Anesthetic type and risk of myocardial infarction after carotid endarterectomy in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Clinical experience in intracranial stenting of Wingspan stent system under local anesthesia

Objective

The use of endovascular treatments for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis disease (ICAD) remains contentious due to high periprocedural complications. Many centers resort to general anesthesia for airway protection and optimal periprocedural conditions; however, this approach lacks real-time monitoring of patients' neurological status during procedures. In this study, we employed intracranial stenting with the Wingspan system under local anesthesia to address this challenge.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 45 consecutive ICAD patients who underwent intracranial stenting with the Wingspan system at our hospital from August 2013 to May 2021. These stenting procedures were performed under local anesthesia in a hybrid operation room. Neurological assessments were conducted during the procedure. The patients with periprocedural complications were analyzed for the risk factors.

Results

The study included 45 ICAD patients (median age 62 years; 35 male and 10 female individuals). Among them, 30 patients had anterior circulation ICAD, and 15 had posterior circulation ICAD. The periprocedural complication rate was 8.9% (4/45), with an overall mortality rate of 2.2% (1/45). Notably, no procedure-related perforation complications were found, and all ischemic complications occurred in the perforating bearing artery, specifically in patients with stents placed in the middle cerebral artery or basilar artery, while no complications were observed in the non-perforating bearing artery of the internal carotid artery and vertebral artery (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the Wingspan stent system when performed on selected patients under local anesthesia. This approach seems to reduce procedural-related morbidity and be a safe intervention. In addition, it is crucial for surgeons to be aware that patients with perforator-bearing artery stenosis may be at a higher risk of complications.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Registry-Based Study on 25 000 Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.

Incidence of myocardial injury in patients submitted to carotid endarterectomy

Myocardial injury following noncardiac surgery (MINS) is associated with higher mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event rates in the short- and long-term in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, its incidence is still unclear in this subset of patients. Therefore, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to determine the incidence of MINS in patients undergoing CEA. Three electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to search for studies assessing the occurrence of MINS in the postoperative setting of patients undergoing CEA. The incidence of MINS was pooled by random-effects meta-analysis, with sources of heterogeneity being explored by meta-regression and subgroup analysis (general anesthesia vs. regional anesthesia). Assessment of studies' quality was performed using National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tool, and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Twenty studies were included, with a total of 117,933 participants. Four of them were RCTs, while the remaining were cohort studies. All observational cohorts had an overall high risk of bias, except for Pereira Macedo et al. Three of them had repeated population, thus only data from the most recent one was considered. On the other hand, all RCT had an overall low risk of bias. In patients under regional anesthesia, the incidence of MINS in primary studies ranged between 2% and 15.3%, compared to 0-42.5% for general anesthesia. The meta-analytical incidence of MINS after CEA was of 6.3% [95% CI 2.0-10.6%], but severe heterogeneity was observed (I2=99.1%). MINS appears to be relatively common among patients undergoing CEA. The observed severe heterogeneity points to the need for further larger studies adopting consistent definitions of MINS and equivalent cut-off values.

Physiologic risk factors increase risk of myocardial infarction with transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials

OBJECTIVE

Patients can be considered at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) because of either anatomic or physiologic factors and will often undergo transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Patients with physiologic criteria will be considered to have a higher overall surgical risk because of more significant comorbidities. Our aim was to study the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and combined end points for patients who had undergone TCAR stratified by the risk factors (anatomic vs physiologic).

