A diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-based study of transcervical carotid stenting with flow reversal versus transfemoral filter protection

Stroke risk management in carotid atherosclerotic disease: a clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Stroke and the ESC Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded the knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (i) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (ii) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailors personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology, and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promoting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management including statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies, and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multi-morbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for inter-disciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making.

Evolution of Medical and Surgical Management of Carotid Disease from Carotid Endarterectomy to Transfemoral Carotid Stenting to TCAR

Patients with carotid stenosis can be broadly classified into 2 categories: symptomatic and asymptomatic. While there is little disagreement about surgical management of symptomatic carotid stenosis, the optimal management strategy for the patients with asymptomatic carotid disease has undergone significant evolution over past 5 decades. With increasing focus on role of plaque morphology on the etiology of symptoms, there has been an increased focus on optimizing the medical management targeted at plaque stabilization, especially for the patients with asymptomatic carotid disease, while reserving the most aggressive surgical treatment options for the patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. This review summarizes the scientific evidence based on multiple large clinical studies showing how the modern-day management of carotid stenosis has evolved. Multiple, large randomized clinical trials have established carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the treatment of choice for symptomatic patients with symptomatic, >50% stenosis of carotid artery or those who have asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. With the advancements in endovascular techniques, the technique of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) was popularized, but after multiple, large randomized controlled trials demonstrated superiority of CEA, the indications for TF-CAS as the initial operation of choice for carotid disease for all patients have been reduced. In the past 5 years, the introduction of the newer technique of trans carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has shown promising results with significant reduction in the incidence of perioperative complications as compared to CEA and TF-CAS; however, there have been no randomized controlled trials comparing TCAR to either CEA or TF-CAS. Moreover, with the developments in the medical field with introduction of several new medications which have been demonstrated to successfully change the plaque morphology, there has been a renewed interest in exploring if the indications for surgical management for the asymptomatic carotid disease should be revisited.

Transcranial Duplex Evaluation of Internal Carotid Artery Flow Direction during Transcarotid Artery Revascularisation with Integrated Embolic Protection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the findings of transcranial duplex (TCD) evaluation of petrous internal carotid artery (ICA) flow during transcarotid artery revascularisation (TCAR). Thirty day clinical results were also evaluated.

METHODS

A two centre database of all consecutive patients who had TCD evaluation of the petrous segment of the ICA during TCAR with a modified approach using the Neuroguard IEP (Contego Medical, Raleigh, NC, USA) three in one device and selective flow reversal was reviewed retrospectively. This novel carotid stent has an integrated embolic protection (IEP) system, and the procedure has been termed TCAR-IEP. The study primary endpoint was the achievement or not of flow reversal, and secondary endpoints were procedural technical success and 30 day stroke and or death.

RESULTS

Between January and May 2023, 22 consecutive patients (mean age 72 years; 16 [73%] males) underwent TCAR-IEP with concomitant TCD evaluation of the ipsilateral petrous ICA. In 16 of these patients (73%) there was a sufficient temporal bone window to allow for an adequate peri-operative duplex scan of the petrous segment of the ICA. After common carotid artery (CCA) clamping and side port opening for pressure differential augmentation and despite the presence of retrograde flow in an 8 F carotid artery sheath in all patients, only eight patients (50%) demonstrated flow reversal in the ipsilateral petrous ICA. Technical success was 100%. No major strokes or death were observed in the first 30 days post-intervention.

CONCLUSION

In this study, distal ICA flow reversal was not present during TCAR for a significant proportion of patients despite retrograde flow being visually observed in the CCA sheath. Addition of distal embolic protection in all patients appears reasonable for effective stroke risk reduction.

Analysis of Surgeon and Center Case Volume and Stroke or Death after Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that the annual hospital volume of cases may affect the number of adverse events after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke or death after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative data of patients undergoing TCAR from 2016 to 2021. Surgeon and center volume were calculated based on the mean number of cases (MNC) performed yearly by each surgeon and center. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke or death.

RESULTS

A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into 3 quantiles: low (MNC = 4), medium (MNC = 10), and high (MNC = 26). Center volume was also divided into low (MNC = 14), medium (MNC = 32), and high (MNC = 64). After adjusting for potential confounders, and when compared with high-volume centers, low and medium center volumes were not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke and death, stroke, death, or stroke with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Compared with high-volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.04, p = 0.008), and stroke and TIA (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9, p = 0.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke and death, stroke, and stroke with TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared with high surgeon volume.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, center volume was not associated with any differences in outcomes among patients undergoing TCAR. On the other hand, surgeons with low volume were associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or MI and stroke or TIA when compared with high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

Next-generation transcarotid artery revascularization: TransCarotid flOw Reversal Cerebral Protection And CGUARD MicroNET-Covered Embolic Prevention Stent System To Reduce Strokes - TOPGUARD Study

BACKGROUND

Stent-assisted carotid artery revascularization employing surgical cutdown for transcervical access and dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) is gaining popularity. TCAR, despite maximized intra-procedural cerebral protection, shows a marked excess of 30-day neurologic complications in symptomatic vs. asymptomatic stenoses. The TCAR conventional single-layer stent (free-cell area 5.89mm2) inability to seal embologenic lesions may be particularly relevant after the flow reversal neuroprotection is terminated.

METHODS

We evaluated peri-procedural and 30-day major adverse cerebral and cardiac events (MACCE) of TCAR (ENROUTE, SilkRoad Medical) paired with MicroNET-covered neuroprotective stent (CGuard, InspireMD) in consecutive patients at elevated risk of complications with transfemoral/transradial filter-protected stenting (increased lesion-related and/or access-related risk). CGuard (MicroNET free cell area ≈0.02-0.03 mm2) has level-1 evidence for reducing intra- and abolishing post-procedural lesion-related cerebral embolism.

