Carotid angiographic characteristics in the CREST trial were major contributors to periprocedural stroke and death differences between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy

Bailout Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenting after Carotid Endarterectomy: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting may be employed as a bailout maneuver when an inadequate end point or clamp injury is encountered at the time of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a surgically inaccessible region of the distal ICA. We sought to characterize the indications, technique, and outcomes for this infrequently encountered clinical scenario.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent distal ICA stenting at the time of CEA at our institution between September 2008 and July 2022. Procedural details and postoperative follow-up were reviewed for each patient.

RESULTS

Six patients were identified during the study period. All were male with an age range of 63 to 82 years. Five underwent carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and one patient was treated for amaurosis fugax. Three patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy preoperatively, whereas 2 were on aspirin monotherapy, and one was on aspirin and low-dose rivaroxaban. Five patients underwent CEA with patch angioplasty, and one underwent eversion CEA. The indication for stenting was distal ICA dissection due to clamp or shunt injury in 2 patients and an inadequate distal ICA end point in 4 patients. In all cases, access for stenting was obtained under direct visualization within the common carotid artery, and a standard carotid stent was deployed with its proximal aspect landing within the endarterectomized site. Embolic protection was typically achieved via proximal common carotid artery and external carotid artery clamping for flow arrest with aspiration of debris before restoration of antegrade flow. There was 100% technical success. Postoperatively, 2 patients were found to have a cranial nerve injury, likely occurring due to the need for high ICA exposure. Median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-7 days) with no instances of perioperative stroke or myocardial infarction. All patients were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy with no further occurrence of stroke, carotid restenosis, or reintervention through a median follow-up of 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal ICA stenting is a useful adjunct in the setting of CEA complicated by inadequate end point or vessel dissection in a surgically inaccessible region of the ICA and can minimize the need for high-risk extensive distal dissection of the ICA in this situation.

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.

Effect of plaque morphological characteristics on the outcomes of carotid artery stenting

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) represents today an accepted option for the treatment of severe carotid artery stenosis. The evolution of materials, techniques, perioperative medical management and patients' selection, has allowed to progressively reduce CAS complications. However, the main drawback of CAS is still represented by the risk of cerebral embolization, that may occur during several steps of the procedure and also in the early postoperative period. Preoperative carotid plaque morphological characteristics may have a great role in determining the risk of embolization during CAS. This review summarizes the current knowledge on carotid plaque characteristics that may influence the risk of complication during CAS. This information may be important for the optimization of CAS patients' selection and adaptation of the materials and techniques.

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Artery Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) are revascularization options for the management of severe carotid disease in asymptomatic patients. We aimed to compare the peri-procedural outcomes of the two modalities. A systematic review of the databases PUBMED, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library was performed. All the studies that reported periprocedural outcomes (within 30 days) in asymptomatic carotid stenosis patients were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects models with inverse-variance weighting were used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) to compare the outcomes. Fifteen studies (including seven randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15251 patients were included, out of which 6419 (42%) underwent CAS and 8832 (57.9%) underwent CEA. There was no statistical difference in the primary composite outcome of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.69-1.51], p 0.93). No difference was found in the secondary outcome of all-cause mortality. CAS was associated with a slightly lower risk of MI and cranial nerve palsy. CAS was associated with a slightly higher risk of stroke with no difference in the occurrence of disabling stroke or ipsilateral stroke. In general terms, the study confirms equipoise in the two treatment strategies with a higher risk of MI and cranial nerve palsy with CEA and a higher risk of non-disabling stroke with CAS.

Impact of Carotid Stent Design on Embolic Filter Debris Load During Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

The carotid stent design may influence the risk of embolization during carotid artery stenting. The aim of the study was to assess this risk by comparing the quantity of embolized material captured by filters during carotid artery stenting, using different stent designs.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic carotid stenosis >70% (2010-2022) in a tertiary academic hospital (Padua University Hospital, Italy). Carotid stents were classified according to their design as open-cell (OCS), closed-cell (CCS), or micromesh stents (MMS). A distal filter protection was used in all patients, and the amount of captured embolized particles was semiautomatically analyzed using a dedicated software (Image-Pro Plus, Media Cybernetics). Primary end point was embolic filter debris (EFD) load, defined as the ratio of the filter area covered by particulate material to the total filter area. Secondary end points were 30 days major stroke and death.