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER (pivotal; safety and efficacy study for reverse flow used during carotid artery stenting procedure), ROADSTER 2 (Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket trial; postapproval study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery disease), and ROADSTER extended access TCAR trials was performed. All 851 patients were considered to be at high risk for CEA and were included and stratified using high-risk anatomic criteria (ie, contralateral occlusion, tandem stenosis, high cervical artery stenosis, restenosis after previous endarterectomy, bilateral carotid stenting, hostile neck anatomy with previous neck irradiation, neck dissection, cervical spine immobility) or high-risk physiologic criteria (ie, age >75 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, history of angina, congestive heart failure New York Heart Association class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent MI, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent contralateral cranial nerve injury, chronic renal insufficiency). For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients were required to have had ≥80% carotid stenosis and symptomatic patients to have had ≥50% stenosis. The primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and MI at 30 days. The data were statistically analyzed using the χ² test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 851 high surgical risk patients were categorized into two groups: those with anatomic-only risk factors (n = 372) or at least one physiologic risk factor present (n = 479). Of the 851 patients, 74.5% of those in the anatomic subset were asymptomatic, and 76.6% in the physiologic subset were asymptomatic. General anesthesia was used similarly in both groups (67.7% anatomic vs 68.1% physiologic). MI had occurred in eight patients in the physiologic group (1.7%), all of whom had been asymptomatic and in none of the anatomic patients (P = .01). The combined stroke, death, and MI rate was 2.1% in the anatomic cohort and 4.2% in the physiologic cohort (P = .10). Stratification of each group into asymptomatic and symptomatic patients did not yield any further differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who had undergone TCAR in the present prospective, neurologically adjudicated trial because of high-risk physiologic factors had had a higher rate of MI compared with the patients who had qualified for TCAR using anatomic criteria only. These patients had experienced comparable rates of combined stroke, death, and MI rates. The anatomic patients represented a healthier and younger subset of patients, with notably low overall event rates.

Evaluating the Safety of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization under Local Anesthesia Prior to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the timing of intervention for patients with critical coronary artery disease (CAD) awaiting coronary artery bypass and severe carotid artery stenosis (CAS). Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive revascularization alternative through direct transcervical carotid access that minimizes the chance of arch manipulation and consequent antegrade embolic stroke rate. While the TCAR procedure can be performed under local anesthesia (monitored anesthesia care [MAC]) versus general anesthesia, the hemodynamic benefits of local anesthesia in patients with severe CAD are significant. Patients receiving staged TCAR-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have high-risk cardiovascular disease and require accurate perioperative neurological and hemodynamic evaluation that can be safely provided with local anesthesia.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, 14 patients were systematically identified to have undergone staged TCAR prior to CABG surgery from December 2018 to October 2021. All patients underwent TCAR with local anesthesia and minimal sedation. Relevant patient demographics, medical and surgical history, preoperative covariates, and type of anesthesia administered were obtained from patients' charts. CAD was confirmed by either carotid duplex imaging or computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the head/neck.

RESULTS

Staged TCAR-CABG interventions were performed on 14 patients (64% male; mean age 65.0 years). No major adverse cardiac events were reported including transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or TCAR-related death in the interval between their TCAR and CABG as well as in a 12-month follow-up period. One patient required to return to the operating room (OR) for evacuation of a neck hematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated high success rate of TCAR under local anesthesia prior to CABG (100%) with no incidence of perioperative stroke, MI, or death at 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up intervals. The authors support the use of staged TCAR-CABG with local anesthesia as a safe and promising treatment option for patients with high-grade cardiac disease, high risk of stroke, or multiple comorbidities that preclude a carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

Locoregional Anaesthesia and Intra-Operative Angiography in Carotid Endarterectomy: 16 Year Results of a Consecutive Single Centre Series

OBJECTIVE

The benefit of local (LA) over general (GA) anaesthesia and the rationale of intra-operative imaging strategies during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is debated. This study analysed the associations between patient characteristics, LA, and intra-operative imaging strategies and the in hospital stroke and death rates in elective CEA over a 16 year period.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated by elective CEA between January 2004 and December 2019 (n = 1 872; median age 71 years, 70% male, 37% symptomatic) were included. All patients were assessed neurologically before and within 48 hours after CEA. The primary outcome event was the combined rate of any in hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcome events were the combined rates of any in hospital major stroke (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 3 - 5) or death, stroke, minor stroke (mRS 0 - 2), major stroke, and death alone. To detect changes over time, four quartiles (2004 - 2007, 2008 - 2011, 2012 - 2015, and 2016 - 2019) of this cohort were analysed. Statistical analysis comprised trend tests, and uni- and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median patient age increased from 68 to 73 years (p < .001). Over time, LA (from 28% to 91%) and intra-operative imaging (angiography 2.8 - 98.1%, duplex ultrasound 0 - 78.2%) was applied more frequently. Surgical techniques did not change. The in hospital stroke or death and major stroke or death rates decreased from 3.7% to 1.5% (p = .041) and from 2.8% to 0.9% (p = .014), respectively, corresponding to a relative risk of decline of 7% and 12% annually. Multivariable analysis revealed that LA (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 - 0.62) and intra-operative angiography (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.10 - 0.81) were associated with lower in hospital major stroke and death rates.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate a decline in the combined rates of any in hospital major stroke or death after non-emergency CEA over time. Locoregional anaesthesia and intra-operative quality control were associated with these improvements and might be worthwhile in elective CEA.

