Carotid endarterectomy for recurrent 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.

Treatment of Carotid Restenosis Using Transcarotid Revascularization

Objective:

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System (Silk Road Medical) is a United States Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment modality for stroke risk reduction in the setting of carotid artery stenosis. The goal of this investigation was to define the real-world outcomes associated with the application of this technique to patients presenting with restenosis after previous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS).

Methods:

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained institutional databases capturing all nontrial TCARs performed between August 2013 and July 2018 using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System was completed at 3 unaffiliated hospital systems and unified for descriptive outcomes analysis.

Results:

During the study period, 237 combined TCARs were performed at our respective institutions. Of these procedures, 55 stents were implanted for the indication of restenosis after previous carotid revascularization (47 CEA, 8 TF-CAS). Within the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no ipsilateral strokes or deaths; one patient experienced perioperative myocardial infarction (MI; 1.8%). We noted a 4.8% incidence of postoperative hematoma, but none of these events were clinically significant as no reinterventions were performed in any of the 55 patients. Additionally, we did not observe any cases of stent thrombosis or pulmonary embolus. Mean length of stay was 2.2 ± 2.8 days. Our mean follow-up duration was 15.0 ± 9.2 months. Throughout the follow-up period, we did not observe any additional stroke or MI events. Additionally, there were no cases of in-stent restenosis, thrombosis, or reinterventions.

Conclusion:

Transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed in patients with restenotic carotid arteries with acceptable rates of ipsilateral stroke, MI, and death as demonstrated in this small multi-institutional series.

The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on follow-up after vascular surgery arterial procedures

Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no detailed or comprehensive guidelines that specify the optimal approaches with regard to testing methods, indications for reintervention, and follow-up intervals. To provide guidance to the vascular surgeon, the Clinical Practice Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery appointed an expert panel and a methodologist to review the current clinical evidence and to develop recommendations for follow-up after vascular surgery procedures. For those procedures for which high-quality evidence was not available, recommendations were based on observational studies, committee consensus, and indirect evidence. Recognizing that there are numerous published reports on the role of duplex ultrasound for surveillance of infrainguinal vein bypass grafts, the Society commissioned a systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic. The panel classified the strength of each recommendation and the corresponding quality of evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system: recommendations were graded either strong or weak, and the quality of evidence was graded high, moderate, or low. The resulting recommendations represent a wide variety of open surgical and endovascular procedures involving the extracranial carotid artery, thoracic and abdominal aorta, mesenteric and renal arteries, and lower extremity arterial revascularization. The panel also identified many areas in which there was a lack of high-quality evidence to support their recommendations. This suggests that there are opportunities for further clinical research on testing methods, threshold criteria, and the role of surveillance as well as on the modes of failure and indications for reintervention after vascular surgery procedures.

Treatment of Recurrent Carotid Stenosis: Angioplasty with Stenting versus Reoperative Carotid Surgery

Surgical treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS) requires additional decision making as compared with the treatment of primary carotid disease. The thromboembolic risk of the lesion may vary according to the time interval from the original carotid endarterectomy to the recurrence of stenosis. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with stenting (PTAS) has been offered as an alternative to reoperative carotid endarterectomy (RCEA). A retrospective analysis of a computerized registry identified 43 patients who underwent treatment for 50 recurrent carotid stenoses between 1986 and 1997, 28 by PTAS and 15 by RCEA. The time interval from previous endarterectomy until secondary treatment was less than 2 years for 16 arteries (32%) and more than 2 years for 34 arteries (68%). Indications for treatment were asymptomatic high-grade stenosis in 31 patients (72.1%), transient ischemic attack (TIA) in 10 patients (25.6%), and stroke in 1 patient (2.3%). Neurologic results in the PTAS group (28) included three patients who experienced TIAs (10.7%), five patients with strokes (17.9%), but no deaths. In the RCEA group (15), no patients experienced TIAs, one patient died from a fatal stroke (6.7%), and one patient had a cranial nerve injury (6.7%). Neurologic benefit provided by PTAS for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis cannot be identified when compared with RCEA in this limited series.

Carotid Surgery Following Previous Carotid Endarterectomy Is Safe and Effective

With the perceived high risk of repeat carotid surgery, carotid angioplasty and stenting have been advocated recently as the preferred treatment of recurrent carotid disease following carotid endarterectomy. An experience with the operative treatment of recurrent carotid disease to document the risks and benefits of this procedure is presented. A review of a prospectively acquired vascular registry over a 10-year period (Jan. 1990-Jan. 2000) was undertaken to identify patients undergoing repeat carotid surgery following previous carotid endarterectomy. All patients were treated with repeat carotid endarterectomy, carotid interposition graft, or subclavian-carotid bypass. The perioperative stroke and death rate, operative complications, life-table freedom from stroke, and rates of recurrent stenosis were documented. During the study period 56 patients underwent repeat carotid surgery, comprising 6% of all carotid operations during this period. The indication for operation was symptomatic disease recurrence in 41 cases (73%) and asymptomatic recurrent stenosis? 80% in 15 cases (27%). The average interval from the prior carotid endarterectomy to the repeat operation was 78 months (range 3 weeks-297 months). The operations performed included repeat carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in 31 cases (55%), interposition grafts in 19 cases (34%), and subclavian-carotid bypass in 6 cases (11%). There were three perioperative strokes with one resulting in death for a perioperative stroke and death rate of 5.4%. One minor transient cranial nerve (CN IX) injury occurred. Mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 1-1 16 months). Life-table freedom from stroke was 95% at 1 year and 90% at 5 years. Recurrent stenosis (? 80%) developed in three patients (5.4%) during follow-up, including one internal carotid artery occlusion. Two patients (3.6%) underwent repeat surgery. Repeat surgery for recurrent cerebrovascular disease following carotid endarterectomy is safe and provides durable freedom from stroke. Most patients are candidates for repeat endarterectomy with patching, but interposition grafting is often required. These results strongly support the continued role of repeat carotid surgery in the treatment of recurrent carotid disease.

