Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery

Concomitant Carotid and Coronary Artery Disease Management: A Review of the Literature

This review examines current evidence regarding management of patients with both coronary and carotid artery disease. It highlights the elevated stroke risk after surgery for this cohort and scrutinizes approaches to minimize this risk. Various revascularization methods are outlined, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), and staged versus simultaneous surgical approaches. The importance of judiciously screening coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) candidates for carotid stenosis is emphasized, suggesting risk factor-based targeted screening is noninferior to indiscriminate screening. Efficacy comparisons are made between revascularization strategies such as staged versus synchronous CEA/CABG, CAS, and hybrid techniques. Controversies surrounding necessity and optimal timing of carotid revascularization in asymptomatic patients are addressed, indicating a need for rigorous randomized controlled trials to establish definitive treatment algorithms.

Secondary Risk Reduction after Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke

This article discusses the evolving definitions of transient ischemic attack and minor strokes, highlighting the shared risk factors and the similarities in approach and early management. It emphasizes the importance of early identification and basic workup for these patients, as well as the most effective early antithrombotic therapies to date. The article also emphasizes the significance of controlling risk factors and concludes with a discussion of treatment strategies based on specific stroke etiologies.

Elective carotid stenting fulfills quality standards defined in guidelines

PURPOSE

According to evidence from randomized trials and current guidelines, elective carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still considered second-line therapy compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the publication of randomized comparative trials for patients with symptomatic stenoses occurred well over 10 years ago. In view of problems regarding German quality assurance when differentiating elective from emergency interventions and low case numbers for CAS indications, it seemed reasonable to present neurologically controlled CAS results and to investigate whether elective CAS consistently fulfills the strict quality criteria and what differences exist with respect to emergency CAS interventions in acute ischemic stroke.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 01/2012 and 07/2022, 141 elective CAS procedures were performed to treat patients with symptomatic (n = 123) and asymptomatic (n = 18) stenoses. Protection by a filter system was achieved in 134 of these elective procedures (95 %). During the same period, 158 patients underwent carotid stenting for acute stroke. Complication rates were determined using neurologically controlled data. CAS-related complications (stent thrombosis, stent-associated vascular damage, thromboembolism, and symptomatic hemorrhage) were extracted from emergency interventions, and clinical outcome (NIHSS progression) was determined during the inpatient stay.

RESULTS

The rate of stroke and death determined during the inpatient stay for elective symptomatic patients was 0.8 %. Early treatment within the first 7 days after the index event, age > 70 years, and operator experience were not significant risk factors for the occurrence of complications. No complications were observed after CAS of asymptomatic stenoses. The procedure-related complication rate for emergency procedures was 7.8 %, which was significantly higher than after elective CAS, as expected (p < 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Even with limited indications and limited case numbers, compliance with the strict quality criteria of the current S3 Guideline 2022 for elective CAS interventions is possible for both symptomatic and asymptomatic stenoses in an experienced center. Emergency CAS interventions have significantly higher complication rates under other conditions and must be considered separately with regard to quality assurance.

KEY POINTS

· Elective carotid stenting fulfills the strict quality criteria of the current S3 guideline 2022.. · Emergency carotid stenting has significantly higher complication rates than elective procedures.. · Elective and emergency carotid stenting cannot be meaningfully compared..

CITATION FORMAT

· Keil F, Stahn S, Reitz SC et al. Elective carotid stenting fulfills quality standards defined in guidelines. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 471 - 481.

Safety and efficacy of early carotid artery stenting in patients with symptomatic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is a significant contributor to ischemic strokes. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is usually indicated for secondary stroke prevention. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of CAS performed within a short time frame from symptom onset.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis within eight days of symptom onset from July 2019 to January 2022. Data on demographics, medical history, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was the recurrence of the stroke within the first month post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the rate of intra-procedural complications, and hyperperfusion syndrome.

RESULTS

We included 93 patients with a mean age of 71.7 ± 11.7 years. The median time from symptom onset to CAS was 96 h. The rate of stroke recurrence was 5.4% in the first month, with a significant association between the number of stents used and increased recurrence risk. Mortality within the first month was 3.2%, with an overall mortality rate of 11.8% after a median follow-up of 19 months. Intra-procedural complications were present in five (5.4%) cases and were related to the number of stents used (p = 0.002) and post-procedural angioplasty (p = 0.045). Hyperperfusion syndrome occurred in 3.2% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Early CAS within the high-risk window post-symptom onset is a viable secondary stroke prevention strategy in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The procedure rate of complication is acceptable, with a low recurrence of stroke. However, further careful selection of patients for this procedural strategy is crucial to optimize outcomes.