RESULTS

Four-hundred-eighty-one carotid artery stentings were included; 171 (35%) using an OCS, 68 (14%) a CCS, and 242 (50%) a MMS. Thirty-days mortality was 0.2% (n=1) and major stroke rate was 0.2% (P=0.987). Filters of patients receiving MMS were more likely to be free from embolized material (OCS, 30%; CCS, 13%; MMS, 41%; P<0.001) and had a lower EFD load (OCS, 9.1±14.5%; CCS, 7.9±14.0%; MMS, 5.0±9.1%; P<0.001) compared with other stent designs. After stratification by plaque characteristics, MMS had a lower EFD load in cases of hypoechogenic plaque (OCS, 13.4±9.9%; CCS, 10.9±8.7%; MMS, 6.5±13.1%; P<0.001), plaque length>15 mm (OC, 10.2±15.3; CC, 8.6±12.4; MM, 8.2±13.6; P<0.001), and preoperative ipsilateral asymptomatic ischemic cerebral lesion (OCS, 12.9±16.8%; CCS, 8.7±19.5%; MMS, 5.4±9.7%; P<0.001). After multivariate linear regression, use of MMS was associated with lower EFD load (P=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MMS seems to be associated with a lower embolization rate and EFD load, especially in hypoechogenic and long plaques and in patients with a preoperative evidence of asymptomatic ischemic cerebral lesion.

Interventions in Carotid Artery Surgery: An Overview of Current Management and Future Implications

Atherosclerotic carotid artery disease has been well studied over the last half-century by multiple randomized controlled trials attempting to elucidate the appropriate modality of therapy for this disease process. Surgical techniques have evolved from carotid artery endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting to the development of hybrid techniques in transcarotid artery revascularization. In this article, the authors provide a review of the available literature regarding operative and medical management of carotid artery disease.

Carotid Artery Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: What We Need to Know for Treatment Decision

A clinical decision on the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is challenging, unlike symptomatic carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on the finding that the efficacy and safety of CAS were comparable to CEA in randomized trials. However, in some countries, CAS is often performed more frequently than CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Moreover, it has been recently reported that CAS is not superior to the best medical treatment in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Due to these recent changes, the role of CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be revisited. When determining the treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, one should consider several clinical factors including stenosis degree, patient life expectancy, stroke risk by medical treatment, availability of a vascular surgeon, high risk for CEA or CAS, and insurance coverage. This review aimed to present and pragmatically organize the information that is necessary for a clinical decision on CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. In conclusion, although the traditional benefit of CAS is being revisited recently, it seems too early to conclude that CAS is no longer beneficial under intense and systemic medical treatment. Instead, a treatment strategy with CAS should evolve to select eligible or medically high-risk patients more precisely.

Association of carotid revascularization approach with perioperative outcomes based on symptom status and degree of stenosis among octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

Age ≥80 years is known to be an independent risk factor for periprocedural stroke after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) but not after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The objective of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes for CEA, TF-CAS, and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among octogenarian patients (aged ≥80 years) overall and stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

METHODS

All patients aged ≥80 years with 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis who had undergone CEA, TF-CAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2005-2020) were included. We compared the perioperative (30-day) incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death for CEA vs TF-CAS vs TCAR using analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression models. The results were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 28,571 carotid revascularization procedures were performed in patients aged ≥80 years: CEA, n = 20,912 (73.2%), TF-CAS, n = 3628 (12.7%), and TCAR, n = 4031 (14.1%). The median age was 83 years (interquartile range, 81.0-86.0 years); 49.8% of the patients were symptomatic (51.9% CEA, 46.2% TF-CAS, 42.4% TCAR); and 60.7% had high-grade stenosis (59.0% CEA, 65.2% TF-CAS, 65.4% TCAR). Perioperative stroke/death occurred most frequently following TF-CAS (6.6%), followed by TCAR (3.1%) and CEA (2.5%; P < .001). After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, the odds ratio (OR) for stroke/death was greater for TF-CAS vs CEA (adjusted OR [aOR], 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.65-4.23), followed by TCAR vs CEA (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18-1.87). The risk of perioperative stroke/death remained significantly greater for TF-CAS compared with CEA regardless of symptom status and degree of stenosis (P < .05 for all). In contrast, the risk of stroke/death was higher for TCAR vs CEA for asymptomatic patients (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.41-2.94) and those with high-grade stenosis (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.05) but similar for patients with symptomatic and moderate-grade disease (P > .05 for both). The risk of myocardial infarction was lower with TCAR (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) and TF-CAS (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) compared with CEA overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, TCAR and CEA can be safely offered to older adults, in particular, symptomatic patients and those with moderate-grade stenosis. TF-CAS should be avoided in older patients when possible.

Carotid Lesion Length Independently Predicts Stroke and Death After TransCarotid Artery Revascularization and TransFemoral Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVES

Prior data from the CREST trial suggested that the higher perioperative stroke or death event rate among patients treated with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) appears to be strongly related to the lesion length. Nonetheless, data regarding the impact of lesion length on outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal is lacking. Herein, we aimed to compare the outcomes of TCAR versus TFCAS stratified by the length of the carotid lesion.

