Influence of NASCET/ACAS trial eligibility on outcome after carotid endarterectomy

Cerebral ischemic events ipsilateral to carotid artery stenosis. The Carotid Asymptomatic Stenosis (CARAS) observational study: First year preliminary results

OBJECTIVE

To report the characteristics of the prospective observational cohort study "Carotid Asymptomatic Stenosis (CARAS)", including patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis under medical treatment and their first year of follow-up, in order to estimate the risk of cerebral ischemic events.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study of CARAS>60% (Nascet criteria) patients, identified in a single duplex-ultrasonography (DUS) vascular laboratory (trail registration N: NCT04825080). Patient's enrollment started in January 2019 and ended in March 2020 with the follow-up conclusion scheduled in December 2025. The aimed sample size was calculated at 300 patients for a 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome were the incidence of ipsilateral neurologic ischemic events (stokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIA]), plaque progression rate, and survival. The follow-up was scheduled at six-month intervals for clinical visit and annually for DUS examination.

RESULTS

a total of 307 patients completed the first follow-up year. The mean age was 81±4 years, 55% were male. Contralateral stenosis >60% was present in 90 (29%) patients. Antiplatelet therapy and statins adherence was 80% and 88%, respectively. During the first year, 3 ispilateral strokes (1%) and 4 TIAs (1.3%) occurred, for a total of 2.3% ipsilateral ischemic events. During the first year, 43 (14%) plaques had a stenosis progression, which was correlated with the occurrence of neurological events (9.3% vs. 1.1%, P=.001, OR: 8.9; 95%CI: 1.9-41); 6 deaths (2%) occurred in the same period.

CONCLUSION

the preliminary one-year results of this prospective study suggest that the overall rate of any ipsilateral ischemic event, and specifically ipsilateral strokes, correlates with plaque progression.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Direct Oral Anticoagulants, Brief Double Antiplatelets, and Testing Strategy

Carotid endarterectomy is usually preferred over carotid artery stenting (CAS) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We present our experience with short-course periprocedural triple antithrombotic therapy in 32 patients aged >18 years with nonvalvular AF undergoing CAS. There were no deaths, cardiac events, embolic strokes, hyperperfusion syndrome, intracranial hemorrhage, or stent thrombosis within 30 days. Transient intraprocedural hemodynamic instability in 15/32 (47%) and prolonged instability in 4/32 (13%) was managed conservatively. At a mean 16-month follow-up, there were no new neurological events or deterioration. Mean stenosis was reduced from 78.0% ± 9.7% to 17.3% ± 12.2%. This retrospective study included patients AF who were symptomatic (minor stroke (NIHSS ≤ 5)/TIA) with ICA stenosis >50%, or asymptomatic under DOAC therapy with carotid stenosis >80%, who underwent CAS from 6/2014-10/2020. Patients received double antiplatelets and statins. Antiplatelet therapy effectiveness was monitored. Stenting was performed when P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) were <150. DOACs were discontinued 48 h before angioplasty; one 60 mg dose of subcutaneous enoxaparin was administered in lieu. DOAC was restarted 12-24 h after intervention. Patients were discharged under DOAC and one nonaspirin antiplatelet. 32 patients on DOAC were included (26 male, mean age 71). 19 (59.4%) presented with stroke (ICA stenosis-related in 14); 13 (40.6%) were asymptomatic. Stents were deployed under filter protection following pre-angioplasty; post-angioplasty was performed at least once in 12 patients (37.5%). Our experience suggests that CAS can be safely performed in selected patients with CAS and AF requiring DOAC. The role of CAS in AF patients under DOAC warrants study in rigorous trials.

Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients With Crescendo Transient Ischemic Attacks: A Systematic Review

Importance

Thromboembolic stroke attributable to an ipsilateral carotid artery plaque is a leading cause of disability in the United States and a major source of morbidity. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting at minimizing stroke risk in patients with minor stroke and transient ischemic attack. However, there is no consensus on guidelines for medical management and the timing of revascularization in patients with multiple recurrent episodes of transient ischemic attack over hours or days, an acute neurological event known as crescendo transient ischemic attack.

Objective

To review the management of and timing of intervention in patients presenting with crescendo transient ischemic attack.

Evidence Review

This systematic review included all English-language articles published from January 1, 1985, to January 1, 2019, available from PubMed (MEDLINE) and Google Scholar. Articles were excluded if they did not include analysis of patients with symptoms, did not report the timing of intervention after crescendo transient ischemic attack, or mixed analysis of patients with stroke in evolution with patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the modified rating from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.

Observations

Patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack were found to have a higher risk of stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy compared with patients with a single transient ischemic attack or stable stroke. With medical therapy alone, a considerable number of patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack experience a completed stroke within several months and have a poor prognosis without intervention. Urgent carotid endarterectomy, typically performed within 48 hours of initial presentation, is beneficial in carefully selected patients. There have been several reports of operative treatment within the first 24 hours of presentation; however, review of these reports does not show any additional benefit from emergency treatment. Carotid artery stenting is reserved only for selected patients with prohibitive surgical risk for endarterectomy. The literature does not clearly support any additional benefit of intravenous heparin therapy over mono or dual antiplatelet therapy prior to carotid endarterectomy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Crescendo transient ischemic attack is best managed with optimal medical management as well as urgent carotid endarterectomy within 2 days of presentation. Surgical endarterectomy appears to be preferred because of the increased embolic potential of bifurcation plaque, whereas stenting is an option for patients with contraindications for surgery. With ongoing advances in cerebrovascular imaging and medical treatment of stroke, there is a need for better evidence to determine the optimal timing and preoperative medical management of patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack.