Risk of new cerebral ischemic events in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis while awaiting carotid stent placement

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although there is an emphasis on performing carotid artery stent (CAS) placement within 2 weeks after index event of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke in patients with significant extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis, the risks and characteristics of recurrent cerebral ischemic event while waiting for CAS placement are not well defined.

METHOD

We analyzed patients admitted to our institution over a 45-month period with symptomatic extracranial ICA stenosis. We identified any new cerebral ischemic events that occurred between index cerebral or retinal ischemic event and CAS placement and categorized them as TIA and minor or major ischemic strokes. We calculated the risk of new ipsilateral cerebral ischemic events between index cerebral or retinal ischemic event and CAS placement.

RESULTS

The mean age of 131 patients analyzed was 67 years (range: 47-94 years; 92 were men), and 94 and 37 patients had 70%-99% and 50%-69% severity of stenosis, respectively. The mean and median time intervals between index cerebral or retinal ischemic event and CAS performance were 28 (standard deviation [SD] 30) and 7 (interquartile range 33) days, respectively. A total of 9 of 131 patients (6.9%, 95% confidence interval 2.5%-11.2%) experienced new cerebral ischemic events over 3637 patient days of observation. The risk of new ipsilateral cerebral ischemic events was 2.5 per 1000 patient days of observation.

CONCLUSION

We estimated the risk of new ipsilateral cerebral ischemic events in patients with ICA stenosis ≥50% in severity while waiting for CAS placement to guide appropriate timing of procedure.

Complications and outcomes of carotid artery stenting in high-risk cases

OBJECTIVES

Carotid artery stenting is sometimes adapted for some at-risk cases; however, appropriate treatment timing with stroke onset is controversial. This study aims to identify factors that have an impact on complications and outcomes, especially in patients at high risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined the characteristics of 152 consecutive patients treated by carotid artery stenting between January 2018 and March 2022 and retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for complications and poor outcomes (modified-Rankin-Scale deterioration), such as patient background, carotid artery stenting risks (access route tortuosity, severe calcification, vulnerable plaque, estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, etc.), characteristics of the stenosis, details of treatment, and treatment timing.

RESULTS

The average North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria score was 68.3% and the lesion length was 20.5±9.7mm. Among patients, 107 (70.4%) had a carotid artery stenting risk. In high-risk carotid artery stenting cases, symptomatic complications occurred in 32 (30.0%), and the 90-day modified Rankin scale score deteriorated in 15 cases (14.0%). Multivariate analysis showed that cases with triple antithrombotic therapy (p=0.003), stenting within 7 days (p=0.0032), and after 28+ days (p=0.0035) of stroke onset were independently associated factors for complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that among risk factors, triple antithrombotic therapy in particular was a risk factor for perioperative complications. Carotid artery stenting for patients with stroke after 28 days of onset affects the prognosis. Therefore, although further study is warranted, waiting more than one month for treatment in patients requiring carotid artery stenting is a potential risk.

Diagnosis and Management of Large Artery Atherosclerosis

OBJECTIVE

Ischemic stroke due to large vessel atherosclerosis is a significant cause of stroke globally. With the aging population, the number of people with atherosclerotic stroke will increase in the coming decades. This article reviews the recent developments in the assessment and treatment of extracranial and intracranial atherosclerotic disease.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

More intensive dual antiplatelet therapy can now be recommended for patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke. More stringent blood pressure and lipid control is also advised. The need for carotid revascularization will likely decrease in the coming decades because of advances in multimodal medical therapy; in particular, the role of revascularization for treating asymptomatic carotid stenosis is controversial. Patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis should receive intensive medical therapy. Interest in high-resolution carotid plaque imaging is growing.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The prevention of stroke due to large vessel atherosclerosis has improved owing to advances in medical therapies. The role of carotid revascularization is unclear for many patient subgroups.

Cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients

BACKGROUND

Medical therapy for stroke prevention has improved significantly over the past 30 years. Recent analyses of medically treated cohorts have suggested that early rates of stroke may have reduced, and reports of the safety of carotid surgery have also shown improvements. Since the effectiveness of carotid surgery versus medical therapy was established in the 1990s, there is an urgent need to evaluate whether surgery remains cost-effective in the UK.