Prospective Observational Study after Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy with Ultrasound-Guided Deep-Intermediate Cervical Plexus Blockade

(1) Introduction: The aim was to describe the anesthetic and surgical technique of eversion carotid endarterectomy performed under intermediate-deep cervical block with sedation, and to analyze the intraoperative and postoperative results. (2) Material and Methods: Thirty cases of unilateral eversion carotid endarterectomy (n = 30), performed between 2019–2020 in a tertiary center under intermediate-deep ultrasound-guided cervical plexus block and sedation, were prospectively observed and analyzed. Hemodynamic (blood pressure, heart rate) and neurological (cerebral oximetry) variables were measured in four intraoperative phases: at the beginning of the operation, prior to carotid clamping, after unclamping and at the end of the operation. We assessed acute postoperative pain in a numerical rating scale at 6, 12 and 24 h, early and 30-day complications, and length of stay. (3) Results: Baseline mean arterial pressure values were 100.4 ± 18 mmHg, pre-clamping 95.8 ± 14 mmHg, post-clamping 94.9 ± 11 mmHg, and at the end of the operation 102.4 ± 16 mmHg. Cerebral oximetry values were 61.7 ± 7/62.7 ± 8, 68.5 ± 9.6/69.1 ± 11.7 and 68.1 ± 10/68.1 ± 10 for the left and right hemispheres at baseline, pre- and post-clamping, respectively. The pain assessment showed a score less than or equal to 3. The incidence of residual nerve block, early complications, and major complications in the first 30 days was 40%, 16.7% and 3.3%, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The combination of intermediate-deep cervical plexus block and low-dose sedation is an effective and safe alternative in awake eversion carotid endarterectomy.

A systematic review & meta-analysis on perioperative cerebral and hemodynamic monitoring methods during carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between different strategies of perioperative cerebral and hemodynamic monitoring during carotid endarterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched.

METHODS

This review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021241891). The GRADE approach was used to describe the methodological quality of the studies and certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke rate. Secondary outcomes measures are 30-day ipsilateral stroke, 30-day mortality, shunt rate and complication rates.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 460 articles. Seventeen RCTs, three prospective observational studies and seven registries were included, reporting on 236 983 patients. The overall pooled 30-day stroke rate is 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 - 2.2%), ranging from 0 - 12.6%. In RCT's the pooled 30-day stroke rate is 2.7% (95% CI 1.6 - 3.7%) compared to 1.3% (95%CI 0.8 - 1.8%) in the registries. The overall stroke risk decreased from 3.7% before the year 2000 to 1.6% after 2000. No significant differences could be identified between different monitoring and shunting strategies, although a trend to higher stroke rates in routine no shunting arms of RCTs was observed. Overall 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction and nerve injury rates are 0.6% (95%CI 0.4 - 0.8), 0.8% (95%CI 0.6-1.0) and 1.3% (95%CI 0.4-2.2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences between the compared shunting and monitoring strategies are found. However, routine no shunting is not recommended. The available data is too limited to prefer one method of neuromonitoring over another method when selective shunting is applied.

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.

Anesthetic management of carotid endarterectomy: an update from Italian guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In order to systematically review the latest evidence on anesthesia, intraoperative neurologic monitoring, postoperative heparin reversal, and postoperative blood pressure management for carotid endarterectomy. The present review is based on a single chapter of the Italian Health Institute Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of extracranial carotid stenosis and stroke prevention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic article review focused on the previously cited topics published between January 2016 and October 2020 has been performed; we looked for both primary and secondary studies in the extensive archive of Medline/PubMed and Cochrane library databases. We selected 14 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 13 randomized controlled trials, 8 observational studies, and 1 narrative review. Based on this analysis, syntheses of the available evidence were shared and recommendations were indicated complying with the GRADE-SIGN version methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

From this up-to-date analysis, it has emerged that any type of anesthesia and neurological monitoring method is related to a better outcome after carotid endarterectomy. In addition, insufficient evidence was found to justify reversal or no-reversal of heparin at the end of surgery. Furthermore, despite a low evidence level, a suggestion for blood pressure monitoring in the postoperative period was formulated.