METHODS

Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database for carotid artery stenting between 2016 and 2021. Restricted cubic spline analysis was used to describe the relationship between the primary outcome (in-hospital stroke/death) and the exposure variable (lesion length) in the overall cohort. This relationship was not linear, and knots were identified where significant changes in the slope of the curve occurred. We therefore divided patients based on knot with the most significant inflection into two groups: lesion length<25mm (short) and lesion length ≥25mm. Clinically relevant and statistically significant variables on univariable analysis were added to the final logistic regression model clustered by center identifier to study the association between lesion length and in-hospital outcomes stratified by stent approach.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 17,931 TCAR (52.6% with long lesions), and 12,036 TFCAS (53.2% with long lesions). Patients with long lesions had higher rates of being symptomatic among both TCAR (27.2% vs 24.3%, P<0.001) and TFCAS (43.5% VS 38.5%, p<0.001) and were more likely to undergo general anesthesia in TCAR (84.7% vs 81.9%, P<0.001) and TFCAS (21.6% vs 15.8%, P<0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, long carotid lesions were associated with higher odds of stroke, stroke/TIA and stroke/death compared to short lesions among patients undergoing TCAR or TFCAS. However, when comparing TCAR vs TFCAS outcomes in patients with long lesions, TCAR was found to be associated with 30% reduction in stroke/TIA (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.6-0.9, P=0.015), stroke (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.5-0.9, P=0.009), and extended length of stay (ELOS) (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.6-0.8, P<0.001). There was also a 40% reduction in the odds of in-hospital stroke/death (aOR: 0.6, 95%CI:0.5-0.8, P<0.001), and 70% reduction in mortality (aOR: 0.3, 95%CI:0.2-0.4, P<0.001) in TCAR compared to TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large contemporary retrospective national study, carotid lesion length appears to negatively impact in-hospital outcomes for TCAR and TFCAS. In the presence of lesions longer than 25 mm, TCAR appears to be safer than TFCAS with regard to the risk of in-hospital stroke, stroke/TIA, death, stroke/death and ELOS. These favorable outcomes seem to confirm the relative advantage of flow reversal compared to distal embolic protection (DEP) devices in terms of neuroprotection.

Transcarotid revascularization outcomes do not differ by patient age or sex

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid approach to carotid revascularization. Limited information is available on the differences in periprocedural complications and performance measures of TCAR for men compared with women and for older vs younger adults.

METHODS

The patient, lesion, and physician characteristics were collected for all TCAR procedures performed by each physician worldwide in an international quality assurance database between March 3, 2009 and May 7, 2020. Clinical composite (ie, death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction) and technical composite (ie, aborted procedure, conversion to surgery, bleeding, dissection, cranial nerve injury, device failure) adverse events within 24 hours of the procedure were recorded. Four performance measures were recorded: flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and skin-to-skin time. Poisson regressions were used to assess the effects of age and sex on the incidence of clinical and technical composite adverse events. Linear regressions were used to compare the four performance measures.

RESULTS

A total of 18,240 TCARs were performed by 1273 physicians; 34.9% of the patients were women and 37.5% were symptomatic. The overall incidence of clinical and technical composite adverse events was low. The adjusted clinical (1.62% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17%-2.23%] vs 1.35% [95% CI, 1.01%-1.79%]; P = .22) and technical (7.84% [95% CI, 6.85%-8.97%] vs 7.80% [95% CI, 6.94%-8.77%]; P = .93) composite adverse event rates did not vary for women vs men. The adjusted clinical (P = .65) and technical (P = .55) composite adverse event rates also did not vary by age. The adjusted skin-to-skin time was shorter for the women (76.6 minutes; 95% CI, 74.6-78.6) than for the men (77.7 minutes; 95% CI, 75.7-79.6; P = .002). Significant differences were found by age group for fluoroscopy time, flow-reversal time, and skin-to-skin time, although the magnitude of these differences was small (<1 minute for each).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical and technical outcomes of TCAR are not affected by age or sex. We found clinically minor differences in the procedural performance measures when stratified by age and sex. In addition to being safe for younger individuals, TCAR could also be the preferred method for performing carotid stenting in women and older patients, in particular, older women.

Restenosis rates in patients with ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy and contralateral carotid artery stenting

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective study (2001–2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8–72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0–76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics.

Results

Neurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95–3.60; P = 0.070).

Conclusion

Intra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.

Evaluating the optimal training paradigm for transcarotid artery revascularization based on worldwide experience

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a new hybrid approach to carotid artery revascularization. Proctored training on live cases is an effort-, time-, and resource-intensive approach to learning new procedures. We analyzed the worldwide experience with TCAR to develop objective performance metrics for the procedure and compared the effectiveness of training physicians using cadavers or synthetic models to that of traditional in-person training on live cases.

