Outcome of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty versus open surgical repair of recurrent carotid stenosis

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

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

Long-term Comparative Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting Following Previous Carotid Endarterectomy vs De Novo Lesions

PURPOSE

To report the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for de novo carotid stenosis vs patients treated for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all 385 patients (mean age 68.6±9.6 years; 231 men) who underwent 435 CAS procedures at a large tertiary care center between January 1999 and December 2013. For analysis, patients were stratified based on their lesion type [de novo (dn) vs post-CEA restenosis (res)] and subclassified by symptoms status [symptomatic (Sx) or asymptomatic (Asx)], creating 4 groups: (1) CAS-dn Asx, (2) CAS-dn Sx, (3) CAS-res Asx, and (4) CAS-res Sx. For the CAS-res group, the mean elapsed time from CEA to CAS was 72.4±63.6 months. Outcomes included target vessel reintervention (TVR) and in-stent restenosis (ISR), the latter defined by a carotid duplex ultrasound velocity >275 cm/s.

RESULTS

The main indication for initial carotid angiography with possible revascularization was severe carotid stenosis (≥70%-99% on duplex) in both CAS-dn and CAS-res groups (83.6% vs 83.7%, p=0.999). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with postintervention residual stenosis (<30%; 100% each arm) or complications between CAS-res vs CAS-dn: in-hospital stroke (1.4% vs 1.8%, respectively), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0%), or death (0.9% vs 0%). Mean follow-up was 62.4±45.6 months (median 53.5, range 1-180). Average clinical/TVR follow-up was greater for the CAS-res group (71.9±48.6 months) compared with 53.3±40.5 months for the CAS-dn group (p<0.001). Across the 4 study groups, there were no differences in freedom from ISR (p=0.174) or TVR (p=0.856). Multivariate analysis found peripheral vascular disease (PVD) as the sole ISR independent predictor [hazard ratio (HR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.62, p=0.041], while significant predictors for TVR were age <65 years at the time of the procedure (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.18, p=0.039) and PVD (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.87, p=0.043).

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that CAS is a feasible and durable therapeutic option for recurrent restenosis after CEA. Long-term outcomes were similar for patients treated for de novo lesions or post-CEA restenosis. Age and PVD appear to influence long-term CAS durability.

Stenting versus endarterectomy for restenosis following prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To study perioperative results and restenosis during follow-up of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for patients with restenosis after CEA remains unknown.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, Embase) until July 1, 2013, was performed, supplemented by a review of references. Studies were considered for inclusion if they reported procedural outcome of CAS or CEA after prior ipsilateral CEA of a minimum of 5 patients. IPD were combined into 1 data set and an IPD meta-analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was perioperative stroke or death and the secondary endpoint was restenosis greater than 50% during follow-up, comparing CAS and CEA.

RESULTS

In total, 13 studies were included, contributing to 1132 unique patients treated by CAS (10 studies, n = 653) or CEA (7 studies; n = 479). Among CAS and CEA patients, 30% versus 40% were symptomatic, respectively (P < 0.01). After adjusting for potential confounders, the primary endpoint did not differ between CAS and CEA groups (2.3% vs 2.7%, adjusted odds ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-1.8). Also, the risk of restenosis during a median follow-up of 13 months was similar for both groups (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% (CI): 0.9-2.2). Cranial nerve injury (CNI) was 5.5% in the CEA group, while CAS was in 5% associated with other procedural related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with restenosis after CEA, CAS and CEA showed similar low rates of stroke, death, and restenosis at short-term follow-up. Still, the risk of CNI and other procedure-related complications should be taken into account.

Repeated carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting for patients with carotid restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Carotid restenosis (CRS) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an issue that cannot be ignored. This study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of repeated CEA (redo CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for CRS after CEA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic analysis using the search terms "CEA restenosis," "carotid restenosis," or "CEA recurrent stenosis" in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. After applying the inclusion criteria, all available data were summarized to evaluate the effects of redo CEA and CAS for patients with CRS after prior CEA.