Reoperation for Recurrent Carotid Stenosis: A Ten-Year Experience

Owing to the supposed risks of reoperation, carotid stenting has been proposed as a treatment for carotid restenosis. The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of carotid reoperation. From March 1988 to March 1997, 40 patients, 18 men and 22 women (mean age: 65 years) underwent a total of 43 redo carotid procedures by our group. Two patients had both sides repaired and one required a second reoperation. Symptomatic recurrent carotid stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 25 reoperations and asymptomatic high-grade stenosis (>80%) was the indication in 18. The initial operation in 35 reoperations was carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure and in eight it was CEA with a prosthetic patch. The interval to recurrence was less in the 24 reoperations in patients who had myointimal hyperplasia (21 months) compared with 17 reoperations in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis (90 months). The other two reoperations were for an intimal flap 2 months after the original CEA, and for operative dilation of fibromuscular dysplastic bands missed on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), distal to the site of a previous CEA.

The technique of reoperation included redo CEA in two, CEA with vein patch in eight, CEA with prosthetic patch in 22, vein interposition graft in five, and prosthetic interposition graft in five. In addition, operative dilation with an arterial dilator was used in one reoperation.

No perioperative strokes or deaths occurred other than one patient who died from cardiac complications following combined CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting. Operative morbidity consisted of pneumonia in one patient, reversible cranial nerve injury in four, and hematoma requiring evacuation in two. During follow-up (mean: 34 months), carotid occlusion resulted in a mild stroke in one patient, there were 10 late deaths not related to carotid disease, one patient required a reoperation, and three patients were lost to follow-up.

The authors conclude that reoperation for recurrent carotid stenosis, using standard vascular techniques, is both safe and effective; it should continue to be the mainstay of treatment when intervention is required.

Factors Affecting Recurrent Carotid Stenosis

Recurrent carotid stenosis is an ongoing process that may develop at or near the site of an operational or interventional procedure to treat an atheromatous stenosis. Although such a restenosis is most often initially without symptoms, as the disease progresses it may become symptomatic, and thus endanger the patient's life. Such patients are therefore candidates for revisional surgery. Extensive research investigation and numerous studies have incriminated several risk factors as predisposing conditions for recurrent carotid stenosis. The definite role of each predisposing factor, however, is still widely debated. Clarifying the extent of involvement of each factor in the pathogenesis of carotid restenosis is indeed demanding, as it would contribute enormously to the identification of the group of high-risk patients, and, therefore, determine the therapeutic approach in these patients.

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.

Primary Stenting for Recurrent Stenosis Following Carotid Endarterectomy

Background:

Carotid angioplasty and stenting is an accepted alternative treatment for severe restenosis following carotid endarterectomy. Balloons may not be required to effectively treat these lesions, given their altered histopathology compared to primary atherosclerotic plaque and tendency to be less calcified. Primary stenting using self-expanding stents alone may, therefore, be a safe and effective treatment for restenosis post-carotid endarterectomy.

Methods:

We review our experience in the treatment of 12 patients with symptomatic severe restenosis following carotid endarterectomy with primary stent placement alone.

Results:

Self-expanding stent placement alone reduced the mean internal carotid artery stenosis from 85% to 29%. Average peak systolic velocity determined at the time of ultrasonography decreased from 480 cm/s at initial presentation to 154 cm/s post-stent deployment and further decreased to 104 cm/s at one year follow-up. The stented arteries remained widely patent with no evidence of restenosis. A single peri-procedural ipsilateral transient ischemic event occurred. There were no cerebral or cardiac ischemic events recorded at one year of follow-up.

Conclusions:

In this series, primary stent placement without use of angioplasty balloons was a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic restenosis following carotid endarterectomy.

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.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting: evolution and current status

The management of carotid stenosis is in evolution. Carotid endarterectomy has been the gold standard for the treatment of carotid stenosis for many years. However, recently, carotid angioplasty and stenting has emerged as a feasible and relatively safe management alternative. The appropriate clinical setting for its preferential use over carotid endarterectomy continues to be the subject of ongoing clinical trials. In this article, we review the evolution of carotid angioplasty and stenting, the evidence behind the current indications, and limitations of this procedure, as well as provide an overview of preprocedural evaluations and periprocedural management.

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.