METHODS

Physicians underwent one of three mandatory training programs: (1) in-person proctoring on live TCAR procedures, (2) supervised training on human cadavers, and (3) supervised training on synthetic models. The training details and information from all subsequent independently performed TCAR procedures were recorded. The composite clinical adverse events (ie, transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, death) and composite technical adverse events (ie, aborted procedure, conversion to surgery, bleeding, dissection, cranial nerve injury, or device failure, occurring within 24 hours were recorded). Four procedural proficiency measures were recorded: procedure time, flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. We compared the adverse event rates between the procedures performed by physicians after undergoing the three training modes and tested whether the proficiency measures achieved during TCAR after training on cadavers and synthetic models were noninferior to proctored training.

RESULTS

From March 3, 2009 to May 7, 2020, 1160 physicians had undergone proctored (19.1%), cadaver-based (27.4%), and synthetic model-based (53.5%) TCAR training and had subsequently performed 17,283 TCAR procedures. The proctored physicians had treated younger patients and more patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis and had had more prior experience with transfemoral carotid stenting. The overall 24-hour composite clinical and technical adverse event rates, adjusted for age, sex, and symptomatic status, were 1.0% (95% confidence interval, 0.8%-1.3%) and 6.0% (95% confidence interval, 5.4%-6.6%), respectively, and did not differ significantly by training mode. The proficiency measures of cadaver-trained and synthetic model-trained physicians were not inferior to those for the proctored physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

We have presented key objective proficiency metrics for performing TCAR and an analytic framework to assess adequate training for the procedure. Training on cadavers or synthetic models achieved clinical outcomes, technical outcomes, and proficiency measures for subsequently performed TCAR procedures similar to those achieved with training using traditional proctoring on live cases.

Carotid Artery Stenting: Applications and Technical Considerations

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To examine current understanding of diverse etiologies of extracranial carotid disease, including clinical and imaging manifestations as well as treatment approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing availability of advanced cerebrovascular imaging modalities continues to elucidate atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic carotid steno-occlusive disease as a common culprit of cerebral ischemia. Individualized treatment strategies targeting each etiologic subset would optimize preventive measures and minimize recurrence of cerebral ischemia.

SUMMARY

Ischemic stroke is a prominent cause of mortality and long-term disability worldwide. The magnified effect of carotid disease warrants constant and close inspection.

Editor's Choice - Early and Late Outcomes after Transcarotid Revascularisation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid/transcervical revascularisation (TCAR) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS). This review aimed to evaluate pooled data on patients undergoing TCAR.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were used.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was conducted under Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eligible studies (published online up to September 2020) reported 30 day mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) rates in patients undergoing TCAR. Data were pooled in a random effects model and weight of effect for each study was also reported. Quality of studies was evaluated according to Newcastle - Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (three low, seven medium, and eight high quality) included 4 852 patients (4 867 TCAR procedures). The pooled 30 day mortality rate was 0.7% (n = 32) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 - 1.0), 30 day stroke rate 1.4% (n = 62) (95% CI 1.0 - 1.7), and 30 day stroke/TIA rate 2.0% (n = 92) (95% CI 1.4 - 2.7). Pooled technical success was 97.6% (95% CI 95.9 - 98.8). The cranial nerve injury rate was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7 - 1.9) (n = 14; data from 10 studies) while the early myocardial infarction (MI) rate was 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 - 0.6) (n = 16; data from 17 studies). The haematoma/bleeding rate was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.8) (n = 135; data from 10 studies), with one third of these cases needing drainage or intervention. Within a follow up of 3 - 40 months the restenosis rate was 4% (95% CI 0.1 - 13.1) (data from nine studies; n = 64/530 patients) and death/stroke rate 4.5% (95% CI 1.8 - 8.4) (data from five studies; n = 184/3 742 patients). Symptomatic patients had a higher risk of early stroke/TIA than asymptomatic patients (2.5% vs. 1.2%; odds ratio 1.99; 95% CI 1.01 - 3.92); p = .046; data from eight studies).

CONCLUSION

TCAR is associated with promising early and late outcomes, with symptomatic patients having a higher risk of early cerebrovascular events. More prospective comparative studies are needed in order to verify TCAR as an established alternative treatment technique.

Absence of Consistent Sex Differences in Outcomes From Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter.

METHODS

Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as P≤0.10.