The effect of clinical coronary disease severity on outcomes of carotid endarterectomy with and without combined coronary bypass

OBJECTIVE

The management of patients with carotid stenosis and symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging. This study assessed the impact of clinical coronary disease severity on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with and without combined coronary artery bypass (CCAB).

METHODS

Using the Vascular Quality Initiative, patients with symptomatic CAD who underwent CCAB or isolated CEA (ICEA) from 2003 to 2017 were identified. Patients were stratified by CAD severity: stable angina (SA) and recent myocardial infarction/unstable angina (UA). Primary outcomes, including perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke/death/MI (SDM), were assessed between procedures within each CAD cohort.

RESULTS

There were 9098 patients identified: 887 CCAB patients (215 [24%] SA, 672 [76%] UA) and 8211 ICEA patients (6385 [78%] SA, 1826 [22%] UA). Overall, CCAB patients had higher rates of stroke (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .002) and SDM (7.3% vs 3.5%, P < .001) but similar rates of MI (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = .12) compared with ICEA patients. In SA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.2% vs CCAB 1.9%; P = .36), MI (1.3% vs 1.4%; P = .95), or SDM (2.9% vs 4.7%; P = .13). In UA patients, no difference was seen in stroke (ICEA 1.6% vs CCAB 2.8%; P = .06), but ICEA patients had higher rates of MI (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .01) and CCAB patients had higher rates of SDM (8.2% vs 5.5%; P = .01). After logistic regression in the UA cohort, predictors of MI included ICEA (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.0; P = .04) and carotid symptomatic status (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .01); carotid symptomatic status also predicted stroke (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6; P = .03), but CCAB did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with symptomatic CAD, both clinical CAD severity and operative strategy affect outcomes. In SA patients, CCAB does not increase perioperative morbidity. However, CCAB in UA patients prevents MI while not appreciably increasing stroke risk. This suggests that coronary revascularization before or concomitant with CEA should be considered in UA patients but that prioritizing coronary intervention is less important in SA patients.

Enhancing Value of MRI: A Call for Action

As national healthcare spending has spiraled out of control, payment reform that moves from volume to value-based payment has been introduced as a practical solution. Under alternative value-based payment models, physicians and clinical teams must deliver the best care possible at a lower cost. Medical imaging has changed the way we diagnose disease, evaluate severity, assess treatment effects, and provide biological insights for the pathophysiology of many diseases. Over the past 50 years, imaging techniques have become increasingly advanced-from X-ray to computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and multi-modal imaging. Advanced imaging such as MRI has given clinicians remarkable insights into medical conditions and saved innumerable lives. Under the value proposition, however, we must ask if each imaging study changes treatment decisions, improves patient outcomes, and is cost-effective. Imaging research has been focused on developing new technologies and clinical applications to assess diagnostic accuracy. What is needed is the higher-level technology assessment. In this article we review why we need to demonstrate the value of MRI, how we define value, what strategies can enhance MR value through partnership with various stakeholders, and how imaging scientists can contribute to healthcare delivery in the future. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e40-e48.

Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients with Contralateral Carotid Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from studies investigating the effect of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are variable in the literature. We sought to determine whether CEA or CAS is the optimal revascularization approach for patients with CCO.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I² statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed as needed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective observational cohort studies comprising 6346 patients were included. Patients in the CEA group had a significantly lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.71; I² = 0%). However, no significant differences were identified in terms of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients did not yield significant differences for stroke, MI, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CCO can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of stroke, MI, and MACE. However, patients treated with CEA have a lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality. Future studies can help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.

Efficacy of carotid artery stenting on stroke prevention of octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

Octogenarians account for a third of ischemic stroke (IS) patients and applying endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS), as a secondary prevention, in these patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate peri-procedural and long term clinical and angiographic impact of CAS on octogenarians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, 102 patients aged over 80 years old with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis presenting by non-disabling IS or transient ischemic attack and having undergone CAS were evaluated prospectively from January 2012 to July 2016. All patients received standard stroke care during the study follow up period. Peri-procedural complication, cerebrovascular accidents, restenosis in target vessel and mortality rate were recorded and the collected data were analyzed to evaluate safety and durability of CAS in octogenarians.

RESULTS

48 (47.06%) males and 54 (52.9%) females with the mean age of 83.39 ± 2.53 (range, 80-88) years were followed in a mean period of 24.5 ± 14.1 months (6-50 months). Success rate of CAS was 100%; whereas, the peri-procedural complication rate was 5.8% (only one patient experienced acute ischemic stroke during the procedure). Restenosis and recurrent cerebrovascular accidents were observed in 3.9% and 9.8% of the cases, respectively. Recurrent cerebrovascular accident leading to death was seen in 2.9% of the cases. The median patient event-free survival was 20 months.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular CAS seems to be a safe and durable method for secondary prevention in ischemic stroke following symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in octogenarians.

Low carotid stump pressure as a predictor for ischemic symptoms and as a marker for compromised cerebral reserve in octogenarians undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery occlusive disease can cause stroke by embolization, thrombosis, and hypoperfusion. The majority of strokes secondary to cervical carotid atherosclerosis are believed to be of embolic etiology. However, cerebral hypoperfusion could be an important factor in perioperative stroke. We retrospectively reviewed the stump pressure (SP) of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) of patients at Pennsylvania Hospital to identify whether physiologic perfusion differences account for differences in perioperative stroke rates, particularly in octogenarians.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database for CEA performed between 1992 and 2015. SP was measured and recorded for 1190 patients. A low SP was defined as systolic pressure <50 mm Hg. Shunts were used only for patients under general anesthesia with SP <50 mm Hg, for awake patients with neurologic changes with carotid clamping, and in some patients with recent stroke.