Interposition grafts for difficult carotid artery reconstruction: a 17-year experience

Carotid interposition grafts (CIP) for carotid artery revascularization can be a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) for complex carotid disease. This is a retrospective review of the UCLA 17-year experience with CIP for carotid reconstruction. Carotid operations performed between 1988 and 2005 revealed 41 CIP procedures in 39 patients using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, n = 31) or reversed greater saphenous vein (Vein) (n = 10). Perioperative data and long-term follow-up for each conduit were statistically compared. There were no significant differences in demographics, risk factors, operative indications, complications, or 30-day perioperative deaths. There was one postoperative stroke in each group, for an overall stroke rate of 4.9% (PTFE 3.2%, Vein 10%). There was one asymptomatic occlusion and there were two high-grade restenoses in the PTFE group compared with one asymptomatic occlusion and one high-grade restenosis in the Vein group. Overall primary patency was 90% and the assisted primary patency was 97% for the PTFE group (mean follow-up 50 months), whereas primary patency was 80% (mean follow-up 30 months) in the Vein group. CIP is a safe and effective technique with excellent long-term follow-up for complex carotid reconstruction when CEA or CAS may be contraindicated.

Recurrent carotid stenosis after CEA and CAS: diagnosis and management

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the preferred method for cerebral revascularization in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently emerged as a less invasive alternative to endarterectomy. Carotid stenting has been demonstrated to be technically feasible and safe in high-risk patients. It has been approved as an acceptable method for revascularization in circumstances where CEA yields suboptimal results. While the final role of CAS in carotid revascularization will be determined on the basis of ongoing randomized trials, it is clear that stenting will continue to be performed in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be a corresponding increase in the number of in-stent restenosis cases. Considerable controversy exists regarding the clinical significance, natural history, threshold for management, and appropriate intervention of recurrent carotid stenosis after endarterectomy and after stenting. This review analyzes current information on this important clinical problem and presents evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of recurrent carotid stenosis.

Operative Intervention for Carotid Restenosis is Safe and Effective

Carotid stenting has been proposed as an alternative to reoperative carotid endarterectomy (rCEA) for recurrent carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to prove the safety, effectiveness and durability of reoperation in long term follow up of 18 years in a community hospital setting. From March 1988 to April 2005 80 patients, 46 men and 34 women (mean age: 64.1 years) underwent a total of 83 operations. Symptomatic recurrent stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 32, asymptomatic high-grade stenosis (>80%) in 49, intimal flap in one and fibromuscular dysplasia (F.M.D), in one. The initial operation was carotid endarterectomy with primary closure in 60 and prosthetic patch in 23. The mean recurrences were at 23.3 months in 33 with myointimal hyperplasia, 105.4 months in 29 with recurrent atherosclerosis, 61.4 months in 19 with both hyperplasia and atherosclerosis, 2 months in one with intimal flap and 8 months in one with F.M.D bands. Reoperation utilized primary closure (3), vein patch (14), prosthetic patch (55), Gore-Tex interposition grafts (7), vein interposition grafts (3) and intraoperative dilation (1). No perioperative strokes or deaths occurred. One patient died from cardiac complications following combined rCEA and coronary artery bypass grafting. Operative morbidity consisted of reversible nerve injury (5), irreversible recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (1) and hematoma requiring evacuation (3). During follow up (3-153 months; mean: 50.9) carotid occlusion resulted in mild ipsilateral stroke in one patient, and one non-hemispheric stroke. There were 26 late deaths due to all causes, one due to CVA. Eight patients required reoperation (mean 53.4 months). Seven of these were hypertensive. Kaplan-Meier analysis of long-term follow up shows relatively high stroke free rates; at 153 months (12.75 years) the hemispheric stroke free rate was 98.67% and the all-stroke free rate was 95.85%. The survival estimate following redo surgery was 69.97% at 5 years and 40.23% at 10 years. We found that individuals on statin therapy (p-value=0.0042), and those on combination of statin and aspirin (p-value=0.0320), had significantly increased interval between primary and secondary operation. Increased age was correlated to a decreased time to redo surgery (p-value=<0.0001). We conclude that reoperation for recurrent carotid stenosis using standard vascular techniques is safe, effective, durable and cost effective. It should continue to be the mainstay of treatment when secondary intervention is required. Statins have a salutary effect on durability of the procedure and should be used when indicated.

Threatening of cerebrovascular insufficiency within surgery of carotid artery restenosis

Surgical intervention for extracranial carotid artery stenosis remains a major potential therapeutic modality for the prevention of stroke. Nevertheless, every kind of surgical technique for carotid entarterectomy (CEA) has its specific complications, compromising the final surgical result. The authors report about a 70-year old man, suffering from recurrent transient ischemic attacks by suspected internal carotid artery (ICA) re-stenosis, 11 and 13 years after CEA with patch angioplasty. In relation to neurological symptomatic and angiographic appearance of ICA re-stenosis an open surgery of the left ICA was preferred. Intraoperatively the old patch material was such vulnerable that it was not possible to maintain the continuity of ECA and ICA or CCA and ICA. Consequently reconstruction and replacement of ICA and ECA with 6 mm Gore-Tex grafts was performed. Follow-up three years after surgery showed no symptoms of insufficient brain metabolism as well as a good flow within the grafts. Patch angioplasty by CEA seems to be favourable to reduce the risk of early ICA re-stenosis but for all that there are other accompanying problems, which can compromise utility of patch technique. For this the authors prefer a patient adapted surgical treatment, based not only on so far not significant data but moreover on personal experience.

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 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.

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.