RESULTS

Fifty articles (9 comparative studies and 41 noncomparative studies) involving 4,399 patients were included. No differences were observed in the 30-day perioperative mortality, stroke and transient ischemic attack rates in the comparative studies (P > .05) and the noncomparative studies (P > .05). Patients undergoing redo CEA suffered more cranial nerve injuries (CNIs) than those undergoing CAS (P < .05), but most of these cases recovered within 3 months. Patients treated with redo CEA exhibited similar myocardial infarction (MI) rates to those treated with CAS in the comparative studies (P = .53), but the rate was higher in the noncomparative studies (P < .01). However, a nonsignificant difference was noted in freedom from stroke at 36 months in the comparative studies (P = .47) and at 12 months in the noncomparative studies (P = .89). The risk of restenosis was greater in the CAS patients than in the redo CEA patients (P < .05 for comparative and noncomparative studies).

CONCLUSION

Both redo CEA and CAS are safe and feasible for CRS after CEA. Although the incidences of CNI and MI were increased in the redo CEA group, most of the CNI cases were reversible. Patients treated with CAS were more likely to develop restenosis than those treated with redo CEA over long-term follow-up.

The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting in carotid revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization has been carotid endarterectomy. Several randomized trials demonstrate that it is more efficacious than medical management in stroke prevention for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients when performed with low surgical morbidity. However, many high-risk patients not included in these trials are now being referred for carotid revascularization. Endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis with angioplasty and stenting has become an established alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for these patients. We provide a review of the current role of carotid stent and angioplasty.

METHODS

We reviewed our procedural techniques for carotid artery stenting (CAS) with an emphasis on the need for medical therapy before and after the procedure to reduce thromboembolic complications. We also retrospectively analysed our clinical outcomes and incidence of restenosis after CAS.

RESULTS

We evaluated 139 of 252 patients treated over a 10-year period who had a minimum of 6-month clinical and imaging (ultrasound and/or angiography) follow-up (average f/u=60 months). Our rate of major stroke, MI or death was 3%, and rate of peri-operative TIAs was 2%. Morbidity related to femoral sheath placement has been 1.5%, with one 'cold foot' resolved with heparin and one retroperitoneal hematoma requiring transfusion. Recurrent stenosis after CAS occurred in 4% of patients, predominately following radiation treatment where it was 15%.

DISCUSSION

Although CEA is the gold standard procedure to prevent stroke from carotid stenosis, CAS has an expanding role for revascualrization, particularly in high-risk patients. Several randomized prospective trials are ongoing to better define the indications for CAS versus CEA.

Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

Background

There is significant variation in the indications for intervention in patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to describe these indications in a contemporary cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the indications for carotid intervention in patients with recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) that were published between 1990 and 2012.

Results

There were 50 studies reporting on a total of 3524 patients undergoing a carotid procedure; of these, 3478 underwent CEA as the initial intervention. Reintervention was by CEA in 2403 patients and by CAS in 1121. Only 54·7 per cent of the patients were treated for any symptoms and, importantly, just 444 (23·1 per cent of 1926 symptomatic patients) underwent intervention for documented ipsilateral symptoms. None of the studies reported whether the patients were evaluated for other sources of emboli. The remaining 45·3 per cent of patients had asymptomatic restenosis and in the majority of the studies were treated when the degree of stenosis exceeded 80 per cent. The time to repeat intervention was significantly longer in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis, in asymptomatic patients and in patients undergoing CEA.

Conclusion

The reported criteria for retreatment of carotid stenosis were not rigorous and there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the indications for intervention.

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

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

Multicentric retrospective study of endovascular treatment for restenosis after open carotid surgery

OBJECTIVES

To analyse perioperative and midterm outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for symptomatic >50% and asymptomatic >70% restenosis after open carotid surgery (OCS).

DESIGN

A multicentric retrospective study.

METHODS

Outcome measures 30-day death, neurologic and anatomic (thrombosis, restenosis) events. Univariant and multivariant logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for neurologic and anatomic events.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients with a mean age of 69 years (range, 45-88) were treated for asymptomatic (86%) or symptomatic (14%) restenosis. The 30-day combined operative mortality and stroke morbidity was 2.8% in asymptomatic patients and 2.9% in symptomatic patients. Events during follow-up (mean duration, 29 months) included stroke in four cases, TIA in two, stent thrombosis in four and restenosis in 21. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival, neurologic-event-free survival, anatomic-event-free survival and reintervention-free survival were 95.4%, 94.7%, 96.7% and 99.5%, respectively, at 1 year and 80.3%, 93.8%, 85.1% and 96%, respectively, at 4 years. Multivariant analysis showed that statin use was correlated with a lower risk of anatomic events (odds ratio (OR) = 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.68), p = 0.01) and that bypass was associated with a higher risk of anatomic events than endarterectomy (OR = 5.0 (95% CI 1.6-16.6), p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

CAS is a feasible therapeutic alternative to OCS for carotid restenosis with acceptable risks in the perioperative period. Restenosis rate may be higher in patients treated after bypass.

