimated the cost-utility of carotid angioplasty and stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, with special emphasis on scenario analyses that would yield carotid angioplasty and stenting as the cost-effective alternative relative to carotid endarterectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the health system payer was performed by using a Markov analytic model. Clinical estimates were based on a meta-analysis. The procedural costs were derived from a microcosting data base. The costs for hospitalization and rehabilitation of patients with stroke were based on a Canadian multicenter study. Utilities were based on a randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, carotid angioplasty and stenting were more expensive (incremental cost of $6107) and had a lower utility (-0.12 quality-adjusted life years) than carotid endarterectomy. The results are sensitive to changes in the risk of clinical events and the relative risk of death and stroke. Carotid angioplasty and stenting were more economically attractive among high-risk surgical patients. For carotid angioplasty and stenting to become the preferred option, their costs would need to fall from more than $7300 to $4350 or less and the risks of the periprocedural and annual minor strokes would have to be equivalent to that of carotid endarterectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the base case analysis, carotid angioplasty and stenting were associated with higher costs and lower utility compared with carotid endarterectomy for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting were cost-effective for patients with high surgical risk.

Patient-specific finite element analysis of carotid artery stenting: a focus on vessel modeling

Finite element analysis is nowadays a well-assessed technique to investigate the impact of stenting on vessel wall and, given the rapid progression of both medical imaging techniques and computational methods, the challenge of using the simulation of carotid artery stenting as procedure planning tool to support the clinical practice can be approached. Within this context, the present study investigates the impact of carotid stent apposition on carotid artery anatomy by means of patient-specific finite element analysis. In particular, we focus on the influence of the vessel constitutive model on the prediction of carotid artery wall tensional state of lumen gain and of vessel straightening. For this purpose, we consider, for a given stent design and CA anatomy, two constitutive models for the CA wall, that is, a hyperelastic isotropic versus a fiber-reinforced hyperelastic anisotropic model. Despite both models producing similar patterns with respect to stress distribution, the anisotropic model predicts a higher vessel straightening and a more evident discontinuity of the lumen area near the stent ends as observed in the clinical practice. Although still affected by several simplifications, the present study can be considered as further step toward a realistic simulation of carotid artery stenting.

Stroke prevention: managing modifiable risk factors

Prevention plays a crucial role in counteracting morbidity and mortality related to ischemic stroke. It has been estimated that 50% of stroke are preventable through control of modifiable risk factors and lifestyle changes. Antihypertensive treatment is recommended for both prevention of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. The use of antiplatelets and statins has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are indicated in stroke prevention because they also promote vascular health. Effective secondary-prevention strategies for selected patients include carotid revascularization for high-grade carotid stenosis and vitamin K antagonist treatment for atrial fibrillation. The results of recent clinical trials investigating new anticoagulants (factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors) clearly indicate alternative strategies in stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation. This paper describes the current landscape and developments in stroke prevention with special reference to medical treatment in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment by transluminal balloon angioplasty or stent insertion may be a useful alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004 and 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of endovascular treatment compared with carotid endarterectomy or medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched January 2012) and the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (1980 to January 2011) and Science Citation Index (1945 to January 2011). We also searched ongoing trials registers (January 2011) and reference lists and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing endovascular treatment (including balloon angioplasty or stenting) with endarterectomy or medical therapy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endovascular treatment as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials involving 7572 patients. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis at standard surgical risk, endovascular treatment was associated with a higher risk of the following outcome measures occurring between randomisation and 30 days after treatment than endarterectomy: death or any stroke (the primary safety outcome) (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.31, P = 0.0003; I(2) = 27%), death or any stroke or myocardial infarction (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.80, P = 0.002; I(2) = 7%), and any stroke (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34, P < 0.00001;I(2) = 12%). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.16 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.67) in patients < 70 years old and 2.20 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.29) in patients ≥ 70 years old (interaction P = 0.02).The rate of death or major or disabling stroke did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77, P = 0.13; I(2) = 0%). Endovascular treatment was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87, P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14, P < 0.00001; I(2) = 0%) and access site haematomas (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.77, P = 0.008; I(2) = 27%).The combination of death or any stroke up to 30 days after treatment or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.75, P = 0.005; I(2) = 0%), but the rate of ipsilateral stroke after the peri-procedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.45, P = 0.76; I(2) = 0%).Restenosis during follow-up was more common in patients receiving endovascular treatment than in patients assigned surgery (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.53, P = 0.007; I(2) = 55%). In patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, treatment effects on the primary safety (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.76, P = 0.18; I(2) = 0%) and combined safety and efficacy outcomes (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.33, P = 0.09; I(2) = 0%) were similar to symptomatic patients, but differences between treatments were not statistically significant. Among patients not suitable for surgery, the rate of death or any stroke between randomisation and end of follow-up did not differ significantly between endovascular treatment and medical care (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92, P = 0.41; I(2)= 79%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment is associated with an increased risk of peri-procedural stroke or death compared with endarterectomy. However, this excess risk appears to be limited to older patients. The longer term efficacy of endovascular treatment and the risk of restenosis are unclear and require further follow-up of existing trials. Further trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