Protected stent-assisted carotid angioplasty in the management of late post-endarterectomy restenosis

OBJECTIVES

The high complication rate associated with the surgical treatment of post-carotid endarterectomy restenosis has led several investigators to propose stent-assisted angioplasty as the treatment of choice for this condition. Late restenosis is very infrequent and mainly due to atherosclerotic progression. The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential risk of intraprocedural embolic stroke during stent-assisted angioplasty with cerebral protection devices in these patients.

METHODS

We describe our recent experience in the endovascular treatment of 10 patients presenting late carotid restenosis by means of stent-assisted angioplasty with the aid of a filter cerebral protection device. Mean elapsed time from surgery to angioplasty was 92+/-31 months (range 48-144 months).

RESULTS

Procedural success was obtained in all the cases. Pre-dilation was performed in six cases, post-dilation in all the cases. The mean percentage stenosis was reduced from mean 77+/-12% (range 60-95%) to 6.3+/-6.7% (range 0-17%). Bradycardia while inflating the balloon was mild-to-moderate in seven cases and severe in two. No patient sustained stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the procedure or during hospital stay. On follow-up, two patients presented with moderate asymptomatic restenosis and were managed conservatively.

DISCUSSION

Carotid angioplasty with cerebral protection can be performed safely in late carotid restenosis with a high technical success rate. No clinical embolic complications occurred in this subset of patients. With recent innovations and improvements in angioplasty technique, previous indications for angioplasty in these patients will have to be redefined. Carotid angioplasty seems to be a valuable treatment alternative to conventional surgery in this subset of patients.

Safety and efficacy of reoperative carotid endarterectomy: A 14-year experience

BACKGROUND

Reoperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an accepted treatment for recurrent carotid stenosis. With reports of a higher operative morbidity than primary CEA and the advent of carotid stenting, catheter-based therapy has been advocated as the primary treatment for this reportedly "high-risk" subgroup. This study reviews a contemporary experience with reoperative CEA to validate the high-risk categorization of these patients.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2002, 153 consecutive, isolated (excluding CEA/coronary artery bypass graft and carotid bypass operations) reoperative CEA procedures were reviewed. Clinical and demographic variables potentially associated with the end points of perioperative morbidity, long-term durability, and late survival were assessed with multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

There were 153 reoperative CEA procedures in 145 patients (56% men, 36% symptomatic) with an average age of 69 +/- 1.3 years. The average time from primary CEA (68% primary closure, 23% prosthetic, 9% vein patch) to reoperative CEA was 6.1 +/- 0.4 years (range, 0.3 to 20.4 years). At reoperation, patch reconstruction was undertaken in 93% of cases. The perioperative stroke rate was 1.9%, with no deaths or cardiac complications. Other complications included cranial nerve injury (1.3%) and hematoma (3.2%). Average follow-up after reoperative CEA was 4.4 +/- 0.3 years (range, 0.1 to 12.7 years), with an overall total stroke-free rate of 96% and a restenosis rate (>50%) by carotid duplex of 9.2%. Among variables assessed for association with restenosis after reoperative CEA, only younger age was found to be significant (66 +/- 2.5 years vs 70 +/- 0.7 years, P < .05). The all-cause long-term mortality rate was 29%. Multivariate analysis of long-term survival identified diabetes mellitus as having a negative impact (hazard ratio, 3.4 +/- 0.3, P < .05) and lipid-lowering agents as having a protective effect (hazard ratio, 0.42 +/- 0.4, P < .05) on survival.

CONCLUSION

Reoperative CEA is a safe and durable procedure, comparable to reported standards for primary CEA, for long-term protection from stroke. These data do not support the contention that patients who require reoperative CEA constitute a "high-risk" subgroup in whom reoperative therapy should be avoided.

High-Risk Carotid Endarterectomy

"High-risk" carotid endarterectomy (CEA): fact or fiction? To answer this question we reviewed the available evidence starting from controlled randomized trials, through retrospective population- and large institution-based studies to case-series. CEA can be performed in most "high-risk" patients with low mortality and morbidity. A broad concept of high-risk CEA, based merely on exclusion from previous controlled randomized CEA trials, cannot be justified. The vast majority of evidence suggests that age (> or =80 years) per se should not be considered a high-risk criterion for CEA. However, it appears that there are certain individual risk factors, which may influence outcome adversely. It appears that CEA in the setting of contralateral carotid occlusion may be associated with very slightly increased risk of adverse perioperative events. Local risk factors, namely carotid reoperation and CEA following prior cervical radiation therapy, are associated with slightly increased stroke, death and probably cranial nerve injury rates. If these risk factors are frequent in a particular series the overall outcome of CEA will be worse. In the absence of level-one evidence on the long-term efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in stroke prophylaxis, selection for CAS should be restricted to well-defined high-risk categories, such as severe medical comorbidities or local-anatomic risk factors.

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.