RESULTS

One hundred and six increased-risk patients (age 72 [61-76] years, median [Q1-Q3]; 60.4% symptomatic, 49.1% diabetic, 36.8% women, 61.3% left-sided index lesion) were enrolled in three vascular surgery centers. Angiographic stenosis severity was 81 (75-91)%, lesion length 21 (15-26)mm, increased-risk lesional characteristics 87.7%. Study stent use was 100% (no other stent types). 74.5% lesions were predilated; post-dilatation rate was 90.6%. Flow reversal duration was 8 (5-11)min. One stroke (0.9%) occurred in an asymptomatic patient prior to establishing neuroprotection (index lesion disruption with the sheath insertion wire); there were no other peri-procedural MACCE. No further adverse events occurred by 30-days. 30-day stent patency was 100% with normal velocities and absence of any in-stent material by Duplex Doppler.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high proportion of increased-risk lesions and clinically symptomatic patients in this study, TCAR employing the MicroNET-covered anti-embolic stent showed 30-day MACCE rate <1%. This suggests a clinical role for combining maximized intra-procedural prevention of cerebral embolism by dynamic flow reversal with anti-embolic stent prevention of peri- and post-procedural cerebral embolism (TOPGUARD NCT04547387).

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.

Outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ischemic stroke and disability caused by carotid artery stenosis have always been worldwide problems. At present, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) have been commonly used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be another option.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase to find literatures comparing TCAR with TFCAS and CEA. The primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, cranial nerve injure (CNI), and operative time. Secondary outcomes were stroke, death, MI in the elderly; cost; radiation; and entry site complication.

RESULTS

Initial search of the literature included 165 articles, of which 12 studies were chosen in the end. These studies demonstrated high technical success rate of TCAR. Patients who received TCAR had lower risks of death, stroke/death and less radiation exposure compared to TFCAS. In meta analysis, the risk of stroke was significantly lower in TCAR group than TFCAS (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.47-0.85). And there was no significant difference in TIA and MI. TCAR was associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. In older patients, the effect of TCAR was significantly better than that of TFCAS.

CONCLUSION

TCAR is associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke compared to TFCAS. TCAR is also associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. TCAR may be a promising treatment option besides TFCAS and CEA.

Carotid Artery Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Terms of Neuroprotection DW-MRI Detected and Neuropsychological Assessment Impairment

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is well issue known, but the purpose of this study is to compare CAS versus CEA in terms of asymptomatic Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction and neuropsychological assessment impairment.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study on 211 consecutive carotid revascularizations at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 different cohorts: CEA was performed in n = 116 patients (Group A); CAS was performed in n = 95 (Group B). Adverse events were collected at 30 days and 6 months postoperative. Differences in terms of DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction were analyzed and considered significative for P ≤ 0.05. Secondary objectives were: major and minor stroke, neuropsychological assessment impairment, death, myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

CEA was associated with a significative decreased rate of asymptomatic DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction (13.8% vs. 51%; P = 0.0001) and of 6 months neuropsychological assessments impairment (0.8 vs. 7.4) (P = 0.04) in asymptomatic patients. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of comorbidities. Stroke rates were similar at 30 days (1.7% CEA vs. 4.1% CAS) and 6 months (2.6% CEA vs. 5.3% CAS P = 0.32). There were no differences in terms of central neurological events, death, transient ischemic attack, MI between the groups. The composite end point of stroke/death/MI at 6 months postoperatively was 2.6% vs. 6.3% (P = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

According to these results, CEA achieved better outcomes compared to patients treated by CAS with distal filter in terms of asymptomatic microembolic event and impairment National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scale and neuropsychological assessments. Limitations of the study lead to limited conclusions only in the specific population and not generalized. Further, comparative randomized studies are warranted.

Prospective evaluation of acute cerebral injury by DW-MRI following transcarotid artery revascularization using a double-layer micromesh stent

BACKGROUND

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has demonstrated a low overall stroke rate in carotid artery stenting (CAS). Furthermore, the use of a double-layer micromesh stent is expected to reduce embolization and plaque prolapse. The combination of TCAR and the double layer stent may lead to improved results compared to previously reported outcomes. The objective of this study is to present the findings of a prospective study including patients treated with the Roadsaver stent and TCAR.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and May 2022, 85 patients were enrolled. Every patient underwent TCAR with the Roadsaver stent. As per our protocol, a neurological examination and an ultrasound were performed within 24 hours before and after the procedure, and again 30 days after. A diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was conducted 24 hours before the procedure and 48-72 hours after the procedure. The primary endpoint was the detection of new ischemic lesions on postoperative DW-MRI. The secondary endpoint was a composite of all strokes, death, and myocardial infarction within 30 days.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (75.29%) were symptomatic, out of which 25 were treated within 14 days of the onset of the symptoms. Pre and postprocedural DW-MRI were performed in 83 patients. Postprocedural lesions were found in nine patients (10.84%). There were no strokes or death within 30 days, but two patients experienced a myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the use of TCAR and the Roadsaver stent could be a safe alternative to carotid endarterectomy because it entails a low incidence of cerebral embolization, even in recently symptomatic and elderly patients.

Does Carotid Intervention Improve Cognitive Function?

Carotid artery disease has been linked to baseline cognitive impairment, even in asymptomatic patients. Therefore, there has been a persistent interest in investigating the impact of carotid revascularization on cognitive functions, but the results have been heterogeneous. Our recent prospective evaluation showed improved cognitive scores across multiple cognitive measures following carotid intervention. Herein, we summarize the studies published to date, identify the potential contributors to the inconsistency of post-interventional cognitive outcomes, and explore further opportunities in cognitive evaluations.

Evaluation of the association between silent ischemic lesions and stent design in carotid stenting applications

OBJECTIVE

Minor ischemic events and silent ischemic lesions are more common in carotid stenting than in endarterectomy. These silent ischemic lesions are also associated with stroke risk and cognitive impairment, so it is important to understand the factors that increase the risk and develop strategies to reduce the risk. We aimed to evaluate the association between carotid stent design and silent ischemic lesion development.

METHODS

The files of the patients who underwent carotid stenting between January 2020 and April 2022 were scanned. Patients with diffusion MR images taken within the postoperative 24 h were included in the study, while those undergoing acute stent placement were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups: those with open-cell stents and those with closed-cell stents.