RESULTS

Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant (P=0.065), indicating heterogeneity among trials. Contributors to this heterogeneity are primarily differences in periprocedural period. When the trials are nevertheless pooled, there were no significant sex differences in risk in any follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

Surgical Approaches to Stroke Risk Reduction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgical vascular intervention is an important tool in reducing the risk of stroke. This article examines the evidence for using the available options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Carotid endarterectomy is an effective treatment option for reducing the risk of stroke in appropriately selected patients. Patients should be stratified for future stroke risk based on both the degree of stenosis and the presence of symptoms referable to the culprit lesion. Carotid stenting is also useful in reducing stroke risk, again in carefully selected patients. Because of the publication of significant data regarding both carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the last several years, selection can be far more personalized and refined for individual patients based on demographics, sex, patient preference, and medical comorbidities. Routine extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery remains unproven as a therapeutic option for large vessel occlusion in reducing the incidence of ischemic stroke although some carefully screened patient populations remaining at high risk may benefit; procedural risks and pathology related to alterations in blood flow dynamics are challenges to overcome. Indirect revascularization remains an appropriate solution for carefully selected patients with cerebral large vessel steno-occlusive disease, and multiple variations of surgical technique are patient specific. Indirect revascularization may benefit from clinical trials with larger patient populations for validation in specific pathologies and offers the advantages of lower surgical complication rates and reduced risk of pathologic responses to altered cerebral flow dynamics.

SUMMARY

Surgical solutions to reduce stroke risk provide important alternatives in appropriately selected patients and should be considered in addition to medical management and lifestyle modification for optimizing patient outcomes.

Comparison of open- and closed-cell stent design outcomes after carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

The association between stent design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) has remained controversial. The available data are conflicting regarding the superiority of any specific stent design. The present study investigated the association between cell design and outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) in a real world setting.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone CAS with distal embolic protection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2016 to 2018 were included in the present study. Patients undergoing CAS for trauma or dissection or more than two treated lesions were excluded. We also excluded lesions for which more than two carotid stents had been used and lesions confined to the common or external carotid artery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to compare the outcomes after CAS between the open- and closed-cell stent designs.

RESULTS

Of the 2671 CAS procedures included in the present analysis, 1384 (51.8%) had used closed-cell stents and 1287 (48.2%) had used open-cell stents. On univariable analysis, no significant differences were noted between the closed- and open-cell stents in in-hospital mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%; P = .40), stroke (1.8% vs 2.4%; P = .28), and stroke/death (3.3% vs 3.5%; P = .81). After adjusting for potential confounders (ie, age, symptomatic status, previous major amputation, statin and antiplatelet use, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, elective procedures, approach, and post-stent dilatation), no difference was noted in in-hospital stroke/death between the two stent designs (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.74; P = .74). However, the interaction between stent design (open vs closed) and lesion location (bifurcation vs internal carotid artery [ICA]) was statistically significant (P = .02). Closed-cell stents were associated with five times the odds of in-hospital stroke/death when used in carotid artery bifurcation (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.3-22.2; P = .02). However, when the stent was limited to the ICA, no differences were noted (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45; P = .62). One-year follow-up data were available for 19% of patients. No differences in ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year were noted between the open- and closed-cell stents, except when the lesion was located in the carotid bifurcation (hazard ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.4-31.4; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Closed-cell stents were associated with an increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death for carotid bifurcation lesions, which might be related to the relatively lower conformability of closed-cell stents in the tortuous and diameter-mismatched bifurcation anatomy vs the relatively linear uniform diameter of the ICA. Improved follow-up and in-depth analysis of lesion-specific characteristics that might influence the outcomes of these two designs are needed to validate these results.

Quality Assurance for Carotid Stenting in the CREST-2 Registry

BACKGROUND

The CREST-2 Registry (C2R) was approved by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-National Institutes of Health in September 2014 with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry collaboration to enroll patients undergoing CAS. The registry credentials interventionists and promotes optimal patient selection, procedural-technique, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports periprocedural outcomes in a cohort of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Asymptomatic patients with ≥70% and symptomatic patients with ≥50% carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age, and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy are eligible for enrollment. Interventionists are credentialed by a multispecialty committee that reviews experience, lesion selection, technique, and outcomes. The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke and death (S/D) in the 30-day periprocedural period. Myocardial infarction and access-site complications were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

As of December 2018, 187 interventionists from 98 sites in the United States performed 2,219 CAS procedures in 2,141 patients with primary atherosclerosis (78 were bilateral). The mean age of the cohort was 68 years, 65% were male, and 92% were white; 1,180 (55%) were for asymptomatic disease, and 961 (45%) were for symptomatic disease. All U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved stents and embolic protection devices were represented. The 30-day rate of S/D was 1.4% for asymptomatic, 2.8% for symptomatic, and 2.0% for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

C2R is the first national registry for CAS cosponsored by federal and industry partners. CAS was performed by experienced operators using appropriate patient selection and optimal technique. In that setting, a broad group of interventionists achieved very low periprocedural S/D rates for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.