RESULTS

Symptomatic patients were more likely to have SP <50 mm Hg compared with asymptomatic patients (35.6% vs 26.2%; P = .0015). Patients having SP <50 mm Hg had a higher postoperative stroke rate compared with patients with SP >50 mm Hg (2.9% vs 0.9%; P = .0174). Octogenarians were more likely to have a lower SP compared with patients younger than 80 years (35.7% vs 27.7%; P = .0328). Symptomatic patients with low SP were at highest risk for perioperative stroke (6.4% vs 1.2%; P = .001) compared with patients without these factors.

CONCLUSIONS

SP is a marker for decreased cerebrovascular reserve and along with symptomatic status identifies those at highest risk for periprocedural stroke with CEA. Whereas patients older than 80 years may benefit from carotid intervention, they are likely to be at somewhat elevated stroke risk because of higher prevalence of low SP, and shunting does not eliminate this risk.

Outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: is there a high-risk population? A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program report

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the standard treatment of carotid stenosis for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), however, has been proposed as alternative therapy for patients deemed at high-risk for CEA. This study examined 30-day adjudicated outcomes in a contemporary series of CEAs and assessed the validity of criteria used to define a potential high-risk patient population for CEA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated CEA in private sector hospitals between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2006, were identified using the prospectively gathered National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The primary study end points were 30-day stroke and death rates. Demographic, preoperative, and intraoperative variables were examined using multivariate models to identify variables associated with the study end points. Variables used to define systemic "high-risk" patients in the Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) study (active cardiac disease, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and octogenarian status) were examined individually and in composite fashion for association with study endpoints.

RESULTS

Of the 3949 CEAs performed, 59% were in men, 30% were "high-risk" (19% age >80), and 43% had a previous neurologic event. The 30-day stroke rate was 1.6%, the death rate was 0.7%, and combined stroke/death rate was 2.2%. Multivariate analysis showed that intraoperative transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 5.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-20.66; P = .005), prior major stroke (OR, 5.34; 95% CI, 2.96-9.64; P < .0001), shorter height (surrogate for small artery size; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; P = .010), and increased anesthesia time (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .008) were predictive of stroke. Critical limb ischemia (OR, 12.72; 95% CI, 3.49-46.40; P < .0001) and poor functional status (OR, 7.05; 95% CI, 2.95-16.82; P < .0001) were independent correlates of death. Systemic high-risk variables, either combined or individually, did not increase risk of stroke or death on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

CEA is associated with favorable 30-day outcomes across a spectrum of patient comorbidity features including octogenarian status. Anatomic and technical features are the important predictors of perioperative stroke, whereas critical limb ischemia and poor functional status are important predictors of death for patients undergoing CEA. These data refute the concept that CAS is preferred for patients deemed high-risk by virtue of systemic comorbidities.

Patient radiation exposure during carotid artery stenting

Objectives

The main purpose of this study was to document the radiation doses to patients during carotid stenting.

Material and method

Fluoroscopy and exposure time, air kerma and dose-area product during carotid artery stenting in 160 patients were retrospectively reviewed with regard to body mass index, degree of stenosis and use of cerebral protection devices.

Results

Total air kerma was lower than 0.5 Gy in 80%, 0.5–1 Gy in 17% and higher than 1 Gy (maximum 1.2) in 3% of patients. Mean total dose-area product value for carotid stenting was 54 Gy cm2. The mean air kerma (fluoroscopy), air kerma (exposure), total air kerma and dose-area product (fluoroscopy), dose-area product (exposure), total dose-area product of patients with body mass index within the range 25–29.9 and with body mass index >30 were significantly increased compared to that of patients with body mass index 18–24.9 (H = 40.2, df = 2; p = 0.0000001 and p = 0.000003, respectively).

Conclusion

Carotid artery stenting is a relatively safe radiological procedure in terms of the radiation dose acquired by the patient. The main factors contributing to possible radiation overdosing are body mass index value and complexity of the carotid lesion. Proper preoperative planning in obese and complicated patients may reduce the fluoroscopy time and contribute to reduced dose acquisition.

Is age of 80 years a threshold for carotid revascularization?

Background and purpose:

Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of carotid stenotic disease. With increasing life expectancy clinicians are more often confronted with patients of higher age. Octogenarians were often excluded from randomized trials comparing CAS to CEA because they were considered high-risk for revascularization. Conflicting results on the peri-procedural outcome of carotid revascularization in these patients have been reported. In order to objectively evaluate whether age above 80 years should be an upper limit for indicating carotid revascularization we systematically reviewed the currently available literature.

Methods:

Literature was systematically reviewed between January 2000 and June 2010 using Pubmed and Embase, to identify all relevant studies concerning CAS and CEA in octogenarians. Inclusion criteria were 1) reporting outcome on either CEA or CAS; and 2) data subanalysis on treatment outcome by age. The 30-day Major Adverse Event (MAE) rate (disabling stroke, myocardial infarction or death) was extracted as well as demographic features of included patients.

Results:

After exclusion of 23 articles, 46 studies were included in this review, 18 involving CAS and 28 involving CEA. A total of 2.963 CAS patients and 14.365 CEA patients with an age >80 years were reviewed. The MAE rate was 6.9% (range 1.6 - 24.0%) following CAS and 4.2% (range 0 – 8.8%) following CEA.