Impact of Carotid Artery Angioplasty and Stenting on Management of Recurrent Carotid Artery Stenosis

Citing the higher perioperative risk of redo carotid surgery, balloon angioplasty and stenting of the carotid artery (CAS) has been advocated for recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). To examine the impact of CAS on the management and outcome of recurrent stenosis, a retrospective review of a prospectively compiled database was performed. From a registry of patients treated for carotid disease, 105 procedures were performed from 1992 to 2002 for RCS. For comparison, two study groups were examined. Time I consisted of 77 reoperations performed through 1998, before CAS was introduced at our institution. Time II included 12 reoperations and 16 CAS procedures performed for RCS from 1999 through 2002. Using perioperative stroke as a measure of outcome, the results for time II were poorer than for time I (7.2% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). Overall, the risk of perioperative stroke was the same for reoperation (5/89) and CAS (1/16) (5.6% vs. 6.3%, p = NS). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward a higher risk of perioperative stroke for patients treated with reoperation during the latter time period (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). This probably relates to the finding that during time II, CAS was most likely to be used in asymptomatic patients (68.6% vs. 41.7%, p = NS) with early (<3 years) RCS (87.5% vs. 41.7%, p= 0.01). No patient with asymptomatic, early RCS had a perioperative stroke with either surgery or CAS (0/35 cases, 0%). The presence of preoperative neurologic symptoms was significantly predictive of a perioperative stroke among all procedures performed for RCS (13.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.004). Contrary to suggestions that CAS might improve the management of RCS, a review of our data shows the overall risk of periprocedural stroke to be no better since CAS has become available. The bias for using CAS for asymptomatic myointimal hyperplastic lesions, and reoperation for frequently symptomatic late recurrent atherosclerotic disease, makes direct comparisons of the two techniques for treating RCS difficult. It is expected that the overall risk for redo carotid surgery will increase, as fewer low-risk patients will be receiving open procedures. However, the increased risk among symptomatic patients undergoing reoperation suggests that endovascular techniques should be investigated among this group of cases as well.

Safety and durability of redo carotid operation: an 11-year experience

PURPOSE

With the recent emergence of carotid stenting in the management of carotid disease, the role of surgery has been challenged, particularly for recurrent carotid stenosis. This study was undertaken to determine the safety and durability of redo carotid operation (RCO) for recurrent stenosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified 64 consecutive patients who underwent 66 RCOs between 1990 and 2000. There were 33 males (52%) and 31 females, with a mean age of 68.2 years (range, 38-84 years). The mean interval from the primary carotid surgery to RCO was 77.5 months (range, 1-292 months). Operative indications were severe asymptomatic stenosis in 33 cases (50%), transient ischemic attacks (TIA) or amaurosis fugax in 25 (38%), recent stroke in 6 (9%), and nonhemispheric symptoms in 1. Two operations were tertiary carotid reconstructions. A total of 56 (85%) patch angioplasties were performed, 49 with vein and 6 with synthetic material. Primary closure was performed in three cases (5%), whereas interposition grafts were required in eight (12%). Complete follow-up was available in 59 patients (92%) and averaged 4.3 years (range, 0.2-12.9 years); 97% of patients underwent follow-up duplex scanning.

RESULTS

There were no operative deaths and only two operative strokes (3.1%). Permanent cranial nerve deficit occurred in one patient (1.5%). Late stroke occurred in five patients: four ipsilateral and one contralateral. Kaplan-Meier estimates for 5- and 10-year stroke-free survival were 92% and 74%, and for overall survival were 72% and 50%. Duplex scanning detected significant recurrent carotid stenosis (>80%) or occlusion in six cases (9%) at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from recurrent stenosis of >80% were 94% and 86% at 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

RCO for recurrent carotid stenosis can be performed safely with excellent protection from stroke and long-term durability. These data provide a standard against which the results of carotid stenting can be compared.

Recurrent Stenosis and Contralateral Occlusion: High-risk Situations in Carotid Endarterectomy?

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as a treatment option for carotid occlusive disease in high-risk patients including those with recurrent stenosis (RS) and contralateral occlusion (CO). This study reviews the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with RS and CO. We conducted a retrospective review from our vascular registry of 1670 patients who underwent CEAs ( n = 1950) from January 1990 through December 2001. Procedures included RS 86 (4.4%), CO 112 (5.7%), and control 1752 (89.9%). There were 37 strokes in the entire group (1.9%). Among the high-risk group with RS and CO, there were 6 strokes, (RS n = 2, CO n = 4) 3%. There were 31 strokes in the control group 1.8% ( p = NS). Postoperative TIAs were observed more frequently in patients with CO ( n = 2) or RS ( n = 2), 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively ( p < 0.05). Neck hematomas, intracerebral hemorrhages, and myocardial infarctions did not differ between groups. Three deaths occurred within 30 days (0.15%); one was a patient with CO. Renal failure and symptomatic disease were each associated with a higher risk of perioperative stroke; among patients with renal failure there were 6 strokes (4.6%) p < 0.05, in symptomatic patients there were 26 strokes (2.7%) p < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that preoperative renal disease and surgery for symptomatic disease were both significant predictors of perioperative stroke ( p < 0.05; odds ratio 2.177 and 2.943 respectively) while neither RS nor CO was from these results we concluded that the presence of RS and CO do not increase the risk of perioperative stroke in CEA.

Newly Emerging Concepts in Blood Vessel Growth: Recent Discovery of Endothelial Progenitor Cells and Their Function in Tissue Regeneration

It has recently been established that bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are recruited to the systemic circulation and, in response to various cytokines, pharmacologic agents, and/or tissue ischemia, incorporate into sites of new blood vessel growth (neovascularization). These findings have changed our understanding of adult neovascularization by demonstrating that both preexisting endothelial cells and EPCs contribute to blood vessel formation during adult life. The following review article highlights the discovery of EPCs, their relationship to various clinical diseases, and their therapeutic potential for augmenting blood vessel formation.