Tratamento endovascular da reestenose carotídea: resultados em curto prazo

CONTEXTO: O tratamento cirúrgico da reestenose carotídea apresenta alta taxa de lesão neurológica. Contrariamente, o tratamento endovascular da doença obstrutiva carotídea extracraniana tem se tornado mais factível e gradualmente menores taxas de risco cirúrgico vêm sendo reportadas, tornando-se uma opção em situações especiais, e provavelmente poderá ser considerado o tratamento padrão para reestenose carotídea. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a aplicabilidade, a segurança e a eficácia da angioplastia com o uso do stent (ACS) no tratamento da reestenose carotídea (REC) no intraoperatório e no pós-operatório recente (<30 dias). MÉTODOS: Análise retrospectiva dos pacientes portadores de reestenose carotídea submetidos à angioplastia com stent no período de março 2000 a junho de 2004. RESULTADOS: Foram analisados 19 pacientes com reestenose carotídea. Quatorze pacientes (74%) eram do sexo masculino, com média de idade de 74 anos. Quinze (79%) eram assintomáticos com estenose >80%, enquanto quatro (21%) eram sintomáticos com estenose >70%. Apenas em um paciente não foi utilizado sistema de proteção cerebral. O sucesso técnico foi obtido em todos os casos. Não houve morte ou acidente vascular encefálico no intra ou no pós-operatório recente (30 dias). CONCLUSÃO: O tratamento endovascular da reestenose carotídea mostrou-se uma abordagem factível e segura em curto prazo

Carotid stenting for restenosis after endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been described in 8-19% of patients, 14-23% of whom become symptomatic. This study analyzes our experience with carotid artery stenting (CAS) for post-CEA recurrent stenoses.

METHOD

Retrospective database and case-note review.

RESULTS

Between January 2000 and September 2008, a total of 27 patients (15 symptomatic) with hemodynamically significant internal carotid artery post-CEA restenosis underwent CAS. Median stenosis of target vessels was 90% (range 75-95%). There was one periprocedural death (3.7%); no others occurred during the median 34-month follow-up (range 0.1-84 months). There was one late transient ischemic attack 12 months after CAS that was not associated with in-stent restenosis. One 90% restenosis and one occlusion were detected during follow-up at 38 and 57 months after CAS. The remaining patients had no evidence of further restenosis and remained free from cerebrovascular symptoms.

CONCLUSION

CAS offers a feasible option for the management of carefully selected patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic restenosis after CEA.

Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.

An old problem, a new solution

A 75-year-old woman with painful visual loss was diagnosed with ocular ischemic syndrome secondary to restenosis of the carotid artery following endarterectomy. She underwent carotid artery stenting, which has become an alternative to carotid endarectomy for primary carotid stenosis but is now also becoming more popular for recurrent carotid artery stenosis.

[Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting of carotid arteries--early results]

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of carotid stenosis could be surgical: eversion endarterectomy, conventional endarterectomy and patch-plasty, resection with graft interposition and bypass procedure or, in the past few years, carotid artery angioplasty (PTA) with stent implantation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present early results of carotid artery angioplasty and stenting, as well as to identify indications for this procedure.

METHOD

Twenty-three patients with stenosis of internal carotid artery were included in the prospective study which was performed in the period from July 2006 to July 2007. For PTA and stenting of the carotid artery we used Balloon dilatation catheter Ultra-soft SV and Carotid Wallstent Monorail. During the procedure, brain protection by embolic protection system Filter Wire EZ was essentialy performed. Descriptive statistical methods were performed to present and describe the patient characteristics, risk factors and results.

RESULTS

23 patients were examined. In four (17.39%) cases there was asymptomatic, while in 19 (82.61%) there was symptomatic haemodynamic significant stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Four of these 19 patients (17.39%) had late restenosis following carotid endarterectomy, four (17.39%) important respiratory failure, and 11 (47.83%) important heart disease. Patients were followed up for the first 30 postopertive days. In that period, there were no mortality and no needs for surgical conversions. In one case (4.35%), residual stenosis of 30% remained. Two patients (8.70%) had TIA and one (4.35%) had CVI.