A separate analysis in this review included the results of one major registry 140.376 patients) analyzing CEA in octogenarians only reporting on 30-day mortality and not on neurological or cardiac adverse events. When these data were included the MAE following CEA is 2.4% (range 0 – 8.8%)

Conclusions:

MAE rates after CEA in octogenarians are comparable with the results of large randomized trials in younger patients. Higher complication rates are described for CAS in octogenarians. In general, age > 80 years is not an absolute cut off point to exclude patients from carotid surgery. In our opinion, CEA should remain the golden standard in the treatment of significant carotid artery stenoses, even in the very elderly.

Prognosis of medical treatment for Japanese patients with carotid stenosis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to determine whether, among Japanese patients receiving medical treatment for carotid stenosis, symptomatic carotid stenosis was more strongly associated with subsequent neurological events than asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We consecutively registered Japanese patients with carotid stenosis of 50% or more as evaluated by digital subtraction angiography who were treated medically. We reviewed medical records regarding previous neurological events as well as other stroke risk factors and underlying diseases at admission. We monitored the occurrence and date of stroke and death after the first evaluation. We also attempted to obtain information from patients or their family members by means of a questionnaire or telephone survey.

RESULTS

Among 67 patients with carotid stenosis of 50% or more who were treated medically, follow-up was completed in 62 subjects (56 men, 6 women; median age, 72 years; mean follow-up period, 37.3 months). The number of patients with subsequent stroke with symptomatic carotid stenosis was five, while that with asymptomatic stenosis was four. A significantly higher rate of subsequent stroke was observed in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis compared with those with asymptomatic stenosis (p=0.012). Cox proportional hazards model indicated that symptomatic carotid stenosis was significantly correlated with future neurologic events (p=0.019).

CONCLUSION

In a Japanese population with carotid stenosis treated medically, symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with future stroke more frequently than asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

Postendarterectomy mortality in octogenarians and nonagenarians in the USA from 1993 to 1999

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known about trends in the utilization or outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the very elderly. We determined trends in the rates of CEA and perioperative (in-hospital and 30-day) and long-term (1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year) mortality in a US national sample of patients >or=80 years of age.

METHODS

All fee-for-service Medicare patients (80-89 and >or=90 years of age) who had a CEA [ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification): 38.12] from 1993 to 1999 were identified using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions were determined using ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes within the year prior to the index hospitalization for CEA.

RESULTS

A total of 140,376 CEA were performed in patients aged 80-89 years and 6,446 in those aged >or=90 years during this 7-year period. The annual number of operations increased from 13,115 in 1993 to 21,582 in 1999 for octogenarians, and from 481 in 1993 to 1,257 in 1999 for nonagenarians. Perioperative mortality was 2.2% in octogenarians and 3.3% in nonagenarians. Long-term mortality increased by approximately 10% per year after the operation, and was 43% in octogenarians and 56% in nonagenarians at 5 years. Perioperative mortality rates remained relatively stable over the 7-year period for both age groups although comorbidities increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of CEA performed in the very elderly in the USA increased from 1993 to 1999. Perioperative mortality rates were high compared with trial results, while long-term survivorship was comparable to that of similarly-aged peers in the USA.

Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that, in a randomized trial, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery disease at 30 days and at 1 year. We now report the 3-year results.

METHODS

The trial evaluated carotid artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device as compared with endarterectomy in 334 patients at increased risk for complications from endarterectomy who had either a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50% of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80%. The prespecified major secondary end point at 3 years was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1080 days (3 years).

RESULTS

At 3 years, data were available for 260 patients (77.8%), including 85.6% of patients in the stenting group and 70.1% of those in the endarterectomy group. The prespecified major secondary end point occurred in 41 patients in the stenting group (cumulative incidence, 24.6%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 26.2%) and 45 patients in the endarterectomy group (cumulative incidence, 26.9%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 30.3%) (absolute difference in cumulative incidence for the stenting group, -2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -11.8 to 7.0). There were 15 strokes in each of the two groups, of which 11 in the stenting group and 9 in the endarterectomy group were ipsilateral.

CONCLUSIONS

In our trial of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and increased surgical risk, no significant difference could be shown in long-term outcomes between patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with an emboli-protection device and those who underwent endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00231270 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

15 year experience of carotid endarterectomy at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital: outcomes and changing trends in management

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) to provide a benchmark for comparison with carotid stenting and to document changes in imaging and procedural techniques over time.

METHODS

Analysis of RBWH CEA database from 1992 to 2007.

RESULTS

1313 consecutive patients (average age 69.2 years, 9% 80 years or older, 69% males) underwent carotid endarterectomy at the RBWH between 1992 and May 2007. Indication for surgery was symptomatic disease in 67%. Preoperative investigations included a duplex scan in 97%, an angiogram in 24% and a CT brain in 33%. Angiogram related neurological events occurred in 3.5% of patients (1.6% stroke, 1.9% TIA). There were 7 deaths (0.5%) and 28 strokes (2.1%) for a combined stroke and death rate of 2.4%. The rate of transient ischemic attacks was 1.1%. Gender patch use and trainees operating with the surgeon unscrubbed predicted a higher combined stroke and death rate. Trends over time included: reduction in preoperative angiography from 66% to <5% and increased rate of patching from 39% to approximately 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of CEA at the RBWH is in keeping with published literature standards. There has been an evolution to surgery performed on the basis of duplex ultrasound alone and an almost universal use of patching.