The role of embolic protection devices during carotid stenting prior to cardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients: empty filters?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze the debris captured in the distal protection filters used during carotid artery stenting (CAS).

BACKGROUND

CAS is an option available to high-risk patients requiring revascularization. Filters are suggested for optimal stroke prevention during CAS.

METHODS

From May 2005 to June 2007, filters from 59 asymptomatic patients who underwent CAS were collected and sent to a specialized laboratory for light-microscope and histological analysis. Peri- and postprocedural outcomes were assessed during 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

On the basis of biomedical imaging of the filter debris, the captured material could not be identified as embolized particles from the carotid plaque. On histological analysis the debris consisted mainly of red blood cell aggregates and/ or platelets, occasionally accompanied by granulocytes. We found no consistent histological evidence of embolized particles originating from atherosclerotic plaques. Post-procedure, three neurological events were reported: two (3.4%) transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and one (1.7%) ipsilateral minor stroke.

CONCLUSION

The filters used during CAS in asymptomatic patients planned for cardiac surgery often remained empty. These findings may be explained by assuming that asymptomatic patients feature a different atherosclerotic plaque composition or stabilization through antiplatelet medication. Larger, randomized trials are clearly warranted, especially in the asymptomatic population.

Angioplasty with stenting for intracranial atherosclerosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Intracranial artery stenosis can be fatal, requiring fast, safe and effective intervention. The introduction of the Wingspan™ stent system with Gateway™ percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon catheter has made intracranial intervention possible in a clinical trial setting. This systematic review planned to identify and review all randomized controlled trials comparing angioplasty and stenting of intracranial arteries with standard medical care.

METHODS

Electronic databases and relevant records were examined for possible trials using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 3661 records were identified by searching several English language databases and other sources including Chinese academic journals. The recently discontinued Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial was the single qualifying study and showed clear advantage of medical management over percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS).

CONCLUSIONS

The SAMPRASS trial indicated that PTAS is associated with high complication and morbidity rates. Definitive recommendations cannot be made until convincing results from additional robustly designed randomized trials become available.

Article Commentary: Late Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting: A Critical Review

The role of carotid artery stenting (CAS) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of extracranial carotid occlusive disease for stroke prevention continues to evolve. Although technical and device refinements aimed at making CAS safer continue to this day, safety as measured by 30-day and 1-year outcomes has been the primary recipient of regulatory and practice attention. Relatively less emphasis has been placed on the incidence of recurrent stenosis after CAS and the efficacy of CAS in late stroke prevention. Data on late outcomes of CAS, including factors of potential influence, have been emerging and are addressed in this review.

Inflammation and in-stent restenosis: the role of serum markers and stent characteristics in carotid artery stenting

Background

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may currently be recommended especially in younger patients with a high-grade carotid artery stenosis. However, evidence is accumulating that in-stent restenosis (ISR) could be an important factor endangering the long-term efficacy of CAS. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of inflammatory serum markers and procedure-related factors on ISR as diagnosed with duplex sonography.

