Carotid artery stenting in nonagenarians: are there benefits in surgically treating this high risk population?

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Thirty-Day Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting in Elderly Patients: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in elderly patients is controversial. The aims of this study were to evaluate 30-day outcomes after CAS in elderly patients (≥70 years old) and to investigate risk factors for postoperative incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) to improve CAS safety based on clinical evidence in this specific subgroup of patients.

METHODS

The data set included patients who underwent CAS between 2001 and 2017 at Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University. The primary outcome variable was 30-day postoperative incidence of the following MACE: death, myocardial infarction, and ipsilateral stroke. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify high-risk patients and procedural characteristics associated with MACE.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 elderly patients who underwent CAS for carotid artery stenosis were identified and analyzed. The incidence of postoperative MACE was 3.01% (n = 31 cases [5 deaths, 24 strokes, and 2 myocardial infarctions]). After multivariate analysis, independent predictors of MACE included a family history of stroke (odds ratio [OR] = 3.817; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.227-11.876; P = 0.021), symptomatic status (OR = 2.650; 95% CI, 1.210-5.806; P = 0.015), and modified Rankin Scale score ≥3 (OR = 4.594; 95% CI, 1.708-12.352; P = 0.003). Hyperlipidemia was not an independent risk factor (OR = 1.597; 95% CI, 0.745-3.425; P = 0.229).

CONCLUSIONS

At our center, CAS was safely performed in elderly patients. A family history of stroke, symptomatic status, and modified Rankin Scale score ≥3 indicating a neurologic deficit increased the risk of 30-day postoperative MACE.

Prevention and Treatment of Acute Stroke in the Nonagenarians and Beyond: Medical and Ethical Issues

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As one of the fastest growing portions of the population, nonagenarians will constitute a significant percentage of the stroke patient population in the near future. Nonagenarians are nevertheless not specifically targeted by most clinical guidelines. In this review, we aimed to summarise the available evidence guiding stroke prevention and treatment in this age group.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent observational studies have shown that the benefits of anticoagulation for the oldest old patients with atrial fibrillation may outweigh the bleeding risk. A sub-analysis of the IST-3 trial has shown for the first time that thrombolysis treatment in acute ischaemic stroke may be beneficial and safe even in octogenarian patients and older. Several recent observational studies have assessed thrombolysis in nonagenarians. The latest of these has shown better disability outcomes without increased rates of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage with thrombolysis. Nonagenarian stroke patients may benefit from similar preventative and therapeutic strategies as their younger counterparts. A few important exceptions include primary prevention using aspirin or statins. Patient selection is nevertheless essential given the increased adverse event rates. Patient preference should play a key role in the decision-making process. Clinical trials including more nonagenarian patients are required to yield more robust evidence.

Association between age and risk of stroke or death from carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting: a meta-analysis of pooled patient data from four randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Age was reported to be an effect-modifier in four randomised controlled trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with better CEA outcomes than CAS outcomes noted in the more elderly patients. We aimed to describe the association of age with treatment differences in symptomatic patients and provide age-specific estimates of the risk of stroke and death within narrow (5 year) age groups.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we analysed individual patient-level data from four randomised controlled trials within the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration (CSTC) involving patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We included only trials that randomly assigned patients to CAS or CEA and only patients with symptomatic stenosis. We assessed rates of stroke or death in 5-year age groups in the periprocedural period (between randomisation and 120 days) and ipsilateral stroke during long-term follow-up for patients assigned to CAS or CEA. We also assessed differences between CAS and CEA. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis.

FINDINGS

Collectively, 4754 patients were randomly assigned to either CEA or CAS treatment in the four studies. 433 events occurred over a median follow-up of 2·7 years. For patients assigned to CAS, the periprocedural hazard ratio (HR) for stroke and death in patients aged 65-69 years compared with patients younger than 60 years was 2·16 (95% CI 1·13-4·13), with HRs of roughly 4·0 for patients aged 70 years or older. We noted no evidence of an increased periprocedural risk by age group in the CEA group (p=0·34). These changes underpinned a CAS-versus CEA periprocedural HR of 1·61 (95% CI 0·90-2·88) for patients aged 65-69 years and an HR of 2·09 (1·32-3·32) for patients aged 70-74 years. Age was not associated with the postprocedural stroke risk either within treatment group (p≥0·09 for CAS and 0·83 for CEA), or between treatment groups (p=0·84).

INTERPRETATION

In these RCTs, CEA was clearly superior to CAS in patients aged 70-74 years and older. The difference in older patients was almost wholly attributable to increasing periprocedural stroke risk in patients treated with CAS. Age had little effect on CEA periprocedural risk or on postprocedural risk after either procedure.

FUNDING

None.