METHODS

A decision model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and utilities of modern medical therapy with and without carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic stenosis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The base-case population consisted of adults aged 70 years with 70-99 per cent stenosis. Model data were obtained from clinical studies and wider literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, the 5-year absolute risk reduction with carotid endarterectomy was 5 per cent, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €12 021 (exchange rate £1 GBP = €1.1125 (Tuesday 1 January 2019)) per quality-adjusted life-year. Surgery was more cost-effective if performed rapidly after presentation. In patients with 50-69 per cent carotid stenosis, surgery appeared less clinically effective. However, there was considerable uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Surgery may not now be clinically effective and cost-effective in those with moderate carotid stenosis. However, these results are uncertain because of the limited data on modern medical therapy and an RCT may be justified.

External Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials on Carotid Revascularisation: Trial Populations May Not Always Reflect Patients in Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

The external validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and their transferability to clinical practice is under investigated. This study aimed to analyse the exclusion criteria of recent carotid RCTs comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting, and to assess the eligibility of consecutive clinical practice cohorts to those RCTs.

METHODS

An analysis of the clinical and anatomical exclusion criteria of RCTs for asymptomatic (SPACE-2, ACST-2, CREST-1, and CREST-2) and symptomatic carotid stenosis (SPACE-1, CREST-1, ICSS, and EVA-3S) was performed. Two hundred consecutive asymptomatic and 200 consecutive symptomatic patients, treated by CEA, or transfemoral or transcarotid artery stenting at a tertiary referral university centre were assessed for their potential eligibility for each corresponding RCT. RCT patient data were pooled and differences from the clinical practice cohort analysed. Statistics were descriptive and comparative using Fisher's exact and t tests.

RESULTS

The number of clinical and anatomical exclusion criteria differed widely between RCTs. Potential eligibility rates of the clinical practice cohort for RCTs with regard to asymptomatic carotid stenosis were 80.5% (ACST-2), 79.5% (SPACE-2), 47% (CREST-1), and 20% (CREST-2). For RCTs on symptomatic carotid stenosis the eligibility rates were 89% (ICSS), 86.5% (EVA-3S), 64% (SPACE-1), and 39% (CREST-1). Both clinical practice cohorts were older by about three years and patients were more often male vs. the RCTs. Furthermore, a history of smoking (asymptomatic patients), hypertension (symptomatic patients), and atrial fibrillation was diagnosed more often, whereas hypercholesterolaemia and coronary heart disease (asymptomatic patients) were less prevalent. More clinical practice patients were on antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and lipid lowering drugs. Symptomatic clinical practice patients presented more often with retinal ischaemia and less often with minor hemispheric strokes than patients in the RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The external validity of contemporary carotid RCTs varies considerably. Patients in routine clinical practice differ from RCT populations with respect to age, comorbidities, and medication. These data are of interest for clinicians and guideline authors and may be relevant for the design of future comparative trials.

Guideline on carotid surgery for stroke prevention: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. A trend towards personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

This guideline (GL) on carotid surgery as updating of "Stroke: Italian guidelines for Prevention and Treatment" of the ISO-SPREAD Italian Stroke Organization-Group, has recently been published in the National Guideline System and shared with the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and other Scientific Societies and Patient's Association.

METHODS

GRADE-SIGN version, AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions formulated according to the PICO model. Recommendations developed based on clinical questions by a multidisciplinary experts' panel and patients' representatives. Systematic reviews performed for each PICO question. Considered judgements filled by assessing the evidence level, direction, and strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel provided indications and recommendations for appropriate, comprehensive, and individualized management of patients with carotid stenosis. Diagnostic and therapeutic processes of the best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) according to the evidences and the judged opinions were included. Symptomatic carotid stenosis in elective and emergency, asymptomatic carotid stenosis, association with ischemic heart disease, preoperative diagnostics, types of anesthesia, monitoring in case of CEA, CEA techniques, comparison between CEA and CAS, post-surgical carotid restenosis, and medical therapy are the main topics, even with analysis of uncertainty areas for risk-benefit assessments in the individual patient (personalized medicine [PM]).

CONCLUSIONS

This GL updates on the main recommendations for the most appropriate diagnostic and medical-surgical management of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. This GL also provides useful elements for the application of PM in good clinical practice.

Outcomes of Early Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy after Acute Neurologic Events

OBJECTIVE

Carotid revascularization within 14 days of a neurologic event is recommended by society guidelines. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) carries the lowest overall stroke rate for any carotid artery stenting technique; however, outcomes of TCAR within 14 days of a neurologic event have not been directly compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

We compared 30-day outcomes of symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and CEA within 14 days of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) from January 2016 to February 2020 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting and CEA databases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient risk factors. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative ipsilateral stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