CONCLUSION

Main indications for PTA and stenting of carotid arteries are: surgically inaccessible lesions (at or above C2; or subclavial); radiation-induced carotid stenosis; prior ispilateral radical neck dissection; prior carotid endarterectomy (restenosis), severe cardiac and pulmonary conditions. Limitations and contraindications to carotid angioplasty and stentning include: signficant peripheral occlusive diseases; unfavourable aortic arch anatomy; severe tortuosity of the common and internal carotid artery; severely calcified stenosis, lesions containing fresh thrombus; stenosis longer than 2 cm; critical (>99%) stenosis; associated carotid artery aneurysm; contrast-related issues and severe aortic valve stenosis.

Comprehensive stroke center quality metrics

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recent advances in stroke treatment created a need for a consensus statement by industry experts detailing elements of quality stroke care. In 2005, the brain attack coalition published recommendations outlining elements constituting the highest level of stroke care, the comprehensive stroke center. Unlike primary level stroke care, comprehensive center recommendations have not resulted in creation of a corresponding national certification process-largely owing to difficulties in establishing quality metrics. The authors proposed 13 comprehensive quality measures and assessed them at a tertiary referral, teaching hospital in Houston, Texas.

METHODS

Proposed metrics were derived from the 2005 brain attack coalition's comprehensive center guidelines. Outcomes measures included morbidity and mortality rates for stroke, cerebral aneurysm, carotid endarerectomy, and stent patients. Process measures included timeliness of brain imaging interpretation, timeliness and consideration of antiplatelet treatment regimes for carotid stent patients, and documentation of National Institutes of Health Stroke Score. Metrics were defined by international classification of disease codes with accompanying inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Internal quality was benchmarked against Primary Stroke Center, research literature, and University Health Consortium rates. Baseline data revealed significant opportunities for improvement in the categories of imaging interpretation timeliness and National Institutes of Health Stroke Score documentation. All other measures fell within expected ranges.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of quality outcomes is the basis for disease-specific certification. Institutions that claim comprehensive capabilities must demonstrate high standards of performance on uniform validated quality metrics. The authors demonstrate the feasibility of operationalizing the metrics outlined in Brain Attack Coalition's comprehensive stroke center recommendations.

[Why carotid endarterectomy is method of choice in treatment of carotid stenosis]

Procedures used in treatment of carotid stenosis are endarterectomy, PTA with stent implantation, resection with graft interposition and by-pass procedure. Segmental lesions are found more often and treated by the first two mentioned procedures. In case of longer lesions and extension to the greater part of the common carotid artery, the other two procedures are performed. For the past few years, the main dilemma has been whether to perform carotid endarterectomy or PTA with stent implantation. Both early and long-term results speak in favour of carotid endarterectomy, regardless of an increased number of PTA and carotid stenting. At the same time, PTA and carotid stenting are more expensive procedures. Both methods have their defined and important roles in treatment of segmental occlusive carotid lesions. Severe cardiac, pulmonary and renal conditions, which increase the risk of general anaesthesia, are not an absolute indication for PTA and stenting, since endarterectomy can be done in regional anaesthesia. Main indications for PTA with stent implantation are: surgically inaccessible lesions (at or above C2; or subclavian); radiation-induced carotid stenosis; prior ipsilateral radical neck dissection; prior carotid endarterectomy (restenosis).

Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting is a Safe and Durable Procedure in a Community Hospital

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been touted as a reasonable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for high-risk surgical candidates. Several published CAS series, primarily from academic centers, show immediate results approaching those of CEA. However, very little is known about long-term results with CAS, particularly in the community hospital setting. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed our CAS experience. From February 1999 to July 2003, 44 consecutive patients underwent placement of 46 stents. The mean patient age was 73 years, and 57 per cent were men. Most patients were asymptomatic (74%). High-risk categories included prior CEA (71%), other anatomic risks (13%), and/or significant medical comorbidities (16%). Technical success was achieved in all 46 cases. At 30 days, there were no deaths and one stroke, giving a combined stroke/mortality of 2 per cent. Clinical follow-up was obtained on all 44 patients at a mean follow-up of 42 months. Duplex scans performed on 44 stents (96%), at a mean follow-up of 40 months, demonstrated four 60 per cent to 79 per cent recurrent stenoses. CAS in a community hospital can have a 30-day stroke/mortality equivalent to CEA. The procedure is durable, with no critical (80%–99%) carotid restenoses and no stroke or transient ischemic attacks referable to a stented carotid artery in long-term follow-up.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus redo endarterectomy for recurrent stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS) is an alternative to redo carotid endarterectomy (RCEA) for recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of CAS in the treatment of RCS.