Methods

We analyzed 210 CAS procedures in 194 patients which were done at a single university hospital between May 2003 and June 2010. Periprocedural C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count as well as stent design and geometry, and other periprocedural factors were analyzed with respect to the occurrence of an ISR as diagnosed with serial carotid duplex ultrasound investigations during clinical long-term follow-up.

Results

Over a median of 33.4 months follow-up (IQR: 14.9–53.7) of 210 procedures (mean age of 67.9±9.7 years, 71.9% male, 71.0% symptomatic) an ISR of ≥70% was detected in 5.7% after a median of 8.6 months (IQR: 3.4–17.3). After multiple regression analysis, leukocyte count after CAS-intervention (odds ratio (OR): 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–1.69; p = 0.036), as well as stent length and width were associated with the development of an ISR during follow-up (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05–1.65, p = 0.022 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09–0.84, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

The majority of ISR during long-term follow-up after CAS occur within the first year. ISR is associated with periinterventional inflammation markers and influenced by certain stent characteristics such as stent length and width. Our findings support the assumption that stent geometry leading to vessel injury as well as periprocedural inflammation during CAS plays a pivotal role in the development of carotid artery ISR.

Carotid artery stenting trials: conduct, results, critique, and current recommendations

The carotid stenting trialists have demonstrated persistence and determination in comparing an evolving technique, carotid artery stenting (CAS), against a mature and exacting standard for carotid revascularisation, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This review focuses on their endeavours. A total of 12 1-on-1 randomised trials comparing CAS and CEA have been reported; 6 of these can be considered major, and 5 of these reflect (in part) current CAS standards of practice and form the basis of this review. At least 18 meta-analyses seeking to compare CAS and CEA exist. These are limited by the quality and heterogeneity of the data informing them (e.g., five trials were stopped prematurely such that they collectively failed to reach recruitment target by >4000 patients). The Carotid Stenting Trialists' Collaboration Publication represents a prespecified meta-analysis of European trials that were sufficiently similar to allow valid conclusions to be drawn; these trials and conclusions will be explored. When the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) is rigorously assessed, CAS and CEA are equivalent for the composite end point of stroke/death and MI, with more minor strokes for CAS and more MIs for CEA. These outcomes have a discrepant impact on quality of life and subsequent mortality. The all-stroke death outcomes for patients <70 years old are equivalent, with more minor strokes occurring in the elderly during CAS than CEA. There are significantly more severe haematomas and cranial nerve injuries after CEA. The influence of experience on outcome cannot be underestimated.

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy

Background and Purpose—

The comparison between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains a debated field, especially in the context of long-term outcomes.

Methods—

Concerning the short-term (30-day) analysis, the numbers of outcomes per arm were abstracted, whereas outcomes per arm and hazard ratios were abstracted for long-term (≥1-year) results.

Results—

Thirteen randomized trials (3723 carotid endarterectomy and 3754 CAS patients) were eligible. Regarding short-term outcomes, CAS was associated with elevated risk for stroke and “death or stroke.” CAS also exhibited a marginal trend toward higher death and “death or disabling stroke” rates. Carotid endarterectomy presented with higher rates of myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. Concerning long-term outcomes, CAS was associated with higher rates of stroke (pooled OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.65) and “death or stroke” (pooled OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.48). These findings were replicated at the level of pooled hazard ratios and marginally regarding secondary preventive efficacy. The difference in long-term stroke rates was particularly sizeable in patients >68 years, but little difference in rates was observed in those <68 years. No statistically significant heterogeneity became evident. Metaregression did not reveal any significant modifying effect mediated by symptomatic/asymptomatic status, distal protection, early termination of trials, area of study origin, or CAS learning curve.

Conclusions—

This meta-analysis points to the significantly less frequent stroke events after carotid endarterectomy at the long-term context. The outcomes of carotid endarterectomy seem superior to CAS, but there may be subgroups, particularly younger patients, in whom the results seem equivalent.