Carotid artery stenting in octogenarians is associated with increased adverse outcomes

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting is an increasingly common endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis advocated in high-risk patients despite reports of increased adverse periprocedural outcomes in patients aged >80 years. We sought to evaluate our single institution experience with octogenarians and whether they have an increased incidence of major complications with carotid artery stenting.

METHODS

Three hundred eighty-six patients, including 260 patients from 10 regulatory trials, who underwent carotid artery stenting between June 1996 and March 2004 for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis were reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Periprocedural (< or =30 days after carotid artery stenting) cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and death outcomes were compared between 87 octogenarians and 295 nonoctogenarians. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed for confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis of stroke and death outcomes was performed for a 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

All adverse outcomes were significantly higher in octogenarians compared with younger patients: 30-day stroke rate, 8.0% vs 2.7% (P = .02); 30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, 9.2% vs 3.4% (P = .02). Cohorts were similar in terms of gender, comorbidities, antiplatelet medications, symptomatic status, and use of cerebral protection. Octogenarians had a greater incidence of contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion (26% vs 12%, P = .001), atrial fibrillation (21% vs 8%, P = .001), and congestive heart failure (28% vs 15%, P = .007), but a lower incidence of hypercholesterolemia (53% vs 72%, P = .001) and active smoking (8% vs 24%, P = .001). Multivariate analysis of 30-day major adverse outcomes demonstrated an association between age > or =80 and adverse outcome (odds ratio, 2.85; P = .043) as well as a protective effect of the preprocedural use of aspirin (odds ratio, 0.30, P = .027). At 1-year follow-up, only 75% of octogenarians and 87% of nonoctogenarians were free from stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (P = 005, Kaplan-Meier analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Octogenarians undergoing carotid artery stenting are at higher risk than nonoctogenarians for periprocedural complications, including neurologic events and death. Major event-free survival at 1 year is also significantly better in nonoctogenarians. These risks should be weighed when considering carotid stenting in elderly patients.

Contemporary Outcomes for Carotid Endarterectomy at a Large Community-Based Academic Health Center

The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) demonstrated the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), but these studies were published 15 and 11 years ago, respectively. We hypothesized that present clinical results of CEA have improved compared with those reported by NASCET/ACAS. Every patient having CEA from January 1999 through December 2003 was reviewed as part of a continuous quality-assurance program. Patient demographics and risk factors were recorded; high-risk patients were identified using inclusion criteria for high-risk carotid stent trials. Primary end points recorded were all neurologic events, deaths, and myocardial infarctions (MIs). Outcomes were reported individually or as combined neurologic events and deaths (traditional NASCET/ACAS methodology) and, similar to recent carotid stent trials, individually, combined, and as a composite that included MI. A total of 1,927 CEAs were performed, 1,140 in men (59%) and 787 in women (41%). The average age was 72 +/- 9 years; 21% of patients were age 80 or older. Symptomatic patients accounted for 717 procedures (37%). Perioperative neurologic event, death, and MI occurred in 1.0%, 0.5%, and 1.3% of patients, respectively. The combined neurologic event and death rate was 1.3% (symptomatic = 1.8%, asymptomatic = 1.1%). High-risk patients comprised 54% of the cohort; the neurologic event and death rate for this group was 1.6%. The composite end point including MI was 3.4%. Severe coronary artery disease and prior ipsilateral CEA significantly correlated with a higher incidence of primary end point complications. In contemporary practice, the perioperative neurologic event rate is significantly less than reported in NASCET/ACAS. Perioperative death and MI rates were similar to those seen in NASCET/ACAS. Neurologic events and death rates were not different between high- and low-risk groups. These data may serve as a guide for the modern vascular specialist weighing open and endovascular options for treatment of carotid artery occlusive disease in both high- and low-risk patients.

Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Occlusion

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 30-day outcome of carotid endarterectomy in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion and compare it to that in patients with patent contralateral carotid artery. We compared 2,959 carotid endarterectomies performed in patients with patent contralateral internal carotid artery to 373 carotid endarterectomies performed in patients with occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery in the same institute between 1988 and 2004. Patient demographics, surgical and anesthesiological strategy, perioperative neurological and cardiac events, and deaths were compared. The patients were grouped and analyzed according to the presence or absence of symptoms and to their gender. No significant difference was shown in perioperative cardiological and neurological events and deaths in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion versus patients without contralateral carotid occlusion. Females had significant more neurological events than males, in both the asymptomatic (P < 0.001) and symptomatic (P = 0.02) groups. Concomitant occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery was not associated with increased risk of perioperative cardiological or neurological adverse events. However, female gender was associated with higher risk for adverse neurological events.

Trends in the in-hospital stroke rate following carotid endarterectomy in California and Maryland

OBJECTIVE

We examined the outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the state of Maryland during the last decade to identify any trends in the incidence of in-hospital stroke and mortality and compared these results with the outcome of the operation throughout the state of California as a control population.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective analysis of 10 years (1994 to 2003) of the Maryland and 5 years (1999 to 2003) of the California hospital discharge databases. The following patients were included in the analysis: (1) International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure code 38.12 (endarterectomy of the vessels of the head and neck other than intracranial vessels) in the primary coding position but not in any secondary position, or (2) the diagnosis code 433.00 to 433.91 (occlusion/stenosis, precerebral artery), or (3) the diagnosis-related group (DRG) 5 (extracranial vascular procedure). Symptomatic patients were identified by history of previous stroke (ICD-9 codes 342 or 438), transient ischemic attack (435 or 781.4), or amaurosis fugax (362.34 or 368.12). In-hospital strokes were identified by ICD-9 codes 997.0, 997.00, 997.01, and 997.09. Low-, moderate-, and high-volume surgeons were defined as performing <15, 15 to 74 and >or=75 CEAs annually. Hospital volumes were similarly classified as low for those performing <or=20 CEAs, moderate for 21 to 100, and high for >100 annually.