A total of 1,281 symptomatic patients underwent TCAR and 13,429 patients underwent CEA within 14 days of a neurologic event. After 1:1 propensity matching, 728 matched pairs were included for analysis. The primary composite outcome of stroke, death, or MI was more frequent in the TCAR group (4.7% vs. 2.6%, p= 0.04). This was driven by a higher rate of post-operative ipsilateral stroke in the TCAR group (3.8% vs. 1.8%, p=0.005). There was no difference between TCAR and CEA in terms of death (0.7% vs. 0.8%, p= 0.8) or MI (0.8% vs. 1%, p= 0.7). Although TCAR procedures were shorter (69 minutes IQR 53-85 vs. 120 minutes IQR 93-150, p<0.001) and post procedure length of stay was similar (2 days, p= 0.3) compared to CEA, TCAR patients were more likely to be discharged to a facility other than home (26% vs. 19%, p<0.01). Performing TCAR within 48 hours of a stroke was an independent predictor of post-operative stoke or TIA (OR 5.4 95% CI 1.8-16). This increased risk of post-operative stroke or TIA was not seen when performing TCAR within 48 hours of a TIA.

CONCLUSION

TCAR within 14 days of a neurologic event results in higher ipsilateral post-operative stroke rates when compared to CEA, especially when performed within 48 hours of a stroke.

Advances in Recurrent Stroke Prevention: Focus on Antithrombotic Therapies

The past decade has seen significant advances in stroke prevention. These advances include new antithrombotic agents, new options for dyslipidemia treatment, and novel techniques for surgical stroke prevention. In addition, there is greater recognition of the benefits of multifaceted interventions, including the role of physical activity and dietary modification. Despite these advances, the aging of the population and the high prevalence of key vascular risk factors pose challenges to reducing the burden of stroke. Using a cause-based framework, current approaches to prevention of cardioembolic, cryptogenic, atherosclerotic, and small vessel disease stroke are outlined in this paper. Special emphasis is given to recent trials of antithrombotic agents, including studies that have tested combination treatments and responses according to genetic factors.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Urgent, Early, or Late Revascularization for Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Advancements in carotid revascularization have produced promising outcomes in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization procedures after symptomatic presentation remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of United States patients in the vascular quality initiative. All carotid revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between September 2016 and November 2019 were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0-2 days after most recent symptom), early (3-14 days), or late (15-180 days). The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital stroke and death. Secondary outcomes include in-hospital stroke, death, and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 643 revascularizations were included: 2006 (10.8%) urgent, 7423 (39.8%) early, and 9214 (49.42%) late. Patients with TFCAS had the highest rates of stroke/death at all timing cohorts (urgent: 4.0% CEA, 6.9% TFCAS, 6.5% TCAR, P=0.018; early: 2.5% CEA, 3.8% TFCAS, 2.9% TCAR, P=0.054; late: 1.6% CEA, 2.8% TFCAS, 2.3% TCAR, P=0.003). TFCAS also had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with CEA in all 3 groups (urgent adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.9] P=0.03; early aOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4] P=0.01; and late aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2-3.0] P=0.01). TCAR and CEA had comparable odds of in-hospital stroke/death in all 3 groups (urgent aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-4], P=0.10), (early aOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7], P=0.66), (late aOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9-2.3], P=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

CEA remains the safest method of revascularization within the urgent period. Among revascularization performed outside of the 48 hours, TCAR and CEA have comparable outcomes.

Carotid Endarterectomy After Intracranial Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Recent randomised controlled trials demonstrated the benefit of intracranial endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischaemic stroke. There is no consensus, however, on how to treat concomitant extracranial carotid artery stenosis after EVT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome in patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after EVT, comparing complication rates among patients undergoing CEA for stroke without previous EVT.

METHODS

This was a registry study of all patients (n = 3 780) treated with CEA after stroke in Sweden and the capital Helsinki region, Finland, from January 2011 to September 2020. Sixty three patients (1.7%; 0.5% 2011, 4.3% 2019) underwent EVT prior to CEA. The primary outcome was 30 day stroke and death rate.

RESULTS

The EVT+CEA group had major stroke as the qualifying neurological event (QNE) in 79%, but just 5.9% had this in the CEA only group (p < .001). Intravenous thrombolysis was administered before EVT in 54% of patients in the EVT+CEA group, but in just 12% in those receiving CEA only (p < .001). The combined stroke and death rate at 30 days for EVT+CEA was 0.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0 - 5.7). One patient had a post-operative TIA, none had post-operative intracerebral or surgical site haemorrhage. CEA was performed within a median of seven days (interquartile range 4, 15) after QNE, and 75% had CEA ≤14 days from QNE. The main reason to postpone CEA was an infarct larger than one third of the middle cerebral artery territory. The stroke and death rate in patients treated with CEA only was 3.7% (95% CI 3.2 - 4.4), CEA was performed a median of eight days after QNE, and in 79.7% in ≤14 days. The three year survival after EVT+CEA was 93% (95% CI 85 - 100), compared with 87% (95% CI 86 - 88) after CEA only. Cox regression analysis adjusting for age showed no increased all cause mortality after EVT+CEA (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 - 2.7, p = .52).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that CEA is safe to perform after previous successful EVT for acute ischaemic stroke. Results were comparable with those undergoing CEA only, despite the EVT+CEA patients having more severe stroke symptoms prior to surgery, and timing was similar.