Assessment of mechanical indicators of carotid plaque vulnerability: Geometrical curvature metric, plaque stresses and damage in tissue fibres

Stroke is a major cause of death worldwide. The rupture of atherosclerotic carotid plaques is the leading single cause of stroke. Currently there is no accepted clinical measure to quantitatively assess the risk of carotid plaque rupture. Structural analyses of vulnerable plaques, using finite element (FE) analysis, have retrospectively found that regions of high stress tend to be the site of plaque rupture. The current study proposes a new clinical measure, based on plaque geometry, to assess the risk of carotid plaque rupture. This measure, named the weighted curvature difference, is based on the curvature of both the lumen and intima-media boundary, and the local plaque thickness. A series of idealized and realistic, 2-D and 3-D geometries are used to systematically assess this novel geometrical metric. The areas predicted to be at high risk of rupture using this geometrical metric are compared with areas of high stress, obtained from both isotropic and anisotropic material models. These results are also compared with areas in diseased carotid arteries that are predicted to have high damage accumulation in collagen fibres using a continuum damage model. Results show the new geometrical metric consistently predicts the locations of high stress in all of the vessel geometries examined. The drawbacks of using lumen curvature only as a risk measure are highlighted; particularly in the case of outward remodelled vessels. Weighted curvature difference shows great potential to be used as a metric to efficiently distinguish the rupture prone areas in a diseased vessels in a way that is independent of material properties.

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.

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BACKGROUND

Microembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.

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?

Influence of multiple stents on periprocedural stroke after carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST)

BACKGROUND

In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST), carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion length and nature of the lesions were important factors that predicted the observed difference in stroke rates between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Additional patient-related factors influencing CAS outcomes in CREST included age and symptomatic status. The importance of the operator's proficiency and its influence on periprocedural complications have not been well defined. We evaluated data from CREST to determine the impact of use of multiple stents, which we speculate may be related to technical proficiency.

METHODS

CREST includes CAS performed for symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis and asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were enrolled in the trial and in the lead-in registry. Data from patients enrolled in the CREST registry and randomized trial from 2000 to 2008 were reviewed for patient- and lesion-related characteristics along with number of stents deployed. The occurrence of 30-day stroke and demographic and clinical features were recorded. Odds ratios for 30-day stroke associated with the use of multiple stents were calculated in univariate analysis and on multivariable analysis after adjustment for demographics (age, sex, symptomatic status), lesion characteristics (length, ulceration, eccentric, percentage stenosis), and risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking).

RESULTS

The registry (n = 1531) and trial (n = 1121) enrolled 2652 patients undergoing CAS. The mean age was 69 years; 36% were women, and 38% were symptomatic. The mean diameter stenosis was 78%, and the mean lesion length was 18 mm (±standard deviation, 8 mm). Risk factors included hypertension (85%), diabetes (32%), dyslipidemia (84%), and smoking (23%). All patients received Acculink stents (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Ill) that were 20, 30, or 40 mm in length (straight or tapered) and Accunet (Abbot Vascular) embolic protection when possible. Most patients received one stent (n = 2545), whereas 98 patients received two stents and 9 patients received three stents (P < .001) to treat the lesion. Patients receiving more than one stent were older (P = .01) but did not differ in other demographic or risk factors. Strokes occurred in 118 (4.5%) of all CAS procedures, in 102 (4%) with the use of one stent, and in 16 (15%) with the use of two or three stents. After adjustment for demographics, lesion characteristics, and risk factors, the use of more than one stent resulted in 2.90 odds (95% confidence interval, 1.49-5.64) for a stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we know that lesion characteristics (length, ulceration) play an important role in CAS outcomes, in this early experience with carotid stenting, a significant and independent relationship existed between the number of stents used and procedural risk of CAS. We postulate that this was an indicator of the operator's inexperience with the procedure.

Carotid Revascularization with and without the Use of an Embolic Protection Device: A Single-Center Experience from Pakistan

Background

To assess the safety and clinical efficacy of carotid artery stenting with and without an embolic protection device (EPD) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease cases.

Methods

Retrospective data of 55 symptomatic (≥50% occlusion by digital subtraction angiography [DSA], ≥70% by ultrasound, computed tomography angiography [CTA], and magnetic resonance angiography [MRA]) and asymptomatic (≥60% by DSA, ≥70% by ultrasound, ≥80% by CTA and MRA) carotid disease cases undergoing carotid stenting/angioplasty revascularization from February 2014 to October 2017 was reviewed. All symptomatic patients either experienced recurrent transient ischemic attacks or one or more stroke attacks. An EPD protocol was designed for its selective use based on plaque morphologies and working diameters. The primary end points at 30 days of follow-up were a periprocedural incidence of any stroke, myocardial infarction or death, and ipsilateral stroke during the follow-up period.

Results

Of the 55 cases, 39 were males and 16 females; mean age was 64.8 years. Fifty-one patients (92.7%) were symptomatic, with a mean stenosis of 80.1%. EPD was used in only 11 cases (20%). Minor stroke rate during the first 30 postoperative days was 1.8% (1 case) with EPD; no myocardial infarction or mortality. No stroke occurred during the median 1.5 years' follow-up.