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

PURPOSE

We compared outcome and durability of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty (CAS) with open surgical repair (ie, repeat carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) to treat recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS).

METHODS

A retrospective review of anatomic and neurologic outcomes was carried out after 27 repeat CEA procedures (1993-2002) and 52 CAS procedures (1997-2002) performed to treat high-grade internal carotid artery (ICA) RCS after CEA. The incidence of intervention because of symptomatic RCS was similar (repeat CEA, 63%; CAS, 60%), but the interval from primary CEA to repeat intervention was greater (P <.05) in the repeat CEA group (83 +/- 15 months) compared with the CAS group (50 +/- 8 months). In the CAS group, 17 of 52 arteries (33%) were judged not to be surgical candidates because of surgically inaccessible high lesions (n = 8), medical comorbid conditions (n = 4), neck irradiation (n = 3), or previous surgery with cranial nerve deficit or stroke (n = 2). Three patients who underwent repeat CEA had lesions not appropriate for treatment with CAS.

RESULTS

Overall 30-day morbidity was similar after CAS (12%; death due to ipsilateral intracranial hemorrhage, 1; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible neurologic deficits or transient ischemic attack, 2; access site complication, 2). and repeat CEA (11%; no death; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible cranial nerve injury, 1; cervical hematoma, 1). Combined stroke and death rate was 3.7% for repeat CEA and 5.7% for CAS (P >.1). All duplex ultrasound scans obtained within 3 months after CEA and CAS demonstrated patent ICA and velocity spectra of less than 50% stenosis. During follow-up, no repeat CEA (mean, 39 months) or CAS (mean, 26 months) repair demonstrated ICA occlusion, but two patients (8%) who underwent repeat CEA and 4 patients (8%) who underwent CAS required balloon or stent angioplasty because of 80% RCS. At last follow-up, no patient had ipsilateral stroke and all ICA remain patent. At duplex scanning, stenosis-free (<50% diameter reduction) ICA patency at 36 months was 75% after repeat CEA and 57% after CAS (P =.26, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid angioplasty for treatment of high-grade stenotic ICA after CEA resulted in similar anatomic and neurologic outcomes compared with open surgical repair. Most lesions are amenable to endovascular therapy, and CAS enabled treatment in patients judged not to be suitable surgical candidates. Duplex scanning surveillance after repeat CEA or CAS is recommended, because stenosis can recur after either secondary procedure.

Systematic review of the risks of carotid endarterectomy in relation to the clinical indication for and timing of surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Reliable data on the risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in relation to clinical indication and timing of surgery are necessary to target CEA more effectively, to inform patients, to adjust risks for case mix, and to understand the mechanisms of operative stroke.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all studies published from 1980 to 2000 inclusive that reported the risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA. Pooled estimates of risk by type of presenting ischemic event and time since the last event were obtained by Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 383 published studies, only 103 stratified risk by indication. Although the operative risk for symptomatic stenosis overall was higher than for asymptomatic stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 1.81; P<0.00001; 59 studies), risk in patients with ocular events only tended to be lower than for asymptomatic stenosis (OR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.14; 15 studies). Operative risk was the same for stroke and cerebral transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.35; P=0.08; 23 studies) but higher for cerebral transient ischemic attack than for ocular events only (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.72 to 3.12; P<0.00001; 19 studies) and for CEA for restenosis than primary surgery (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; P=0.018; 6 studies). Urgent CEA for evolving symptoms had a much higher risk (19.2%, 95% CI, 10.7 to 27.8) than CEA for stable symptoms (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.7 to 5.7; P<0.001; 13 studies), but there was no difference between early (<3 to 6 weeks) and late (>3 to 6 weeks) CEA for stroke in stable patients (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.62; P=0.62; 11 studies). All observations were highly consistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA is highly dependent on the clinical indication. Audits of risk should be stratified accordingly, and patients should be informed of the risk that relates to their presenting event.

Early postsurgical carotid restenosis: redo surgery versus angioplasty/stenting

PURPOSE

To compare the results of balloon angioplasty/stenting (BA/S) versus redo surgery in patients with early carotid restenosis.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients (35 women; mean age 69 years, range 46-82) with early restenosis (<24 months from the primary endarterectomy) in 63 carotid arteries were treated during a 5-year period; 41 patients (41 arteries) had redo surgery (group A) and 20 patients (22 arteries) had BA/S (group B). Patients were followed regularly with duplex ultrasound to detect >or=50% recurrent restenosis (RRS) after redo surgery or BA/S. Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate the stroke-free survival rates and freedom from >or=50% RRS.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable for both groups, as were the perioperative stroke and death rates (2.4% and 0% for group A, respectively, versus 4.5% and 0% for group B, p=0.46). Group A had a 12% incidence of cranial nerve injury (all transient) versus 0% for group B (p=0.11); however, group B had a higher incidence of >or=50% RRS than group A (32% versus 0%, p=0.0003). The stroke-free survival rates for redo surgery at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 88% versus 95%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 63% for BA/S (p=0.067). Redo surgery had a 100% freedom from >or=50% RRS at the same time intervals, while recurrent restenosis rates for the BA/S patients were 95%, 86%, 69%, 52%, and 52% (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

BA/S and redo surgery have comparable stroke and death rates in the treatment of early RCS; however, redo surgery is associated with cranial nerve injuries (transient), while stent patients have a higher incidence of recurrent lesions. These considerations should be kept in mind when selecting the appropriate treatment for patients with early postsurgical restenosis.