RESULTS

A total of 65 patients, including 39 patients undergoing open-cell stenting and 26 patients undergoing closed-cell stenting, were included in the study. There was no significant difference in demographic data and vascular risk factors between the groups. New ischemic lesions were detected in 29 (74.4%) patients in the open-cell stent group and 10 (38.4%) patients in the closed-cell stent group and were significantly higher in the open-cell group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major and minor ischemic events and stent restenosis at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The rate of new ischemic lesion development was found to be significantly higher in carotid stent procedures performed with an open-cell Protégé stent than in those performed with a closed-cell Wallstent stent.

When Will We Have What We Need to Advise Patients How to Manage Their Carotid Stenosis?: Lessons From SPACE-2

The recently published SPACE-2 trial (Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery Versus Endarterectomy-2) compared 3 treatments to prevent stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis ≥70%: (1) carotid endarterectomy plus best medical treatment (BMT), (2) transfemoral carotid artery stenting plus BMT, or (3) BMT alone. Because of low enrollment, the findings of similar safety and efficacy for carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone were inconclusive. Publication of the CREST (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial)-2 results should provide level A evidence that has been lacking for 2 to 3 decades, to guide treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis. For symptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis, no trials are underway to update the degree of benefit reported for carotid endarterectomy by NASCET (North American Carotid Endarterectomy Trial) and ECST (European Carotid Surgery Trial), published in 1991. Subsequently, the use of cigarettes has plummeted, and major improvements in medical treatments and in carotid revascularization have emerged. These advances have coincided with abrupt decline in the clinical end points necessary for treatment comparisons in procedural trials. One of the advances in the invasive management of carotid disease has been transcarotid artery revascularization, already with limited approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Establishing safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone may be challenging because of enrollment, regulatory, and funding barriers to design and complete an adequately powered randomized trial.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Contralateral Carotid Occlusion Using a Combined Protection Method

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid artery stenting has become widespread as a revascularization method and has increasingly replaced carotid endarterectomy for treating internal carotid artery stenosis with contralateral carotid occlusion. Hence, this study aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes of carotid artery stenting for internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion using a combined protection method.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study assessed 218 patients with internal carotid artery stenosis who underwent carotid artery stenting using the dual protection (simultaneous flow reversal and distal filter) and blood aspiration method. We distinguished 2 patient groups: contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 11) and no contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 207). We evaluated the patients' characteristics, intraoperative transient neurological symptoms, hypotension, bradycardia, major adverse events (major stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 90 days), minor stroke, hyperintensities on diffusion-weighted images after carotid artery stenting, captured visible debris, and restenosis.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 5% of patients with internal carotid artery stenosis had contralateral carotid occlusion. No statistically significant differences in patient characteristics existed between the groups. The success rate of carotid artery stenting was 100%. There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications, postoperative major adverse events, or other outcomes between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, carotid artery stenting using dual protection combined with blood aspiration was safe and effective in preventing distal embolism in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis and contralateral carotid occlusion.

Staged angioplasty: A sensible approach to prevent hyperperfusion syndrome after carotid artery stenting? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether staged angioplasty (SAP) is a safe and effective treatment to prevent hyperperfusion syndrome after carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to established criteria to identify eligible articles published before October 2020. Pooled dichotomous data were presented as odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effect models. The efficacy endpoints were hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS), hyperperfusion phenomenon (HPP), and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The safety endpoint was post-procedural thromboembolic events. The feasibility of the procedure was assessed by device-related adverse events (vessel dissection and failed angioplasty) in SAP.

RESULTS

Ten studies (1030 participants) were eligible. SAP was superior to regular CAS in preventing HPS (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.86, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rate of thromboembolic events between the SAP group and the regular CAS group. The rates of vessel dissection and failed angioplasty with the use of a 3.0-mm-diameter balloon were 5.4% and 0.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SAP may reduce the incidence of post-CAS HPS without increasing procedure-related complications. A 3.0-mm-diameter balloon used in SAP may be appropriate for Asian populations. However, the confounded study design and confused definitions of reporting items hinder the current recommendation of SAP in clinical use.

The Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal System Compared to Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Carotid artery stenosis has long been a critical cause of stroke and death, and it can seriously affect the life quality. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are both feasible therapies for this disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate if the efficacy of the two approaches is comparable.

Methods: Clinical studies up to March 2021 were searched through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from a computer. The screening process was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for methodological quality assessment of works of literature meeting the inclusion criteria, and Review Manager 5.4 was used for data synthesis. The I² statistic was performed to measure the heterogeneity, and M-H/I-V fixed or random model was utilized depending on the I² value. The evidence evaluation was accomplished based on grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) online tool.

Results: A total of 14,200 subjects (six comparative studies) were finally included in this pooled study. There is no statistical discrepancy between the two treatments on reducing stroke/death/myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.07), stroke (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77–1.37), or death (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67–1.94). Besides, TCAR is associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (P = 0.004), cranial nerve injury (P < 0.00001), and shorter procedure time (P < 0.00001) than CEA among the overall cohort.

Conclusions: TCAR is a rapidly developing treatment that reaches a comparable prognosis to CEA and significantly reduces the risk of myocardial infarction under the well-matched condition, which is a dependable choice for patients with carotid stenosis.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Conventional Versus MicroNet-Covered Stent in Carotid Artery Revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare procedure-related ipsilateral cerebral embolism with a conventional (Acculink, Abbott Vascular) versus a MicroNet-covered (CGuard, InspireMD) stent in carotid artery stenting (CAS).

BACKGROUND

The MicroNet-covered stent may reduce periprocedural cerebral embolism in CAS, but level 1 evidence is lacking.

METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive patients were randomized 1:1 to filter-protected CAS using the Acculink or the CGuard device. The study was powered for its primary endpoint of at least 50% reduction in ipsilateral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging lesion average volume 48 hours postprocedure (blinded external core laboratory analysis).

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the study groups were similar. Eighty-two (total volume = 18,212 mm³) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging postprocedural cerebral lesions occurred in 26 Acculink-treated patients and 45 lesions (total volume = 3,930 mm³; 78.4% reduction) in 25 CGuard-treated patients. New cerebral lesion average volume was 171 mm³ vs 73 mm³ (P = 0.017) per affected patient and 222 mm³ vs 84 mm³ (P = 0.038) per lesion (Acculink vs CGuard). In lesion-affected patients, the average sum of lesion volumes was 701 mm³ vs 157 mm³ (P = 0.007). The Acculink significantly increased the risk for multiple (≥5) cerebral lesions (relative risk: 7.8; 95% CI: 1.3-14.9; P = 0.021). At 30 days, new permanent (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) lesion prevalence was 3:1 (P < 0.001), with total permanent lesion volume 7,474 mm³ vs 574 mm³ (92.3% reduction with the CGuard). There were 6 vs 0 new ipsilateral lesions (P = 0.030) and 2 versus 0 strokes.