Conclusion

Based on our single-center experience and findings of a relatively small sample size, carotid revascularization with stenting and angioplasty without EPD in experienced hands was found to be safe and efficacious. In addition, it proves cost-effective for patients by limiting the use of unnecessary disposables. These results are comparable to those reported in major trials and are well within the complication thresholds suggested in current guidelines. These results also show promise and illustrate the need for a larger, randomized controlled trial in order to thoroughly address this aspect of carotid revascularization.

Periprocedural Stroke and Myocardial Infarction as Risks for Long-Term Mortality in CREST

BACKGROUND

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) previously reported increased mortality in patients who sustained a periprocedural stroke or cardiac event (myocardial infarction [MI] or biomarker only) in follow-up to 4 years. We now extend these observations to 10 years.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CREST is a randomized controlled trial designed to compare the outcomes of carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between mortality and periprocedural stroke, MI, or biomarker-only events. For 10-year follow-up, patients with periprocedural stroke were at 1.74× the risk of death compared with those without stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=1.74; 95% CI, 1.21-2.50; P<0.003). This increased risk was driven by increased early (between 0 and 90 days) mortality (adjusted HR=14.41; 95% CI, 5.33-38.94; P<0.0001), with no significant increase in late (between 91 days and 10 years) mortality (adjusted HR=1.40; 95% CI, 0.93-2.10; P=0.11). Patients with a protocol MI were at 3.61× increased risk of death compared with those without MI (adjusted HR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.28-5.73; P<0.0001), with an increased hazard both early (adjusted HR=8.20; 95% CI, 1.86-36.2; P=0.006) and late (adjusted HR=3.40; 95% CI, 2.09-5.53; P<0.0001). Patients with a biomarker-only event were at 2.04× increased risk overall (adjusted HR=2.04; 95% CI, 1.09-3.84; P=0.03) than those without MI, with an increased early hazard (adjusted HR=8.44; 95% CI, 1.09-65.5; P=0.04) and a suggestive but nonsignificant association toward higher 91-day to 10-year risk (1.88; 95% CI, 0.97-3.64; P=0.062) contributing to the increased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In the CREST trial, patients with periprocedural events demonstrate a substantial increase in future mortality to 10 years. For stroke, this risk is largely confined to an early time frame while periprocedural MI or biomarker-only events confer a continuous increased mortality for 10 years. Strategies to reduce periprocedural events and to optimize the evaluation and management of patients with cardiac events should be considered in efforts to reduce not only early but also long-term mortality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

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.)

External Validation of Randomized Trial Outcomes Following Carotid Interventions in the Modern Era

An essential prerequisite of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is “external validation,” that is, results obtained in the “real world” closely replicate those from RCTs. In this respect, contemporary administrative data set registries reporting outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS) have recently reported death/stroke rates that exceed the accepted risk thresholds for intervening. The current article evaluates this controversy and offers reasons why this might continue to happen, namely: (1) difference in interventionists’ competence/experience, (2) patient selection, and (3) advances in CAS technology/technique. As CAS is a continuously evolving technique, the results obtained from patients recruited into the landmark RCTs (as early as the late 1990s) do not reflect contemporary practice. Although RCTs are not always the perfect solution, the process of randomization ensures minimization of selection bias. A possible way forward may be the introduction of prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registries.

Endarterectomy achieves lower stroke and death rates compared with stenting in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

It is currently unclear if carotid artery stenting (CAS) is as safe as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant asymptomatic stenosis. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing CAS with CEA.

METHODS

On March 17, 2017, a search for randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus databases with no time limits. We performed meta-analyses with Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. The primary safety and efficacy outcome measures were stroke or death rate at 30 days and ipsilateral stroke at 1 year (including ipsilateral stroke and death rate at 30 days), respectively. Perioperative stroke, ipsilateral stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were all secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review of the literature identified nine randomized controlled trials reporting on 3709 patients allocated into CEA (n = 1479) or CAS (n = 2230). Stroke or death rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (64/2176 [2.94%]) compared with CEA (27/1431 [1.89%]; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = .044), with low level of heterogeneity beyond chance (I² = 0%). Also, stroke rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (63/2176 [2.90%]) than for CEA (26/1431 [1.82%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.04-2.54; P = .032; I² = 0%). MI at 30 days was nonsignificantly lower for CAS (12/1815 [0.66%]) compared with CEA (16/1070 [1.50%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.14; P = .105; I² = 0%); however, CNI at 30 days was significantly lower for CAS (2/1794 [0.11%]) than for CEA (33/1061 [3.21%]; OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26; P < .00001; I² = 0%). Regarding the long-term outcome of stroke or death rate at 30 days plus ipsilateral stroke during follow-up, this was significantly higher for CAS (79/2173 [3.64%]) than for CEA (35/1430 [2.45%]; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.02-2.24; P = .04; I² = 0%). Quality of evidence for all stroke outcomes was graded moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with asymptomatic stenosis undergoing carotid intervention, there is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that CEA had significantly lower 30-day stroke and also stroke or death rates compared with CAS at the cost of higher CNI and nonsignificantly higher MI rates. The long-term efficacy of CEA in ipsilateral stroke prevention, taking into account perioperative stroke and death, was preserved during follow-up. There is an urgent need for high-quality research before a firm recommendation is made that CAS is inferior or not to CEA.