RESULTS

In the Maryland data, 23,237 CEA cases were identified with 169 in-hospital strokes over 10 years (0.73%), whereas the 51,331 California CEAs had 232 in-hospital strokes over 5 years (0.45%). The stroke rate in Maryland was 2.12% in 1994, 1.47% in 1995, and 0.29% to 0.65% from 1996 to 2003. The decrease in strokes was more pronounced among symptomatic patients, where the rate was 3.82% in 1994, 4.44% in 1995, and 0.90% to 2.29% from 1996 to 2003. A similar decrease was identified in the asymptomatic patient population but was less pronounced: 1.64% in 1994, 0.81% in 1995, and 0.15% to 0.44% from 1996 to 2003. The low recent stroke rates were confirmed by the California data (0.44% to 0.48% from 1999 to 2003). Changes in the death rate for CEA during this time frame have not been as pronounced, from 0.33% to 0.58% for Maryland and 0.78% to 0.91% for California.

CONCLUSIONS

A dramatic decrease in the in-hospital stroke rates in Maryland occurred around 1995. The stroke rates in Maryland in the past 5 years are similar to those in California during the same period. An analysis of data from the two states shows that the in-hospital stroke rate now for carotid endarterectomy is approximately 0.54%.

Carotid Stenting: Should it Replace Endarterectomy in Higher-Risk Patients?

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a useful and potentially less-invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of extracranial carotid stenoses. It has been suggested that specific patient subgroups, including those with significant medical comorbidities, recurrent stenosis, anatomically inaccessible lesions, and a hostile neck, might benefit from CAS. The purpose of this report is to evaluate whether or not CAS should replace CEA in the treatment of the high-risk patient. Results from a recently published randomized clinical trial and several individual center and multicenter case analyses will be used in this review.

Long-Term Histopathologic and IVUS Evaluations of a Novel Coiled Sheet Stent in Porcine Carotid Arteries

Carotid angioplasty with stent placement has been proposed as an alternative method for revascularization of carotid artery stenosis. A novel stent with a laser-cut, rolled sheet of Nitinol (EndoTex Interventional Systems, Inc., Cupertino, CA) has been developed to customize treatment of stenotic lesions in carotid arteries utilizing a single stent, designed to adapt to multiple diameters and to tapered or nontapered configurations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the conformability and vascular response to a novel stent in a chronic porcine carotid model using serial three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis as well as histological examination. Ten Yucatan pigs underwent stent implantation in both normal carotid arteries with adjunctive balloon angioplasty. Three-dimensional IVUS analysis was performed before stent implantation, after adjunctive balloon angioplasty, and at follow-up [1 month (n = 6), 3 months (n = 6), or 6 months (n = 8)]. Histological examination (injury score, percent plaque obstruction, and qualitative analysis) was also performed. All stents were successfully deployed and well apposed in different sized vessels (lumen area range: 19-30 mm(2)). Volumetric IVUS analysis showed no significant difference between the lumen areas before stent implantation and after adjunctive balloon angioplasty and no stent area change at each follow-up point compared to immediately postprocedure. Histological examination revealed minimal injury and neointimal hyperplasia at each follow-up point. In the chronic porcine carotid model, the novel stent system demonstrated good conformability, resulting in minimal vessel injury and neointimal formation.

Does the high-risk patient for carotid endarterectomy really exist?

BACKGROUND

High surgical risk is advocated as a major criterion for carotid artery stenting. To date, definitely accepted criteria to identify "high-risk" patients for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) do not exist. The aim of this study was to analyze the statistical weight of each single previously described risk factor on early and late results after carotid surgery in our experience.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1,883 CEAs performed during a 6-year period in a single institution was performed. Early and late results in terms of mortality and neurologic events were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analysis for early and late risk of stroke and death were performed, considering the influence of age, sex, comorbidities, clinical symptoms, and anatomic features.

RESULTS

The cumulative 30-day stroke and death rate was 1.3%. Univariate analysis and logistic regression did not show statistical significance for 30-day results in any of the considered variables. The three-year stroke-free survival was 94.5%, and it was significantly affected by chronic renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, and older age.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid endarterectomy is a safe procedure also in so-called high-risk subsets of patients. Severe comorbidities seem to affect only long-term survival.

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.

Octogenarians with contralateral carotid artery occlusion: a cohort at higher risk for carotid endarterectomy?

PURPOSE

Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been proposed as a treatment option for carotid occlusive disease in patients at high risk, including those 80 years of age or older or with contralateral carotid occlusion. We analyzed 30-day mortality and stroke risk rates of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients aged 80 years or older with concurrent carotid occlusive disease.

METHODS

From a retrospective review of 1000 patients undergoing 1150 CEA procedures to treat symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid lesions over 13 years, we identified 54 patients (5.4%) aged 80 years or older with concurrent contralateral carotid occlusion. These patients were compared with 38 patients (3.8%) aged 80 years or older with normal or diseased patent contralateral carotid artery and 81 patients (8.1%) younger than 80 years with contralateral carotid occlusion. All CEA procedures involved either standard CEA with patching or eversion CEA, and were performed by the same surgeon, with the patients under deep general anesthesia and cerebral protection involving continuous perioperative electroencephalographic monitoring for selective shunting. Shunting criteria were based exclusively on electroencephalographic abnormalities consistent with cerebral ischemia.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality and stroke rate in patients aged 80 years or older with concurrent contralateral carotid occlusion was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of high-risk CEA needs to be revisited. Patients with two of the criteria considered high risk in the medical literature, that is, age 80 years or older and contralateral carotid occlusion, can undergo CEA with no greater risks or complications. Until prospective randomized trials designed to evaluate the role of carotid angioplasty and stenting have been completed, CEA should remain the standard treatment in such patients.