Operative intervention for recurrent stenosis after carotid stent angioplasty: a report

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting is gaining popularity, yet the natural history and optimal treatment for recurrent stenoses within stents are not known. Recurrent stenosis rates are not well characterized, with rates between 0 and 33% reported within the first year. Treatment of these lesions with repeat angioplasty may not be feasible or desirable, leading to operative interventions. We present two cases of asymptomatic high-grade in-stent restenosis treated successfully with carotid artery bypass using PTFE.

Stent placement in common carotid and internal carotid artery stenoses with use of an open transcervical approach in a patient with previous endarterectomy

In this article, a patient with extensive cerebrovascular disease who had previously undergone bilateral carotid endarterectomy and subsequent operative revision on the left side is described. The patient developed critical restenosis at the cephalic end of the previous left patch angioplasty as well as a severe stenosis of the left common carotid artery origin, which originated from a bovine aortic arch configuration. His right common and internal carotid arteries had become occluded. Endovascular treatment with two metallic stents was successfully performed through a surgical cutdown on the immediate supraclavicular portion of the left common carotid artery to establish antegrade and subsequently retrograde vascular access.

Redo carotid endarterectomy versus primary carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Several authorities have recently advocated carotid stenting for recurrent carotid stenosis because of the perception that redo surgery has a higher complication rate than primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the early and late results of reoperations versus primary CEA.

METHODS

All reoperations for recurrent carotid stenosis performed during a recent 7-year period by a single vascular surgeon were compared with primary CEA. Because all redo CEAs were done with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or vein patch closure, we only analyzed those primary CEAs that used the same patch closures. A Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate stroke-free survival rates and freedom from >/=50% recurrent stenosis.

RESULTS

Of 547 primary CEAs, 265 had PTFE or saphenous vein patch closure, and 124 reoperations had PTFE or vein patch closure during the same period. Both groups had similar demographic characteristics. The indications for reoperation and primary CEA were symptomatic stenosis in 78% and 58% of cases and asymptomatic >/=80% stenosis in 22% and 42% of cases, respectively (P<0.001). The 30-day perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack rates for reoperation and primary CEA were 4.8% versus 0.8% (P=0.015) and 4% versus 1.1%, respectively, with no perioperative deaths in either group. Cranial nerve injury was noted in 17% of reoperation patients versus 5.3% of primary CEA patients; however, most of these injuries were transient (P<0.001). Mean hospital stay was 1.8 days for reoperation versus 1.6 days for primary CEA. Cumulative rates of stroke-free survival and freedom from >/=50% recurrent stenosis for reoperation and primary CEA at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 82% and 98%, 96%, and 95% versus 94%, 92%, and 91% and 98%, 96%, and 96%, respectively (no significant differences).

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation carries higher perioperative stroke and cranial nerve injury rates than primary CEA. However, reoperations are durable and have stroke-free survival rates that are similar to primary CEA. These considerations should be kept in mind when carotid stenting is recommended instead of reoperation.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine whether carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis >70% by a randomized, controlled trial in a community hospital.

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients presenting with cerebrovascular ischemia ipsilateral to carotid stenosis were selected randomly for CEA or carotid stenting and followed for two years.

RESULTS

Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique as determined by sequential ultrasound. One death occurred in the CEA group (1/51); one transient ischemic attack occurred in the CAS group (1/53); no individual sustained a stroke. The perception of procedurally related pain/discomfort was similar. Hospital stay was similar, although the CAS group tended to be discharged earlier (mean = 1.8 days vs. 2.7 days). Complications associated with CAS prolonged hospitalization when compared with those sustaining a CEA-related complication (mean = 5.6 days vs. 3.8 days). Return to full activity was achieved within one week by 80% of the CAS group and 67% of the patients receiving CEA. Hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid stenting is equivalent to CEA in reducing carotid stenosis without increased risk for major complications of death/stroke. Because of shortened hospitalization and convalescence, CAS challenges CEA as the preferred treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis if a reduction in costs can be achieved.

Comparative study of operative treatment and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/stenting for recurrent carotid disease

PURPOSE

This study is a nonrandomized parallel comparison of the outcome for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA)/stenting for recurrent carotid artery stenosis (RCS).