Treatment of carotid stenosis in asymptomatic, non-octogenarian, standard risk patients with stenting versus endarterectomy trials

OBJECTIVE

Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA.

METHODS

Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97).

CONCLUSIONS

In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA.

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.

Anesthetic choice during transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy affects the risk of myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group.

RESULTS

A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients.

Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy, Angioplasty, and Stent

Anesthetic management of carotid artery disease requiring carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting is complex and varies widely, but relies on excellent communication between the anesthesia and surgical team throughout the procedure to ensure appropriate cerebral perfusion. With a systematic approach to vascular access and hemodynamic and neurologic monitoring, anesthesia can be applied to maximize cerebral perfusion while minimizing the risk of postoperative hemorrhage or hyperperfusion.

Regional Anesthesia is Underutilized for Carotid Endarterectomy Despite Improved Perioperative Outcomes Compared with General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

The choice of anesthetic for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) continues to be controversial. Recent literature suggests improved outcomes with the use of regional anesthesia (RA) compared with general anesthesia (GA). The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and outcomes of RA for CEA using a national database.

METHODS

The targeted CEA files of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified based on anesthesia type into RA and GA, and patients' characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The outcomes of CEA under GA and RA were compared after 2:1 propensity matching.

RESULTS

There were 26,206 CEAs, and 14% (n = 3,664) were performed under RA, with no change in relative utilization during the study period (P = 0.557). Patients treated under RA were more likely to be older than 65 years (80.6% vs. 75.8%; P < 0.001) and White (90.8% vs. 83.5%; P < 0.001) but less likely to have diabetes (28.2% vs. 31.2%; P = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.2% vs. 10.5%; P < 0.001), and heart failure (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02) and be symptomatic (37.4% vs. 42.7%; P < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients undergoing RA were less likely to experience the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality compared with GA. GA patients were more likely to have longer operating time and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA performed under RA is associated with improved outcomes compared with GA. RA is underutilized in carotid surgery, and strategies to optimize its use are needed.

Anesthetic Considerations for Transcarotid Artery Revascularization: Experience and Review of Forty Cases From a Single Medical Center

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedure is a novel hybrid surgical modality in treating carotid stenosis. Understanding the various steps of the TCAR and the unique challenges involved in the anesthetic management is essential for the successful conduct of anesthesia. In this article, we discuss the overview of the key issues relevant to the anesthetic management and strategies from our experience. We present the data on anesthetic management and outcomes of 40 patients who underwent TCAR procedure at our institute between June 2018 and February 2020. Electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed and relevant demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. All our patients had general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube utilizing standard American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) monitoring along with intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring and cerebral oximetry.

The mean age of our patients was 73.6 ± 7.58 years. Fifteen (37.5 %) patients had significant co-morbidities, thus classified as ASA 4 and 10 (25%) patients were on at least three antihypertensives (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, loop diuretics, thiazides). Thirty-four (85%) patients were considered to have symptomatic carotid stenosis which was the predominant indication for the TCAR procedure. Patients who had episodes of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) documented by a computerized tomography (CT) scan of the brain and/or residual weakness are considered symptomatic. Thirty-six (90%) of our patients received a bolus dose of 0.2 - 0.4 mg of glycopyrrolate for maintaining heart rate of around 70 beats per minute (BPM) and 38 (95%) received phenylephrine infusion during the carotid clamp to maintain blood pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg systolic or at patients’ baseline. Twenty-one (52.5%) patients needed antihypertensives such as hydralazine ( 10-20 mg) or beta-blockers such as labetalol (10-20 mg) at the time of emergence from anesthesia to mitigate hemodynamic response during extubation. The mean blood loss was 74 ml ± 33.19 ml, and none of our patients received blood transfusion during the perioperative period. The mean duration of anesthesia was 202.6 ± 27.85 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 1.5 ± 0.97 days.