Carotid endarterectomy in sapphire-eligible high-risk patients: implications for selecting patients for carotid angioplasty and stenting

OBJECTIVES

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients excluded from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and in those considered at high risk for CEA. In light of recently released CAS data in patients at high risk, we reviewed our experience with CEA.

METHODS

The records for consecutive patients who underwent CEA between 1998 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed, and risk was stratified according to inclusion and exclusion criteria from a "high-risk" or CAS-CEA trial, The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial.

RESULTS

Of 776 CEAs performed, 323 (42%) were considered high risk, on the basis of criteria including positive stress test (n = 109, 14%), age older than 80 years (n = 85, 11%), contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 66, 9%), pulmonary dysfunction (n = 56, 7%), high cervical lesion (n = 36, 5%), and repeat carotid operation (n = 27, 3%). Other high-risk criteria included recent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac surgery, or class III or IV cardiac status; left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%; contralateral laryngeal palsy; and previous neck irradiation (each <1.5%). Clinical presentation was similar in the high-risk and low-risk groups: asymptomatic (73% versus 73%), transient ischemic attack (23% vs 22%), and previous stroke (4% vs 5%). The overall postoperative stroke rate was 1.4% (symptomatic, 2.9%; asymptomatic, 0.9%). Comparison of high-risk and low-risk CEAs demonstrated no statistical difference in the stroke rate. Factors associated with significantly increased stroke risk included cervical radiation therapy, class III or IV angina, symptomatic presentation, and age 60 years or younger. Overall mortality was 0.3% (symptomatic, 0.5%; asymptomatic, 0.2%), not significantly different between the high-risk (0.6%) and low-risk groups (0.0%). Non-Q-wave MI was more frequent in the high-risk group (3.1 vs 0.9%; P <.05). A composite cluster of adverse clinical events (death, stroke, MI) was more frequent in the symptomatic high-risk group (9.3% vs 1.6%; P <.005), but not in the asymptomatic cohort. There was a trend for more major cranial nerve injuries in patients with local risk factors, such as high carotid bifurcation, repeat operation, and cervical radiation therapy (4.6% vs 1.7%; P <.13). In 121 patients excluded on the basis of synchronous or immediate subsequent operations, who also would have been excluded from SAPPHIRE, the overall rates for stroke (1.65%; P =.69), death (1.65%; P =.09), and MI (0.83%; P =.71) were not significantly different from those in the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA can be performed in patients at high risk, with stroke and death rates well within accepted standards. These data question the use of CAS as an alternative to CEA, even in patients at high risk.

Carotid endarterectomy in high-risk patients: A challenge for endovascular procedure protocols

BACKGROUND

Many studies have sought to identify certain patient population subsets that may be more appropriate for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). Current CAS protocols include "high-risk" patients. The goal of this study was to compare the perioperative outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) between high-risk and non-high-risk patients.

METHODS

During a 54-month period, 392 consecutive CEAs were performed in 363 patients (29 bilateral) by a single surgeon and entered prospectively into a registry. A high-risk patient subset (126, 35%) was defined by the presence of a severe medical comorbidity (ie, cardiac dysfunction, pulmonary dysfunction, renal insufficiency) or particular anatomic features (ie, contralateral carotid occlusion, ipsilateral carotid restenosis after CEA, and "high" carotid bifurcation). Of the 126 CEAs, 96 (76%) were performed for symptomatic lesions. Endpoints of the study were perioperative stroke, cardiac complication, or death.

RESULTS

Overall, there were three ischemic strokes (1%) and four cardiac complications (1%). None of the patients died. The stroke and cardiac complication rates for the high-risk and non-high-risk groups were similar (1/126, 1% versus 2/237, 1% and 3/126, 2% versus 1/237, 1%, respectively), but the cardiac morbidity rate was statistically higher in patients with severe medical comorbidity (P=.03), especially in the subset with cardiac dysfunction (P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CEA can be performed in high-risk patients with perioperative neurologic and cardiac complication rates comparable with those recorded in other patients. The definition of a "high-risk" patient should not be considered per se a reason to abandon CEA in favor of CAS.

Contemporary management of "high-risk" patients with carotid stenosis

The concept of a "high-risk" carotid endarterectomy patient has been suggested in an effort to justify the application of carotid angioplasty and stenting outside of clinical trials. Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy in this subgroup of patients would argue against the existence of a high-risk patient. Until randomized prospective trials establish the role of carotid angioplasty and stenting in carotid bifurcation disease, this new technology should be restricted to recurrent and radiation-induced disease.