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between June 1996 and June 2000, 83 carotid procedures (58 reoperations, Group I, and 25 PTA/stentings, Group II) were done for RCS. Patients were followed at regular intervals with duplex ultrasound scanning. The outcome of the stented group (Group II) was divided into early experience (Group IIA, first 12 cases) and late experience (Group IIB, last 13 cases) for learning curve consideration, and each was compared with the reoperation group. A Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was used to estimate the stroke-free survival rates and freedom from > or =50% recurrent restenosis for both groups.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical characteristics and indications for intervention were similar for both groups. The mean time from the original CEA to reoperation was 41 months in Group I versus 43 months in Group II. Overall, stenting had higher 30-day stroke rates than reoperations-16% (3 major and 1 minor stroke) versus 3.4% (1 out of 2 [1.7%] was a major stroke, P <.05). However, Group IIB had similar major stroke rates to Group I (0% versus 1.7%). Cranial nerve injury was noted in 10 patients (17%) in Group I (only 1 [1.7%] was permanent) versus 0% in Group II (P <.05). Recurrent > or =50% restenosis was higher in Group II than in Group I (24% versus 0%, P <.001). Stroke-free survival rates at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years for Group I were 97%, 97%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, versus 79%, 79%, 79%, and 79%, respectively, for Group II (P =.059). Freedom from recurrent > or =50% restenosis rates at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, for Group I versus 100%, 94%, 65%, and 44%, respectively, for Group II (P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid PTA/stenting has a similar 30-day stroke rate to that of reoperation for RCS once experience is established. However, PTA/stenting has a higher incidence of restenosis than reoperation, which is associated with a percentage of cranial nerve injuries. Therefore, PTA/stenting can be an alternative to reoperation, particularly in marginal surgical risk patients.

Early and late results of carotid endarterectomy: retrospective study of 70 operations

CONTEXT

Indications and results of carotid endarterectomy have been defined from clinical multicentric trials like the European Carotid Surgery Trialists, North-American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. The patients included in these trials were highly selected, as were the surgeons performing the operations. Clinical practice is different but the same results should be achieved.

OBJECTIVE

To study indications, technique, early and late results, and whether carotid endarterectomy has been performed in accordance with standards defined by multicentric trials.

DESIGN

Retrospective case report study.

SETTING

A tertiary care private hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

57 patients, on whom 70 carotid endarterectomies were performed over a 10-year period. The median age was 66.4 +/- 7.8 years; 43 (75.4%) were male, 41 (71.9%) hypertensive, 36 (63.1%) current smokers and 24 (21.0%) had diabetes. Bilateral carotid stenosis was present in 31 (54.3%) patients, peripheral arterial occlusions in 32 (56.1%) and ischemic cardiopathy in 25 (43.1%). All patients had had angiography and 41 (71.9%) had also had a duplex-scan of neck arteries. Cerebral imaging via computerized tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging was obtained for 36 patients. Patients were followed up over a period of one to 122 months.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

early and late post-operative death, early and late post-operative stroke, and recurrence of atheroma plaque and symptoms relative to carotid stenosis.

RESULTS

There was one post-operative death (1.4%) caused by myocardial infarction and two early strokes (2.8%): a total complication rate of 4.2%. After 3 and 5 years, 95.4% and 81.3% of patients respectively were stroke-free and 72.8% and 67.3% were alive. There were four recurrences and two of them related to stroke. Forty-nine (70%) stenoses operated on were symptomatic. Brain infarction was detected in 59.2% of patients who underwent computerized tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid endarterectomy was done in accordance with international standards. The most frequent cause of late death was myocardial infarction, and recurrences were related to stroke. Patients should be followed up closely.

Reoperation for recurrent carotid stenosis: early results and late outcome in 199 patients

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of reoperations for recurrent carotid stenosis (REDOCEA) at the Cleveland Clinic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1989 to 1999, 206 consecutive REDOCEAs were performed in 199 patients (131 men, 68 women) with a mean age of 68 years (median, 69 years; range, 47-86 years). A total of 119 procedures (57%) were performed for severe asymptomatic stenosis, 55 (27%) for hemispheric transient ischemic attacks or amaurosis fugax, 26 (13%) for prior stroke, and 6 (3%) for vertebrobasilar symptoms. Eleven REDOCEAs (5%) were combined with myocardial revascularization, and another 19 (9%) represented multiple carotid reoperations (17 second reoperations and 2 third reoperations). Three REDOCEAs (1%) were closed primarily, and nine (4%) required interposition grafts, whereas the remaining 194 (95%) were repaired with either vein patch angioplasty (139 [68%]) or synthetic patches (55 [27%]). Three patients (2%) were lost to follow-up, but late information was available for 196 patients (203 operations) at a mean interval of 4.3 years (median, 3.9 years; maximum, 10.2 years).

RESULTS

Considering all 206 procedures, there were 7 early (< 30 days) postoperative neurologic events (3.4%), including 6 perioperative strokes (2.9%) and 1 occipital hemorrhage (0.5%) on the 12th postoperative day. Seventeen additional neurologic events occurred during the late follow-up period, consisting of eight strokes (3.9%) and nine transient ischemic attacks (4.4 %). With the Kaplan-Meier method, the estimated 5-year freedom from stroke was 92% (95% CI, 88%-96%). There were two early postoperative deaths (1%), both from cardiac complications after REDOCEAs combined with myocardial revascularization procedures. With the Kaplan-Meier method, the estimated 5-year survival was 81% (range, 75%-88%). A univariate Cox regression model yielded the presence of coronary artery disease as the only variable that was significantly associated with survival (P =.024). The presence of pulmonary disease (P =.036), diabetes (P =.01), and advancing age (P =.006) was found to be significantly associated with stroke after REDOCEA. Causes of 53 late deaths were cardiovascular problems in 25 patients (47%), unknown in 14 (26%), renal failure in 4 (8%), stroke in 3 (6%), and miscellaneous in 7 (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that REDOCEA may be safely performed in selected patients with recurrent carotid stenosis and that most of these patients enjoy long-term freedom from stroke.