CONCLUSIONS

The MicroNet-covered stent significantly reduced periprocedural and abolished postprocedural cerebral embolism in relation to a conventional carotid stent. This is consistent with the MicroNet-covered stent's sustained embolism prevention, translating into cerebral protection not only during but also after CAS. The present findings may influence decision making in carotid revascularization. (The SIBERIA Trial [Acculink™ Versus CGuard™]; NCT03488199).

Performance of Carotid Revascularization Procedures as Modified by Sex

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations on carotid revascularization postulate that women have both increased perioperative risks, such as stroke and death, as well as reduced benefit from intervention. These recommendations do not include data on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). This study strives to compare safety and benefits of TCAR, TFCAS (Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting), and CEA (Carotid Endarterectomy) with regard to patient sex.

METHODS

We performed retrospective analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) CEA and stenting registries, as well as TCAR Surveillance Project data. We compared outcomes after TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA based on sex. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke, death, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, stroke/TIA, and recurrent ipsilateral stroke and/or death at 1-year of follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 75,538 patients were included, of which 28,960 (38.3%) were female and 46,578 (61.7%) were male. TFCAS females had more than 2 times higher odds of stroke/death (OR:2.85, 95%CI: 2.21-3.67, P < 0.001) and stroke/death/MI (OR:2.23, 95%CI:1.75-2.83, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. Odds of TIA were also higher in both TFCAS females (OR:2.01, 95%CI:1.19-3.42, P = 0.010) and TCAR females (OR:1.91, 95%CI:1.09-3.35, P = .023) when compared to CEA females. However, only TFCAS females experienced increased odds of stroke/TIA (OR:1.96, 95%CI:1.45-2.65, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. TFCAS males had almost twice the odds of stroke/death (OR:1.74, 95%CI:1.39-2.16, P < 0.001) and 44% higher odds of stroke/death/MI (OR:1.44, 95%CI:1.19-1.75, P < 0.001), and more than 3-times increased odds of death (OR:3.45, 95%CI:2.53-4.71, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA males. Odds of in-hospital stroke were comparable between TFCAS and CEA after adjusting for covariates. TCAR males have half the odds of MI when compared to CEA males (OR:0.52, 95%CI:0.34-0.80, P = 0.003). At 1-year TCAR had comparable risk of stroke/death while TFCAS had increased risk of stroke/death when compared to CEA among both males and females.

CONCLUSION

TCAR performed similarly to CEA in both sexes regardless of symptomatic status. Stroke/death and stroke/death/MI rates were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic males and females treated by CEA or TCAR. The 1-year outcomes of TCAR were also comparable to CEA in both sexes. It seems that TCAR may be a safe alternative to CEA particularly in women when surgical risk prohibits CEA and while TFCAS is associated with substantial adverse outcomes.

Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR.

Risk factors for new ischemic cerebral lesions after carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

New ischemic cerebral lesions (NICL) are commonly occur after carotid artery stenting (CAS) with an incidence rate ranging from 18-58% and are detected by diffusion-weighted imaging-magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI). Numerous studies have reported that NICL could increase the risk of future cerebrovascular events and cognitive impairment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for NICL after CAS.

METHODS

Relevant literature reporting risk factors for NICL after CAS were searched. Randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies were included in accordance with the pre-specified eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria and the quality of evidence was assessed with the corresponding scale. Data were analyzed using the RevMan V. 5.3 analysis software.

RESULTS

The final analyses included a total of 21 studies and 1907 participants, including 764 NICL-positives and 1143 NICL-negatives. Determinants for NICL-positivity were age (mean deviation (MD): 2.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.53-3.68]), symptomatic carotid lesions (odds ratio (OR): 1.77; 95% CI: [1.39-2.25]) and smoking (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: [0.58-0.94]). For symptomatic patients, risk factors for NICL-positive included diabetes mellitus (OR: 1.76; 95% CI: [1.09-2.82]), but smoking (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: [0.31-0.93]) was a protective factor. Risk factors for centers with high NICL incidence were age (MD: 2.05; 95% CI: [0.93-3.17]) and symptomatic carotid lesions (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: [1.29-2.45]).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age and symptomatic carotid lesions are associated with an increased risk of post-CAS NICL whereas smoking is associated with a decreased risk. Risk factors for NICL in symptomatic patients is diabetes mellitus, while those for patients at centers with high incidence are age and symptomatic carotid lesions. Systematic review registration: CRD42019121129.

Transcervical Versus Transfemoral Approach in Carotid Stenting Real World Experience in a Community Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Peri-procedural embolic events are the Achilles' heel of carotid stenting. To overcome this complication, transcervical access to the carotid artery was introduced. In this study we describe our "our life" experience with the transcervical approach in a community hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All carotid stent procedures between January 2010 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The transcervical approach was compared to the transfemoral approach. In both procedures open-cell, closed-cell design and hybrid stents were used. In-hospital stroke was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 340 procedures were performed, in 184 patients the transfemoral approach was used and in 156 patients the transcervical approach was used. In 12 patients (3.5%) an in-hospital stroke was diagnosed, 4 in the transfemoral group (2.2%) and 8 in the transcervical group (5.1%) (P = 0.14). In the multivariate analyses a symptomatic lesion was associated with in-hospital stroke. Neither type of access nor cell design was associated with increased risk of in-hospital stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous studies, we could not confirm the advantages of the transcervical approach. However, conclusions should be carefully drawn, since this study is retrospective and was performed with multiple surgeon and different kind of stents.

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.

Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in the Treatment of Restenosis After Prior Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke. The optimal procedural modality for this indication has yet to be determined. Here, we evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), redo-CEA, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in a large contemporary cohort of patients who underwent treatment for restenosis after CEA.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients in the vascular quality initiative database who underwent TCAR, redo-CEA, or TFCAS after ipsilateral CEA between September 2016 and April 2020. Patients with prior ipsilateral CAS were excluded from this analysis. In-hospital outcomes following TCAR versus CEA and TCAR versus TFCAS were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4425 patients were available for this analysis. There were 963 (21.8%) redo-CEA, 1786 (40.4%) TFCAS, and 1676 (37.9%) TCAR. TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.70], P=0.021), stroke (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.93], P=0.03), myocardial infarction (MI; OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.14-0.73], P=0.007), stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.24-0.74], P=0.002), and stroke/death/MI (OR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.70], P=0.001) when compared with redo-CEA. There was no significant difference in the odds of death between the 2 groups (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.28-3.5], P=0.995). TCAR was also associated with lower odds of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.18-0.74], P=0.005) when compared with TFCAS. There was no significant difference in the odds of stroke, death, MI, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI between TCAR and TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital stroke, MI, stroke/transient ischemic attack, stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI when compared with redo-CEA and lower odds of in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack when compared with TFCAS. Additional long-term studies are warranted to establish the role of TCAR for the treatment of restenosis after CEA.

SOCIETY FOR VASCULAR SURGERY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF EXTRACRANIAL CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were published. Since that publication, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been published, and the role of medical management has been re-emphasized. The current publication updates and expands the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: is carotid endarterectomy recommended over maximal medical therapy in low risk patients; is carotid endarterectomy recommended over trans-femoral carotid artery stenting in low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; timing of carotid Intervention in patients presenting with acute stroke; screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and optimal sequence for intervention in patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, as has been done with other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate in symptomatic patients with greater than 50% stenosis and is recommended and performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely before 14 days of onset of symptoms. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients who are at increased risk for carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis 50-99%, who require both CEA and CABG, we suggest CEA before or concomitant with CABG to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on clinical presentation and institutional experience.

Safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularisation versus carotid endarterectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis study

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the transcarotid artery revascularisation (TCAR) with flow reversal technique has been developed to treat carotid artery stenosis. The superiority of TCAR over transfemoral carotid artery stenting has been demonstrated. However, the safety and efficacy of TCAR and carotid endarterectomy remain unclear. This study aims to introduce a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the morbidity and mortality rates between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. Herein, major databases will be searched, including Medline, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library, and randomised controlled trials and high-quality observational studies will be included. We will screen all studies published from January 2000 to March 2021. Bias risk will be evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria or Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies criteria, depending on the study type. Two reviewers will select eligible studies and extract the data independently. The primary outcome will include stroke or death during the perioperative period and follow-up. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore any potential sources of heterogeneity. Specific results will be described in a narrative form when available eligible studies are insufficient for meta-analysis. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will summarise and analyse the existing literature; hence, ethics approval will not be required. The final results may be published at a relevant academic conference or in a journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020178691.

Carotid artery stenosis – Current evidence and treatment recommendations

Background:

Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause for stroke. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces the risk of stroke in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and to some extent in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. More than 20 years ago, carotid artery stenting (CAS) emerged as an endovascular treatment alternative to CEA.

Objective and Methods:

This review summarises the available evidence from randomised clinical trials in patients with symptomatic as well as in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

Results:

CAS is associated with a higher risk of death or any stroke between randomisation and 30 days after treatment than CEA (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.33, p < 0.0001). In a pre-defined subgroup analysis, the OR for stroke or death within 30 days after treatment was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in patients <70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in patients ≥70 years old, resulting in a significant interaction between patient age and treatment modality (interaction p = 0.007). The combination of death or any stroke up to 30 days after treatment or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up also favoured CEA (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85, p < 0.0001). In asymptomatic patients, there is a non-significant increase in death or stroke occurring within 30 days of treatment with CAS compared to CEA (OR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97, p = 0.05). The risk of peri-procedural 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).

Discussion and Conclusion:

In symptomatic patients, randomised evidence has consistently shown CAS to be associated with a higher risk of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment than CEA. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in strokes occurring on the day of the procedure in patients ≥70 years. In asymptomatic patients, there may be a small increase in the risk of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment with CAS compared to CEA, but the currently available evidence is insufficient and further data from ongoing randomised trials are needed.

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenosis is considered a determinant factor for cerebrovascular events, estimated to be the cause of 10% to 20% of all ischemic strokes. Transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been offered as an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy to treat carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting the outcomes of patients who had undergone TCAR for carotid artery stenosis. The incidence of periprocedural adverse events was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies with 14,588 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-99%). The reasons for technical failure included an inability to cross the lesion and/or failure to deploy the stent. Access site complications occurred in 2% of all cases (95% CI, 1%-2%; 30 studies). Overall, the incidence of cranial nerve (CN) injuries was very rare, with only 33 of 8994 patients experiencing neurologic deficits attributed to CN involvement. Bleeding complications were reported by 20 studies and occurred in 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) of all cases. The overall periprocedural all-cause mortality and stroke rate was 0.5% and 1.3%, respectively. In-stent restenosis was observed in 4 of 260 patients (1.5%; 7 studies), and early (30-day) reocclusion or acute thrombosis of the target lesion occurred in 12 of 1243 patients (∼1%; 11 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have provided significant evidence that TCAR is a very promising and safe carotid revascularization approach with favorable technical success rates associated with low periprocedural stroke and CN injury rates.

Common carotid artery endovascular clamping for neuroprotection during carotid stenting: Flow-gate system as an innovative treatment approach

OBJECTIVES

We here report our clinical experience in CAS management through common carotid artery endovascular clamping with FlowGate2 system.

METHODS

Forty-five patients were enrolled with de novo asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis ≥70%. Cerebral protection during the stenting procedure was achieved using a unique endovascular clamping technique developed in our Institution which includes: (a) the occlusion of the common carotid artery only, through inflatable balloons integrated in the FlowGate2 Balloon Guide Catheter system; (b) flow inversion connecting catheter to 16 G blood cannula previously placed in arm vein; (c) after the placement of the stent, the flow inversion is maintained for 30 s to allow debris washout. The related primary end-point was the rate of Diffusion-weighted imaging magnetic resonance (DWI) micro-embolic scattering of infarction. The patient's clinical and the neurological status were assessed prior, during and after intervention, at discharge.