A thorough preoperative examination with specific attention to the preoperative neurological deficits and cardiopulmonary reserve is important for the meticulous management of intraoperative hemodynamics. Intraoperative administration of glycopyrrolate and the use of vasopressors to maintain optimal hemodynamics to ensure cerebral perfusion during the perioperative period should be considered. The anesthetic goals of carotid revascularization (TCAR) are perioperative hemodynamic stability and early evaluation of neurological status in the immediate postoperative period.

Anesthetic considerations in transcarotid artery revascularization

Transcarotid artery revascularization is a relatively new technology made available to vascular interventionalists within the last several years for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, the intraoperative techniques and perioperative management of these patients continues to evolve as more experience is gained. Herein, we consider some important principles of anesthesia for patients undergoing this procedure.

The effect of milrinone on mortality in adult patients who underwent CABG surgery: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

As an inodilator, milrinone is commonly used for patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery because of its effectiveness in decreasing the cardiac index and mitral regurgitation. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies from the past 20 years to evaluate the impact of milrinone on mortality in patients who undergo CABG surgery.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search on the application of milrinone in patients who underwent CABG surgery in studies published between 1997 and 2017 in BioMed Central, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register. The included studies evaluated milrinone groups compared to groups receiving either placebo or standard treatment and further compared the systemic administration.

Results

The network meta-analysis included 723 patients from 16 randomized clinical trials. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality between the milrinone group and the placebo/standard care group when patients underwent CABG surgery. In addition, 9 trials (with 440 randomized patients), 4 trials (with 212 randomized patients), and 10 trials (with 470 randomized patients) reported that the occurrence of myocardial infarction (MI), myocardial ischemia, and arrhythmia was lower in the milrinone group than in the placebo/standard care group. Between the milrinone treatment and placebo/standard care groups, the occurrence of myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, and arrhythmia was significantly different. However, the occurrence of stroke and renal failure, the duration of inotropic support (h), the need for an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), and mechanical ventilation (h) between these two groups showed no differences.

Conclusions

Based on the current results, compared with placebo, milrinone might be unable to decrease mortality in adult CABG surgical patients but can significantly ameliorate the occurrence of MI, myocardial ischemia, and arrhythmia. These results provide evidence for the further clinical application of milrinone and of therapeutic strategies for CABG surgery. However, along with milrinone application in clinical use, sufficient data from randomized clinical trials need to be collected, and the potential benefits and adverse effects should be analyzed and reevaluated.

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.

The study of transcarotid artery revascularization under local versus general anesthesia with results from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

Objective

The primary purpose of this study was to examine any potential difference in clinical outcomes between transcarotid artery revascularization performed under local anesthesia compared with general anesthesia by utilizing a large national database.

Methods

The primary outcome of the study was a composite endpoint of postoperative in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction and mortality following transcarotid artery revascularization for the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of postoperative in-hospital stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and mortality along with several subsets of its components and each individual component, flow reversal time (min), radiation dose (GY/cm2), contrast volume utilized (mL), total procedure time (min), extended total length of stay (>1 day) and extended postoperative length of stay (>1 day). Statistical analyses employed both descriptive measures to characterize the study population and analytic measures such as multivariable mixed-effect linear and logistic regressions using both unmatched and propensity-score matched cohorts.

Results

A total of 2609 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization between the years 2016 and 2018 in the US were identified, with 82.3% performed under general anesthesia and 17.7% under local anesthesia. The primary composite outcome was observed in 2.3% of general anesthesia patients versus 2.6% of local anesthesia patients ( p = 0.808). The rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction was 1.6% with general anesthesia versus 1.1% with local anesthesia ( p = 0.511). For adjusted regression analysis, general anesthesia and local anesthesia were comparable in terms of primary outcome (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.27–1.93, p = 0.515). As for the secondary outcomes, no significant differences were found except for contrast, where the results demonstrated significantly less need for contrast with procedures performed under general anesthesia (coefficient: 4.94; 95% CI: 1.34–8.54, p = 0.007). A trend towards significance was observed for lower rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09–1.18, p = 0.088) and lower flow reversal time under local anesthesia (coefficient: –0.94: 95% CI: –2.1–0.22, p = 0.111).