METHODS

In an 8-year period, all patients presenting for treatment of RCS were followed-up prospectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with unfavorable outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 45 CAS and 46 RCEA procedures performed in 75 patients. One patient in each group suffered a stroke. There were no deaths. The hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for CAS. Secondary recurrence was higher after RCEA (14% vs 6.1%) and failure to take beta-blockers was an independent predictor for multiple recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS is a safe and effective method to treat patients with RCS and may become the procedure of choice for this disease.

Carotid angioplasty and stent placement for restenosis after endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent carotid stenosis following endarterectomy is a common complication, and reoperation may be associated with increased morbidity. The goal of this study was to determine the procedural safety and long-term complication rates of carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent stenosis.

METHODS

Of 248 consecutive carotid angioplasty and/or stenting procedures performed at our institution between March 1996 and November 2005, 83 procedures for recurrent stenosis following endarterectomy were performed in 75 patients (mean age 68 years; 43 men, 32 women) without cerebral protection devices. The patients' medical records were retrospectively reviewed for vascular imaging reports and available clinical follow-up. Procedural and long-term complication rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Recurrent stenosis was reduced from a mean of 80.6% to no significant stenosis in 82 of 83 procedures. The procedural stroke rate was 3 out of 83 procedures (3.6%). The procedural transient ischemic attack (TIA) rate was 2 out of 83 procedures (2.4%). Mean follow-up was 22.4 months (range 0.1 to 86.7 months) with at least 6 months follow-up for 54 of 83 procedures (65%). There were five TIAs and no strokes on follow-up (new TIAs at 25.5 and 43.4 months; recurrent TIAs at 1, 11.1, and 12 months, all with normal angiograms). The composite 30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, or death rate was 5 of 83 procedures (6.0%).

CONCLUSION

In this series, angioplasty and stenting were effective in relieving stenosis secondary to recurrent carotid disease after endarterectomy, and have low rates of ischemic complications.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for postendarterectomy stenosis: Long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been proposed as an alternative to redo CEA. Although early results are encouraging, the extended durability remains unknown. We present the long-term surveillance results of CAS for post-CEA restenosis.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2004, 57 CAS procedures were performed in 55 patients (36 men) with a mean age of 70 years. The mean interval between CEA and CAS was 83 months (range, 6 to 245). Nine patients (16%) were symptomatic.

RESULTS

CAS was performed successfully in all patients. No deaths or strokes occurred. A periprocedural transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in two patients. During a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 12 to 72 months), two patients exhibited ipsilateral cerebral symptoms (1 TIA, 1 minor stroke). In 11 patients (19%), in-stent restenosis (> or =50%) was detected post-CAS at month 3 (n = 3), 12 (n = 3), 24 (n = 2), 36 (n = 1), 48 (n = 1), and 60 (n = 1). The cumulative rates of in-stent restenosis-free survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 93%, 85%, 82%, and 76%, respectively. Redo procedures were performed in six patients, three each received repeat angioplasty and repeat CEA with stent removal. The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 96%, 94%, 90%, and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent stenosis after CEA can be performed with a low incidence of periprocedural complications with durable protection from stroke. The rate of in-stent recurrent stenosis is high, however, and does not only occur early after CAS but is an ongoing process.

Follow-up results of carotid angioplasty with stenting as assessed by duplex ultrasound surveillance

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. We report a retrospective review of our institution's experience with CAS versus CEA.

METHODS

Postprocedure surveillance duplex, recurrent symptoms, postprocedure strokes, progression of lesions, and rates of re-operation were analyzed in 46 patients who underwent CAS and 48 patients who underwent CEA. The mean length of follow-up evaluation was 13 months. All CAS procedures included neuroprotection devices.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in progression to critical restenosis (2% vs 2%, P = 1.0), rate of subsequent symptoms or stroke (2% vs 10%, P = .1), or rate of re-interventions were not observed between CAS and CEA groups (2% vs 4%, P = .98). Total mortality (0% vs 2%, P = .33), and the occurrence of major adverse events (2% vs 10%, P = .18) also were not significantly different in the CAS compared with the CEA patients. The average rate of increase in internal carotid velocity at 6 to 12 months (-1% vs 1.1%, P = NS) and 12 to 24 months (-5% vs -6.5%, P = NS) also were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observed results indicate that CAS may be performed with comparable clinical outcomes and durability of repair comparable with CEA.