RESULTS

Transient clamping intolerance was observed in two patients (2/45; 4%). One minor stroke (1/45; 2%) occurred 8 hr the procedure with DWI ipsilateral micro-embolic lesions. No major strokes or deaths were observed at 3 months follow-up. DWI demonstrated ipsilateral micro-embolic scattering of infarction, in one asymptomatic patient. In all patients, no worst changes in NIHSS scale assessment were recorded at 1, 3, and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirmed the efficacy of FlowGate2 in terms of neuroprotection during CAS. To our knowledge, these are the first published data on this innovative approach developed in our institution. A large controlled trial is ongoing to confirm preliminary evidences.

Primary mechanism of stroke reduction in transcarotid artery revascularization is dynamic flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have suggested that the low risk of stroke and death associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is partially attributable to a robust dynamic flow reversal system and the avoidance of the atherosclerotic aortic arch during stenting. However, the benefits of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection (DEP) in reducing stroke or death in TCAR have not been studied.

METHODS

All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) via the transcarotid route with either dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) or DEP (TCAS-DEP) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed. Both multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score-matched analysis were performed to explore the differences in outcomes between the two procedures. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes were stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite of stroke, death, and MI. A secondary analysis was performed to compare transcarotid stenting with DEP vs transfemoral CAS with DEP to evaluate the effects of crossing the aortic arch.

RESULTS

A total of 8426 patients were identified (TCAS-DEP, n = 287; 3.4%). TCAR was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 5.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.64; P = .001), stroke (1.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P = .002), and stroke/death/MI (2.0% vs 5.2%; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P = .001) compared with TCAS-DEP. Among the 274 pairs of patients identified with propensity score matching, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of stroke/death (1.1% vs 4.7%; risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .021) and stroke (0.4% vs 4.0%; RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70; P = .006) compared with TCAS-DEP but no differences in stroke/death/MI (1.8% vs 4.7%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; P = .077). The secondary analysis found no differences in stroke between TCAS-DEP and transfemoral CAS with DEP (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.36-1.63; P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TCAS-DEP, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke or death and stroke. This finding implies that dynamic flow reversal might provide better neuroprotection than does a distal embolic filter in reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. Avoiding the aortic arch did not confer any reduction in the stroke rate. The present findings serve to separate the clinical benefit of dynamic flow reversal from that of avoiding the aortic arch during TCAR.

Early Outcomes in the ROADSTER 2 Study of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in Patients With Significant Carotid Artery Disease

Background and Purpose:

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is comprised of carotid artery stent placement with cerebral protection via proximal carotid artery clamping and reversal of cerebral arterial flow. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR performed by a broad group of physicians with variable TCAR experience.

Methods:

The ROADSTER 2 study is a prospective, open label, single arm, multicenter, postapproval registry for patients undergoing TCAR. Patients considered at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy with symptomatic stenosis ≥50% or asymptomatic stenosis ≥80% were included. The primary end point was procedural success, which encompassed technical success plus the absence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within the 30-day postoperative period. Secondary end points included technical success and individual/composite rates of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI). All patients underwent independent neurological assessments before the procedure, within 24 hours, and at 30 days after TCAR. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all major adverse events.

Results:

Between 2015 and 2019, 692 patients (Intent to Treat Population) were enrolled at 43 sites. Sixty cases had major protocol violations, leaving 632 patients adhering to the Food and Drug Administration-approved protocol (per-protocol population). The majority (81.2%) of operators were TCAR naïve before study initiation. Patients underwent TCAR for neurological symptoms in 26% of cases, and all patients had high-risk factors for carotid endarterectomy (anatomic-related 44%; physiological 32%; both 24%). Technical success occurred in 99.7% of all cases. The primary end point of procedural success rate in the Intent to Treat population was 96.5% (per-protocol 97.9%). The early postoperative outcomes in the Intent to Treat population included stroke in 13 patients (1.9%), death in 3 patients (0.4%), and MI in 6 patients (0.9%). The composite 30-day stroke/death rate was 2.3%, and stroke/death/MI rate was 3.2%. In the per-protocol population, there were strokes in 4 patients (0.6%), death in one patient (0.2%), and MI in 6 patients (0.9%) leading to a composite 30-day stroke/death rate of 0.8% and stroke/death/MI rate of 1.7%.

Conclusions:

TCAR results in excellent early outcomes with high technical success combined with low rates of postprocedure stroke and death. These results were achieved by a majority of operators new to this technology at the start of the trial. Adherence to the study protocol and peri-procedural antiplatelet therapy optimizes outcomes. Longer-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these early outcomes.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02536378.

Critical Appraisal on the Quality of Reporting on Safety and Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Stenting With Flow Reversal

Transcarotid revascularization is an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting, designed to avoid aortic arch manipulation and concomitant periprocedural stroke. This article aims to perform a detailed analysis on the quality of the currently available evidence on safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization. Although current evidence is promising, independent randomized controlled studies comparing transcarotid artery revascularization with carotid endarterectomy in recently symptomatic patients are lacking and will be necessary to establish the true value of transcarotid artery revascularization in carotid artery revascularization.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting using the transcervical approach