Conclusions

Excellent outcomes from transcarotid artery revascularization for carotid stenosis were observed in the VQI database between the years 2016 and 2018, under both local anesthesia and general anesthesia. The data demonstrate the choice of anesthesia for transcarotid artery revascularization does not appear to have any effect on clinical outcomes. Surgical teams should perform transcarotid artery revascularization under the anesthesia type they are most comfortable with.

Carotid Revascularization: Current Practice and Future Directions

Carotid stenosis is responsible for approximately 15% of ischemic strokes. Carotid revascularization significantly decreases patients' stroke risk. Carotid endarterectomy has first-line therapy for moderate-to-severe carotid stenosis after a series of pivotal randomized controlled trials were published almost 30 years ago. Revascularization with carotid stenting has become a popular and effective alternative in a select subpopulation of patients. We review the current state of the literature regarding revascularization indications, patient selection, advantages of each revascularization approach, timing of intervention, and emerging interventional techniques, such as transcarotid artery revascularization.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: Analysis of the 2013-2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

Contemporary, nationally representative 30-day readmissions data after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are lacking.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS or CEA were identified from the 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Databases. Propensity matching was used to balance baseline clinical characteristics. Thirty-day nonelective readmission rates, length of stay, and causes of readmission were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 85 337 (national estimate of 194 332) patients were identified before propensity score matching, 11 490 (13.4%) of whom underwent CAS and 73 847 (86.6%) of whom underwent CEA. Crude 30-day readmission rates were higher for patients treated with CAS than CEA (8.3% versus 6.8%; P<0.001), but these differences were negated in the propensity-matched cohort (n=22 214; 8.4% versus 7.9%, P=0.20), and readmission length of stay was longer for CEA than CAS (2 versus 1 day, respectively; P=0.002). The most common reasons for readmission were neurological and cardiac events; readmission reasons varied by revascularization modality. Readmission due to a stroke or transient ischemic attack was more common among patients treated with CAS than CEA (1.2% versus 0.9%; P=0.042), while readmission for procedural or medical complications occurred more often following CEA than CAS (1.1% versus 0.5%; P<0.001); readmission rates for cardiac causes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 8% of patients are readmitted within 30 days of a carotid revascularization procedure. After adjusting for baseline differences, readmission rates are similar for CAS and CEA although readmission length of stay is longer after the latter. Readmission for neurological causes was more common following CAS while readmission for procedural or medical complications occurred more often following CEA. Higher annual institutional CEA volumes were associated with lower risk for 30-day readmission; in contrast, institutional CAS volumes were not related to readmission risk. These data provide important insights into the short-term, outcomes of patients following carotid artery revascularization.

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.

Anesthesia Type is Associated with Decreased Cranial Nerve Injury in Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Anesthesia modalities for carotid endarterectomy continue to vary nationally. We evaluated and compared short-term outcomes after carotid endarterectomy with general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

METHODS

The 2011-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files (PUFs) with merged Vascular Procedure-Targeted PUFs for carotid endarterectomy were queried for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Postoperative complications, mortality, and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing GA or RA were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 14,447 patients were evaluated: 12,389 (85.7%) with GA and 2,058 (14.3%) with RA. The use of GA was inversely associated with patients' age (88.0% in patients aged 22-64 years vs. 83.4% in patients aged ≥80 years, P < 0.0001) and with symptomatic presentation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.38). There were no differences between GA and RA for in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, or postoperative complications of transient ischemic attack, stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure, or restenosis. However, rates of cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in GA than in RA (2.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.002) and confirmed by multivariable analysis (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.19-2.39). Total operative time was also longer for GA than for RA (median: 115 minutes; Interquartile range (IQR): 89-145 versus median: 93 minutes; IQR: 76-119, respectively; P < 0.0001). Hospital length of stay was greater in GA than in RA (median: 1 day; IQR 1-2 vs. median: 1 day; IQR 1-1, respectively; P < 0.0001), as were 30-day readmission rates (6.7% vs. 5.4%, respectively; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic nerve injury is a feared complication of carotid endarterectomy, especially in elective asymptomatic patients. RA reduces the rate of cranial nerve injury compared with GA. RA is also not inferior to GA for postoperative complications with the benefit of shorter operative times, lengths of hospital stay, and decreased 30-day readmission rates. Consideration should be given to more widespread adoption of this underused anesthesia modality.