Preoperative risk factors for carotid endarterectomy: defining the patient at high risk

PURPOSE

The efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for prevention of stroke has been demonstrated in randomized trials; however, the optimal approach in patients excluded from these trials or who have other significant comorbid conditions remains controversial, particularly with the advent of percutaneous interventions. We examined the influence of putative risk factors on outcome of CEA in a single-center experience.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 1370 consecutive CEA performed from 1990 to 1999 was undertaken. Preoperative risk factors examined included age older than 80 years, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure (serum creatinine concentration > 2.0 mg/dL), contralateral carotid artery occlusion, recurrent ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis, ipsilateral hemispheric symptoms within 6 weeks, and recent coronary bypass grafting (CABG). The Fisher exact test was used to identify baseline variables associated with perioperative (30 days) risk for stroke or death. Multivariate analysis with Poisson regression was used to study the effect of all univariate criteria in combination.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, there were 32 adverse events (2.3%), including 11 deaths (0.8%), 6 disabling strokes (0.4%), and 10 nondisabling strokes (0.7%). There was no significant difference in incidence of perioperative stroke or death between patients with one or more risk factors (n = 689) and those with no risk factors (low risk, n = 681). Thirty-day mortality was significantly greater in patients with two or more risk factors compared with patients with no risk factors (2.8% vs 0.3%; P =.04), but no significant difference was noted in perioperative stroke rate (2.3% vs 1.0%). Univariate analysis demonstrated that contralateral carotid occlusion (n = 75) was the only significant predictor of adverse outcome (5 events, 6.7%) among the variables tested; this was confirmed with multivariate analysis (relative risk, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-12.3; P =.01). Five-year survival for patients with two or more risk factors was notably diminished compared with that for patients with no risk factors (38.7% +/- 5.9% vs 75.0% +/- 2.6%; P <.001). Contralateral occlusion was also associated with reduced 5-year survival (38 +/- 11% vs 67 +/- 2%; P <.004).

CONCLUSION

CEA can be safely performed in patients deemed at high risk, including those aged 80 years or older and others with significant comorbid conditions, with combined stroke and mortality rates comparable to those found in randomized trials, ie, the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Contralateral occlusion may be a predictor for moderately increased perioperative risk and for reduced long-term survival. Caution may be warranted in asymptomatic patients with multiple risk factors, in whom presumed long-term benefit of CEA may be compromised by markedly reduced 5-year survival.

Controversies in carotid stenting

Endovascular therapies are now commonly used in many vascular sites. However, the role for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) remains an unproven therapy with some potential benefits. Initial results of CAS were worse than the surgical standard of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and did not meet American Heart Association guidelines. However, recent improvements have resulted in improved stroke morbidity rate that may approach that of CEA. Specifically, the embolic problem associated with CAS has been reduced with embolic protection devices, but the ultimate effect of these protection devices remains uncertain. Initial comparison studies of CAS to CEA showed an unacceptably high stroke morbidity rate in the CAS group. As a result, multiple randomized clinical trials have been initiated to compare the results of CAS with embolic protection to that of CEA. While these studies are underway, the authors advocate a careful application of CAS to be used as a complementary tool for the carotid surgeon to use in special circumstances when CEA cannot be undertaken with acceptable morbidity. Furthermore, since the reported stroke morbidity rate of CAS exceeds the AHA recommendation for treatment of asymptomatic patients, most nonsurgical patients with asymptomatic disease should be treated with medical therapy.

Is the rationale for carotid angioplasty and stenting in patients excluded from NASCET/ACAS or eligible for ARCHeR justified?

PURPOSE

To compare outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients who would have been excluded from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) or the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) or would have been eligible for Acculink for Revascularization of Carotids in High Risk Patients (ARCHeR), a current high-risk stent registry, with outcome in a similar cohort at low risk.

METHODS

Records of all CEAs performed at our institution from July 1993 to December 2000 were reviewed. Patients were assigned to groups either eligible or ineligible for NASCET and ACAS or ARCHeR, and criteria were stratified according to whether risk was defined by anatomic or medical problems or whether patients were ineligible according to nonmedical protocol exclusion criteria only.

RESULTS

Preoperative and postoperative data were sufficient to determine risk status according to various study criteria in 857 patients. Stroke or death within 30 days, the primary end point, occurred in 2.1% of patients. Rates were similar in patients excluded from (2.7%) or included in (1.6%) NASCET and ACAS and in patients eligible (3.1%) or ineligible (2.1%) for ARCHeR. Rates did not differ according to whether exclusion or inclusion was based on anatomic risk, medical risk, or protocol exclusion, although trends favored worse outcome in the ARCHeR medical risk subgroup. A higher rate of minor complications was found in the elderly; however, stroke and death rates were similar according to age, gender, repeat procedure, or the presence of contralateral occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically or clinically significant differences were found in combined 30-day stroke or death rates after CEA in any group defined by previous surgical trials or current ongoing high-risk stent registry. While high-risk groups may exist, the premise that operative risk is higher in patients excluded from NASCET and ACAS or eligible for ARCHeR is not supported.

The benefits of carotid endarterectomy in the octogenarian: a challenge to the results of carotid angioplasty and stenting

Proponents of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) believe that this technique would be preferred over carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the high-risk patient. Presumably this would include patients over 80 years of age. However, a recent large series of patients undergoing CAS revealed a 16% incidence of nonfatal strokes and deaths for patients over the age of 80; these results were significantly worse than those for younger patients undergoing CAS. The objective of this study was to reassess results of CEA in patients over 80, and to compare surgical results with the published results of CAS in this patient group. A review was conducted of a prospectively maintained database of all carotid surgery performed at our institution. Primary CEA that took place from 1997 through 1999 were included for analysis (n = 698). Our institutional results were compared with representative results from a recently published large series of CAS. Our analysis showed that CEA can be performed safely in the octogenarian, and results are equivalent to those of younger patients. CEA appears to have significantly better results in the octogenarian than CAS. The reasons for the poor outcomes of CAS in the octogenarian are unclear. The results of CAS in the older patient population are worrisome, and this "less invasive" technique may prove to be an inferior alternative in this patient group.