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) approach has emerged as an alternative when carotid endarterectomy or conventional CAS is contraindicated. The present study was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcomes included technical success, perioperative neurological event, myocardial ischemic events, death and their composite. Operational duration, flow reversal time and any local procedure related complication (carotid dissection and cranial nerve injury) were also recorded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were included, reporting on 3130 patients, undergoing TCAR. Thirty-five per cent of them were symptomatic. Technical success was 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P=0.11, I²=32%). Early (30-day) new neurological event rate was estimated at 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02; P=1.0, I²=0%, respectively) while early death rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; P=1.0, I²=0%). Myocardial ischemic (MI) event rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=0.97, I²=6.6%). The composite outcome of neurological event/MI/death at 30-day follow-up was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, P=0.79, I²=14%). Carotid dissection rate during the intervention was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03, P=0.58, I²=2.9%) while the post-operatively detected cranial nerve injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=1.0, I²=0%). Regarding the technical aspects of the procedures, operational and flow reversal time were at 73.8 min and 13.7 min, respectively (95% CI: 68.2-79.3, P=0.18, I²=37.6% and 95% CI: 11.3-16.1, P=0.48, I²=0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is feasible with high technical success rate. The procedure presents low incidence of local complications, neurological events, myocardial complications and mortality during the early postoperative period and should be considered an acceptable alternative for patients treated for carotid artery stenosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization with Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The increased perioperative stroke and death risk of TFCAS has however prevented TFCAS from widespread acceptance as an alternative to CEA in high-risk patients. Recent research suggests that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may be associated with a low stroke and death risk and potentially meet the needs of patients at high surgical risk. We aimed to estimate the 30-day risk of stroke or death of TCAR and compare it to TFCAS and CEA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus for studies of patients treated with TCAR. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate. A logistic-normal random-effects model with logit transformation was used to estimate the pooled event rates after TCAR. Pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) of events comparing TCAR to TFCAS and CEA were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified with the chi-squared statistic of the likelihood ratio (LR) test that compares the random-effects and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine nonrandomized studies evaluating 4012 patients who underwent TCAR were included. The overall 30-day risks after TCAR were stroke/death, 1.89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50, 2.37); stroke, 1.34% (95% CI: 1.02,1.75); death, 0.76% (95% CI: 0.56, 1.08); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI: 0.23, 1.59); stroke/death/MI, 2.20% (95% CI: 1.31, 3.69); cranial nerve injury (CNI), 0.31% (95% CI: 0.12, 0.83). The failure rate of TCAR was 1.27% (95% CI: 0.32, 4.92). Two nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with lower risk of stroke and death as compared with TFCAS (1.33% vs. 2.55%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74 and 0.76% vs. 1.46%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84, respectively). Four nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with a lower risk of CNI (0.54% and 1.84%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74) than CEA, but no statistically significant difference in the 30-day risk of stroke, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing TCAR with dynamic flow reversal for carotid stenosis the 30-day risk of stroke or death was low. The perioperative stroke/death rate of TCAR was similar to that of CEA while CNI risk was lower. Larger prospective studies are needed to account for confounding factors and provide higher certainty.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of results of transcervical carotid artery stenting with flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

Transcervical carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to transfemoral CAS. An earlier systematic review from our group (n = 12 studies; 739 transcervical CAS procedures [489/739 with flow reversal]) demonstrated that transcervical CAS is a safe procedure associated with a low incidence of stroke and complications. Since then, new studies have been published adding nearly 1600 patients to the literature. We aimed to update our early systematic review and also to perform a meta-analysis to investigate outcomes specifically after transcervical CAS with flow reversal.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes after transcervical CAS with flow reversal. Crude event rates for outcomes of interest were estimated by simple pooling of data. A proportion meta-analysis was also performed to estimate pooled outcome rates.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (n = 2110 transcervical CAS procedures with flow reversal) were identified. A high technical success (98.25%) and a low mortality rate (0.48%) were recorded. The crude rates of major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction (MI) were 0.71%, 0.90%, 0.57%, and 0.57%, respectively; a cranial nerve injury occurred in 0.28% of the procedures. A neck hematoma was reported in 1.04% of the procedures, and a carotid artery dissection occurred in 0.76% of the interventions; in 1.09% of the cases, conversion to carotid endarterectomy was required. After a meta-analysis was undertaken, the pooled technical success rate was 98.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.19-99.70). A pooled mortality rate of 0.04% (95% CI, 0.00-0.29) was recorded. The pooled rate of any type of neurologic complications was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61), whereas the pooled rates of major stroke, minor stroke, and transient ischemic attack were 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.46), 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00-0.50), and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00-0.22), respectively. The pooled rate of bradycardia/hypotension was 10.21% (95% CI, 3.99-18.51), whereas the pooled rate of MI was 0.08% (95% CI, 0.00-0.39). A neck hematoma after transcervical CAS was recorded in 1.51% (95% CI, 0.22-3.54) of the procedures; in 0.74% (95% CI, 0.05-1.95) of the interventions, conversion to CEA was required. Finally, a carotid artery dissection during transcervical CAS occurred in 0.47% (95% CI, 0.00-1.38) of the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that transcervical CAS with flow reversal is associated with high technical success, almost zero mortality, and low rates of major stroke, minor stroke, MI, and complications.

Combined Angioplasty Technique of the Carotid Territory and Supra-Aortic Trunk by Double Access (Cervical and Limbs) for Tandem Lesions

BACKGROUND

The carotid stent angioplasty (CAS) has been the main option for patients with high cardiovascular risk and carotid stenosis. The common femoral artery is still the most used access site; however, the aortic arch manipulation is a critical moment for cerebral embolization. Carotid transcervical access should be considered as a good alternative access route for CAS. Tandem lesions combining supra-aortic trunks and ipsilateral carotid bulb critical stenosis pose a great challenge for the vascular surgeon.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive study based on medical records of our institution. We report 2 cases of complex cerebral vascular insufficiency and discuss therapeutic options and strategies to protect the cerebrovascular territory avoiding microembolization, as well as demonstrate an alternative and safe total endovascular approach for those cases.

RESULTS

We describe the approach of 2 complex cerebral vascular insufficiency cases: case 1, a 63-year-old male with previous ischemic stroke, right internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion, left ICA stenosis >70%, and critical stenosis of the origin of common carotid artery (CCA); case 2, a 68-year-old female with previous ischemic stroke, left ICA occlusion, brachiocephalic trunk critical stenosis, hypoplastic right vertebral artery, and aortobi-iliac chronic occlusion. In both cases reported here a challenging solution was chosen, little described in the literature, with cerebral filter protection as the first step. In addition, a literature review was performed to discuss the different approach options for tandem injuries of the supra-aortic trunk and carotid bulb.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience with total endovascular treatment of complex tandem lesions of the carotid territory and supra-aortic trunks show that transcervical access, coupled with distal protection filter device on the first step, is a safe and effective technique for preventing neurological events.

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.

Safety of carotid artery stenting for elderly patients with cervical carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Several recent randomized controlled trials have reported that perioperative complications of carotid artery stenting increase with age, and Japan has the highest proportion of elderly in the world. We retrospectively compared clinical factors, treatment outcomes, and adverse events between younger and elderly carotid artery stenting patients at a single institution in Japan to assess carotid artery stenting safety for the aged population.