Patient selection for carotid stenting versus endarterectomy: A systematic review

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of severe extracranial carotid stenosis in patients with anatomic or clinical factors that increase their risk of complications with surgery, yet there remains a substantial amount of variability and uncertainty in clinical practice in the referral of patients for stenting vs endarterectomy. By undertaking a thorough review of the literature, we sought to better define which subsets of patients with "high-risk" features would be likely to preferentially benefit from carotid stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Although only a single randomized trial comparing the outcomes of carotid stenting with distal protection and endarterectomy has been completed, a wealth of observational data was reviewed. Relative to endarterectomy, the results of carotid stenting seem favorable in the setting of several anatomic conditions that render surgery technically difficult, such as restenosis after prior endarterectomy, prior radical neck surgery, and previous radiation therapy involving the neck. The results of stenting are also favorable among patients with severe concomitant cardiac disease. Carotid endarterectomy, alternatively, seems to represent the procedure of choice among patients 80 years of age or older in the absence of other high-risk features. Overall, existing data support the concept that carotid stenting and endarterectomy represent complementary rather than competing modes of therapy. Pending the availability of randomized trial data to help guide procedural selection, which is likely many years away, an objective understanding of existing data is valuable to help select the optimal mode of revascularization therapy for patients with severe carotid artery disease who are at heightened surgical risk.

Cerebral protection devices for use during carotid artery angioplasty with stenting: A health technology assessment

Objectives:This study sought to examine the safety, efficacy, and economic implications of the use of cerebral protection devices during carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients with severe carotid artery disease (CAD).

Methods:A comprehensive search for peer- and non–peer-reviewed studies that compared carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or CAS without cerebral protection to CAS with cerebral protection and appeared in the English language literature between January 1990 and January 2005 was completed. Information from studies identified was extracted using a common data abstraction form and then critically appraised against published quality assessment criteria.

Results:Of the eight studies found, six provided information on technical or procedural success rates, with values ranging from 95.6 percent to 100 percent. Three of the four studies comparing groups of patients who received CAS with cerebral protection with those who received only CAS reported a non-statistically significantly higher 30-day incidence of death and stroke (major or minor) in the latter group. None of the three studies comparing CAS with cerebral protection to CEA demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the 30-day incidence of death, major stroke, or myocardial infarction between treatment groups. No economic analyses were found.

Conclusions:In high-risk patients with severe CAD, the evidence suggests that CAS with cerebral protection may offer a safe and efficacious alternative to CEA, reducing the risk of embolic peri-procedural complications associated with CAS to acceptable levels.

Systematic Review of Early Recurrent Stenosis After Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery disease. Aside from the periprocedural complication rates, the benefits of CAS will be affected by the incidence of recurrent carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic analysis of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the rate of restenosis (> or =50%) after CAS based on duplex ultrasound or angiography that were published between January 1990 and July 2004. We identified 34 studies that reported on a total of 4185 patients with a follow-up of 3814 arteries over a median of 13 months (range, 6 to 31 months). The ultrasound criteria and the lower thresholds for defining a recurrent stenosis were very heterogeneous.

RESULTS

The cumulative restenosis rates after 1 and 2 years were approximately 6% and 7.5% in those studies, which used a lower restenosis threshold > or =50% to 70% and approximately 4% in the first 2 years after CAS in those studies, which used a lower restenosis threshold >70% to 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

In reviewing the current literature, the early restenosis rates after CAS compare well with those reported for CEA. However, this analysis of the peer-reviewed literature also indicates that the early restenosis rates after CAS might be higher than previously suggested in observational surveys. Therefore, an active follow-up of all stented arteries seems to be warranted. Moreover, the bulk of endovascular data are derived from small studies with short follow-up periods so that the long-term durability of CAS still needs to be established in large trials. Ideally, these studies should use a clear and uniform definition of restenosis and identical follow-up schedules.

Endovascular treatment of an internal carotid artery thrombus using reversal of flow: A case report

A case of a symptomatic free-floating thrombus of the internal carotid artery is described. A 51-year-old woman presented with a transient ischemic attack and was placed on anticoagulation after diagnosis with angiography. After medical therapy failed, she underwent suction embolectomy using reversal of flow with the Parodi Anti-Embolism System. Balloon angioplasty was performed, and a stent was placed. The patient tolerated the procedure well. A follow-up carotid ultrasound scan showed resolution of the thrombus.

Carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent stenosis

Object

The use of endovascular management for recurrent carotid artery (CA) stenosis is rapidly expanding due to the increased surgical risk associated with repeated carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement for recurrent CA stenosis offers a less invasive strategy with fewer procedural complications and may provide a more durable treatment. The authors report on their experience with this procedure in the management of recurrent CA stenosis.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed to evaluate clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes after CA angioplasty and stent placement. Twenty-three vessels in 22 patients with severe recurrent stenosis (> 80%) post-CEA were treated with balloon angioplasty and stent placement without distal protection. There were no perioperative neurological or cardiac complications in this series. Over a mean follow-up period of 36 months, one patient (5%) suffered recurrent stenosis requiring retreatment with angioplasty alone.

Conclusions

The use of CA angioplasty and stent placement provides a safe and effective treatment for recurrent CA stenosis. The use of drug-eluting and/or bioactive stents in the future will likely further improve the efficacy of this procedure for recurrent CA stenosis.

Compliance matching stent placement in the carotid artery of the swine promotes optimal blood flow and attenuates restenosis

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the value of a gradient-compliant stent in an animal model.

METHODS

Bilateral carotid arteries were stented with nitinol stents having variable-oversizing, variable-stiffness, and with (CMS, 10 animals) and without (SMART, four animals) compliance-matching endings. Angiography, hemodynamic, scanning-electron-microscopic and histological analyses were performed at 3-month. The protocol was completed in 14 among 19 swines.

RESULTS

Transient (1-month) exaggerated recoil, attributable to stress-induced phasic inhibition of vasorelaxation, developed at CMS endings. At mid-term, all stents were endothelialized; CMS-stents, but not SMART-stents, were incorporated into walls (one-strut-thickness). Restenosis developed outside SMART-stents (cell migration+wall-compensatory enlargement) whereas CMS-stents elicited no or focalized cell-accumulations at endings that bulged vascular walls radially outward. SMART-stents were blood-flow neutral, whereas CMS-stents favored (higher-stiffness, higher-oversizing) or opposed (lower-stiffness, less-oversizing) carotid blood flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct carotid stenting with stents having compliance-matched endings and specific requirements of stiffness and oversizing can optimize blood flow to the brain and restrict local restenosis.

Carotid endarterectomy at the millennium: what interventional therapy must match

OBJECTIVES

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is supported by level 1 evidence as the standard treatment of severe carotid stenosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. As interventional techniques are emerging for treatment of this disease, this study was undertaken to provide a contemporary surgical standard for comparison to carotid stenting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During the interval 1989 to 1999, 2236 isolated CEAs were performed on 1897 patients (62% male, 36% symptomatic, 4.6% reoperative procedures). Study endpoints included perioperative events, patient survival, late incidence of stroke, anatomic durability of CEA, and resource utilization changes during the study. Variables associated with complications, long-term and stroke free survival, restenosis, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Perioperative complications occurred in 5.5% of CEA procedures, including any stroke/death (1.4%), neck hematoma (1.7%), cardiac complications (0.5%), and cranial nerve injury (0.4%). Actuarial survival at 5 and 10 years was 72.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.3-73.5) and 44.7% (95% CI 41.7-47.9) respectively, with coronary artery disease (P < 0.0018), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < 0.00018) and diabetes mellitus (P < 0.0011) correlating with decreased longevity. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of any stroke during follow-up was reduced by 22% (upper 0.35, lower 0.08) of predicted with the patient classification of hyperlipidemia (P < 0.0045) as the only protective factor. Analysis of CEA anatomic durability during a median follow-up period of 5.9 years identified a 7.7% failure rate (severe restenosis/occlusion, 4.5%; or reoperative CEA, 3.2%) with elevated serum cholesterol (P < 0.017) correlating with early restenosis. Resource utilization diminished (first versus last 2-year interval periods) for average hospital length of stay from 10.3 +/- 1.5 days to 4.3 +/- 0.7 days (P < 0.01) and preoperative contrast angiography from 87% +/- 1.4% to 10.3% +/- 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data delineate the safety, durability, and effectiveness in long-term stroke prevention of CEA. They provide a standard to which emerging catheter-based therapies for carotid stenosis should be compared.