Anatomical and technical predictors of perioperative clinical outcomes after carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

A few other studies have reported the effects of anatomical and technical factors on clinical outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study analyzed the effect of these factors on perioperative stroke/myocardial infarction/death after CAS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 409 of 456 patients who underwent CAS during the study period. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effects of anatomical and technical factors on perioperative stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (major adverse events [MAEs]).

RESULTS

The MAE rate for the entire series was 4.7% (19 of 409), and the stroke rate was 2.2% (9 of 409). The stroke rate for asymptomatic patients was 0.46% (1 of 218; P = .01). The MAE rates for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) were 7% (11 of 158) vs 3.2% (8 of 251) for other indications (P = .077). The stroke rates for heavily calcified lesions were 6.3% (3 of 48) vs 1.2% (4 of 332) for mildly calcified/noncalcified lesions (P = .046). Differences in stroke and MAE rates regarding other anatomical features were not significant. The stroke rate for patients with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) before embolic protection device (EPD) insertion was 9.1% (2 of 22) vs 1.8% (7 of 387) for patients without (P = .07) and 2.6% (9 of 341) for patients with poststenting PTA vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without. The MAE rate for patients with poststenting PTA was 5.6% (19 of 341) vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without (P = .0536). The MAE rate for patients with the ACCUNET (Abbott, Abbott Park, Ill) EPD was 1.9% (3 of 158) vs 6.7% (16 of 240) for others (P = .029). The differences between stroke and MAE rates for other technical features were not significant. A regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for stroke was 0.1 (P = .031) for asymptomatic indications, 13.7 (P = .014) for TIA indications, 6.1 (P = .0303) for PTA performed before EPD insertion, 1.7 for PTA performed before stenting, and 5.4 (P = .0315) for heavily calcified lesions. The MAE odds ratio was 0.46 (P = .0858) for asymptomatic indications, 2.1 for PTAs performed before EPD insertion, 2.2 for poststent PTAs, and 2.2 (P = .1888) for heavily calcified lesions. A multivariate analysis showed that patients with TIA had an odds ratio of stroke of 11.05 (P = .029). Patients with PTAs performed before EPD insertion had an OR of 6.15 (P = .062). Patients with heavily calcified lesions had an odds ratio of stroke of 4.25 (P = .0871). The MAE odds ratio for ACCUNET vs others was 0.27 (P = .0389).

CONCLUSIONS

Calcific lesions and PTA before EPD insertion or after stenting were associated with higher stroke or MAE rates, or both. The ACCUNET EPD was associated with lower MAE rates. There was no correlation between other anatomical/technical variables and CAS outcome.

Patient- and lesion-tailored algorithm of endovascular treatment for arterial occlusive disease of extracranial arteries supplying the brain: safety of the treatment at 30-day follow-up

Introduction

Although surgical endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid artery stenosis, stenting plays an important role as an alternative treatment modality, especially in high-risk patients. The actual safety profile associated with stenting procedures is probably better than that reported by randomized controlled trials.

Aim

To assess the safety of stent implantations in extracranial arteries supplying the brain, and also to identify risk factors associated with this procedure.

Material and methods

This was a post hoc analysis, with 30-day follow-up. We analyzed the results of treatment of 372 patients who underwent 408 procedures, 197 such procedures in asymptomatic, and 211 in symptomatic individuals. Stenting procedures were performed using a technique and armamentarium which were tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions.

Results

There were 6 (1.5%) strokes, including 2 (0.5%) major strokes, 1 ipsi- and 1 contralateral, and 4 (1.0%) minor strokes. In asymptomatic patients there was 1 (0.3%) minor stroke. Transient ischemic attacks occurred in 5 (1.2%) patients. There were 2 (0.5%) non-STEMI myocardial infarctions and 2 (0.5%) non-stroke related fatalities. Risk factors of these adverse events were diabetes mellitus, lesions localized in a tortuous segment of the artery, embolic material in the filter and bilateral stenoses of carotid arteries. Additional risk factors in asymptomatic patients were renal impairment and advanced coronary artery disease; and in symptomatic patients, grade 3 arterial hypertension, dislipidemia, cigarette smoking and lesions requiring predilatation.

Conclusions

Stenting procedures of extracranial arteries supplying the brain, which are tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions, seem to be relatively safe.