METHODS

A total of 150 consecutive patients treated with carotid artery stenting using the dual protection (simultaneous flow reversal and distal filter) and blood aspiration method were enrolled. Patients were classified into an elderly (O) group ≥75 years (54/150, 36.0%) and a younger (Y) group <75 years (96/150, 64%) for comparison of demographics, clinical background, incidence of captured debris during the procedure, outcome, minor stroke, major adverse events (major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) within 30 days, hyperintense spots on diffusion-weighted images after carotid artery stenting, and postoperative hospitalization days.

RESULTS

The carotid artery stenting procedure was successful in all cases. No major adverse events occurred within 30 days in the Y group, and only one occurred in the O group (P = 0.348). Visible debris was captured in a significantly greater proportion of O group patients than in Y group patients (33/54 (63.5%) vs. 40/96 (42.1%), P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the frequency of hyperintense spots on diffusion-weighted images between Y and O groups (23/96 (24.0%) vs. 16/52 (30.8%), P = 0.435).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid artery stenting using dual protection and blood aspiration is equally safe for younger and elderly patients.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Results in Low Rates of Periprocedural Neurologic Events, Myocardial Infarction, and Death

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a novel hybrid procedure that reverses carotid flow and places a stent using surgical access of the carotid artery in the neck under local anesthesia. We discuss the indications for carotid revascularization, the clinical rationale for TCAR, and evidence for its potential role in the management of carotid stenosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Results from pre-clinical studies, prospective single-arm studies, and comparative analyses of registry data indicate that TCAR results in low amounts of periprocedural microembolization, cerebral lesions detectable on magnetic resonance imaging, and neurologic events, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and death. Non-randomized comparisons suggest that TCAR may offer a novel solution to reducing periprocedural stroke, death, and MI in patients with carotid stenosis. A state of equipoise appears to have been reached with TCAR versus the traditional carotid revascularization procedures and a well-controlled randomized trial with careful oversight should be prioritized to obtain level 1 evidence.

A meta-analysis of the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Procedural characteristics, including stent design, may influence the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A thorough comparison of the effect of stent design on outcome of CAS is thus warranted to allow for optimal evidence-based clinical decision making. This study sought to evaluate the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of CAS.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2018. Included were articles reporting on the occurrence of clinical short- and intermediate-term major adverse events (MAEs; any stroke or death) or radiologic adverse events (new ischemic lesions on postprocedural magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging [MR-DWI], restenosis, or stent fracture) in different stent designs used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Random effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Metaregression was performed to identify the effect of specific stents on MAE rates.

RESULTS

From 2654 unique identified articles, two randomized, controlled trials and 66 cohort studies were eligible for analysis (including 46,728 procedures). Short-term clinical MAE rates were similar for patients treated with open cell vs closed cell or hybrid stents. Use of an Acculink stent was associated with a higher risk of short-term MAE compared with a Wallstent (risk ratio [RR], 1.51; P = .03), as was true for use of Precise stent vs Xact stent (RR, 1.55; P < .001). Intermediate-term clinical MAE rates were similar for open vs closed cell stents. Use of open cell stents predisposed to a 25% higher chance (RR, 1.25; P = .03) of developing postprocedural new ischemic lesions on MR-DWI. No differences were observed in the incidence of restenosis, stent fracture, or intraprocedural hemodynamic depression with respect to different stent design.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent design is not associated with short- or intermediate-term clinical MAE rates in patients undergoing CAS. Furthermore, the division in open and closed cell stent design might conceal true differences in single stent efficacy. Nevertheless, open cell stenting resulted in a significantly higher number of subclinical postprocedural new ischemic lesions detected on MR-DWI compared with closed cell stenting. An individualized patient data meta-analysis, including future studies with prospective homogenous study design, is required to adequately correct for known risk factors and to provide definite conclusions with respect to carotid stent design for specific subgroups.

Risk factors for new ischaemic cerebral lesions after carotid artery stenting: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

New ischaemic cerebral lesions (NICL) detected by diffusion-weighted imaging MRI are common after carotid artery stenting (CAS), with an occurrence rate ranging from 18% to 57%. Many studies reported occurrence of NICL could increase risk of future cerebrovascular events and cognitive impairment. However, controversies about determinants for occurrence of NICL after CAS exist among studies, and one risk factor embodied in an article may not be in another. Aim of this study is to introduce a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors associated with occurrence of NICL after CAS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All relevant literature referring to risk factors for occurrence of NICL after CAS will be searched on the major databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library until 31 December 2018. Literature, which must be randomised controlled trials, case-control studies or cohort studies, will be included in accordance with the prespecified eligibility criteria. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the corresponding scale. Data will be extracted with a form prepared before and analysed using RevMan V.5.3 analyses software. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistic. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no need for ethical approval because primary data will not be attained. The systematic review will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019121129.

Secular Trends in Procedural Stroke or Death Risks of Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, stroke risk associated with carotid disease has decreased, reflecting improvements in medical therapy and a more rigorous control of vascular risk factors. It is less clear whether the procedural risk of carotid revascularization has declined over time.

METHODS

We analyzed temporal changes in procedural risks among 4597 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis treated with carotid artery stenting (n=2326) or carotid endarterectomy (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials between 2000 and 2008, using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each source trial. Models were additionally adjusted for age and other baseline characteristics predicting treatment risk. The primary outcome event was any procedural stroke or death, occurring during or within 30 days after revascularization.

RESULTS

The procedural stroke or death risk decreased significantly over time in all patients (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; P=0.006). This effect was driven by a decrease in the carotid endarterectomy group (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P=0.003), whereas no significant decrease was found after carotid artery stenting (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04; P=0.33). Carotid endarterectomy patients had a lower procedural stroke or death risk compared with carotid artery stenting patients, and the difference significantly increased over time (interaction P=0.031). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the results remained essentially the same.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of stroke or death associated with carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis decreased over an 8-year period, independent of clinical predictors of procedural risk. No corresponding reduction in procedural risk was seen in patients treated with stenting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S), NCT00004732 (CREST), ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE), and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).