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated.

METHODS

We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.

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?

Carotid stenosis - basing treatment on individual patients' needs. Optimal medical therapy alone or accompanied by stenting or endarterectomy

Though carotid artery stenosis is a known origin of stroke, risk assessment and treatment modality are not yet satisfactorily established. Guideline updates according to latest evidence are expected shortly. Current clinical weakness concerns in particular the identification of "at-risk" patients. Beside the symptomatic status and the degree of stenosis, further signs of unstable plaque on carotid and cerebral imaging should be considered. Moreover, medical and endovascular therapy are continuously improving. Randomized trials and meta-analyses have shown similar long-term results for protected carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy. However, endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased 30-day rate of minor strokes. Newly developed embolic protection devices could possibly compensate for this disadvantage. Furthermore, high-level optimal medical therapy alone is currently being evaluated comparatively. We assume that a comprehensive evaluation of plaque vulnerability, serious consideration of advanced embolic protection, and more space for optimal medical therapy alone according to latest evidence, will benefit patients with carotid stenosis.

Factors Influencing Decision Making for Carotid Endarterectomy versus Stenting in the Very Elderly

As the population ages worldwide, the number of elderly patients with carotid stenosis is also increasing. There have been many large clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CAE) versus stenting, but the inclusion criteria (i.e., symptomatic or asymptomatic), stenting methods (i.e., protection device), and primary end point (i.e., the definition of myocardial infarction and follow-up period) were different between trials. Therefore, the interpretation of those results is difficult and requires attention. When it comes to age, the patients older than 80 years were excluded or stratified to a high risk group in previous landmark trials. However, a recent guideline recommended that endarterectomy may be associated with lower stroke risk compared with carotid artery stenting in patients older than 70 years with symptomatic carotid disease. The annual risk of stroke in individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis is about 1-3% but the risk is about 4-12% with symptomatic stenosis without carotid intervention. Although the outcome of CAE is better than that of carotid stenting in patients older than 70 years, the perioperative risk is higher in older patients. Therefore, it is important to classify high risk patients and consider underlying disability and life expectancy of very elderly patients before deciding whether to undergo a carotid intervention. In addition, we should also consider that the stroke rate with intensive medical treatment is unknown and is currently being investigated in randomized controlled trials. Intensive medical treatment includes high intensity statins, diabetes and blood pressure control, and aggressive antiplatelet treatment. The aim of this review is to report the factors that may be responsible for the variability in the treatment of carotid stenosis, particularly in the elderly population. This will allow the readers to integrate the current available evidence to individualize the treatment of carotid stenosis in this challenging population.

Evidence-Based Carotid Interventions for Stroke Prevention: State-of-the-art Review

Carotid artery stenosis is responsible for between 10-20% of all ischaemic strokes. Interventions, such as carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting, effectively reduce the risk of stroke in selected individuals. This review describes the history of carotid interventions, and summarises reliable evidence on the safety and efficacy of these interventions gained from large randomised clinical trials.Early trials comparing carotid endarterectomy to medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients, and asymptomatic patients, demonstrated that endarterectomy halved the risk of stroke and perioperative death in these two unique populations. The absolute risk reduction was smaller in the asymptomatic carotid trials, consistent with their lower absolute stroke risk. More recent trials in symptomatic patients, suggest that carotid stenting has similar long term durability to carotid endarterectomy, but possibly has higher procedural hazards dominated by non-disabling strokes. The Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2, along with individual patient data meta-analysis of all asymptomatic trials, will provide reliable evidence for the choice of intervention in asymptomatic patients in whom a decision has been made for carotid revascularisation. Given improvements in effective cardiovascular medical therapy, in particular lipid-lowering medications, there is renewed uncertainty as to whether carotid interventions still provide meaningful net reductions in stroke risk in asymptomatic populations. Four large trials in Europe and the US are currently underway, and are expected to report long-term results in the next decade.It is essential that surgeons, interventionalists, and physicians continue to randomise large numbers of patients from around the world to clarify current uncertainty around the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.