Endovascular Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Using the Walrus Balloon Guide Catheter: Preliminary Experience

BACKGROUND

The Walrus Balloon Guided System Catheter is a new generation of balloon guide catheter (BGC) designed to bypass some technical limitations of conventional BGC devices. Their utility in cervical carotid disease treatment has not been reported. We report our preliminary experience in cervical carotid treatment using the Walrus BGC to perform a modified endovascular transcarotid artery revascularization technique.

METHODS

Patients with cervical carotid disease undergoing endovascular treatment using the Walrus BGC at our institution were identified. The pertinent baseline demographics and procedural outcomes were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were included (median age, 70; 58.3% females). All patients had an imaging-confirmed cervical carotid disease that indicated intervention: 6 with high-grade cervical arteriosclerotic carotid stenosis, 2 with intraluminal thrombi, 1 with traumatic carotid dissection, and 3 patients with cervical carotid tandem occlusion along with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion that required mechanical thrombectomy. Carotid artery stenting was performed in all cases, except 2 of the 3 mechanical thrombectomy cases (angioplasty only). All patients had at least periprocedural follow-up of 30 days, with no stroke, myocardial infarction, or death encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe a modified endovascular transcarotid artery revascularization technique. We used a standard femoral access to navigate the Walrus catheter in the common carotid artery, followed by balloon inflation for proximal flow arrest or flow reversal (when connected to the aspiration pump) to deploy the carotid stent across the stenosis, while avoiding distal external carotid artery balloon occlusion. Successful treatment was achieved in all cases, with no periprocedural complications encountered.

Inpatient Management of Acute Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

This article focuses on the inpatient evaluation and management of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). We describe foundational principles including quality metrics, TIA, and stroke as emergencies, TIA/minor stroke management, and standard assessments before discussing tailored evaluation and management strategies by stroke type.

Carotid artery revascularization using the Walrus balloon guide catheter: safety and feasibility from a US multicenter experience

INTRODUCTION

The Walrus balloon guide catheter (BGC) is a new generation of BGC, designed to eliminate conventional limitations during mechanical thrombectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To report a multi-institutional experience using this BGC for proximal flow control (PFC) in the setting of carotid artery angioplasty/stenting (CAS) in elective (eCAS) and tandem strokes (tCAS).

METHODS

Prospectively maintained databases at 8 North American centers were queried to identify patients with cervical carotid disease undergoing eCAS/tCAS with a Walrus BGC.

RESULTS

110 patients (median age 68, 64.6% male), 80 (72.7%) undergoing eCAS and 30 (27.3%) tCAS procedures, were included (median cervical carotid stenosis 90%; 46 (41.8%) with contralateral stenosis). Using a proximal flow-arrest technique in 95 (87.2%) and flow-reversal in 14 (12.8%) procedures, the Walrus was navigated into the common carotid artery successfully in all cases despite challenging arch anatomy (31, 28.2%), with preferred femoral access (103, 93.6%) and in monitored anesthesia care (90, 81.8%). Angioplasty and distal embolic protection devices (EPDs) were used in 91 (83.7%) and 58 (52.7%) procedures, respectively. tCAS led to a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b/3 in all cases. Periprocedural ischemic stroke (up to 30 days postoperatively) rate was 0.9% (n=1) and remote complications occurred in 2 (1.8%) cases. Last follow-up modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 was seen in 95.3% of eCAS cohort, with no differences in complications in the eCAS subgroup between PFC only versus PFC and distal EPD (median follow-up 4.1 months).

CONCLUSION

Walrus BGC for proximal flow control is safe and effective during eCAS and tCAS. Procedural success was achieved in all cases, with favorable safety and functional outcomes on short-term follow-up.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increasingly emerged as an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Optimal timing for CAS after symptoms onset remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS when performed in an emergency setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of CAS patients admitted to our CSC with symptomatic extracranial carotid occlusion or significant stenosis from January 2014-September 2019. Emergency CAS was defined as CAS performed during the same hospitalization from TIA/stroke onset, whereas elective CAS as CAS performed on a subsequent admission. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death related to the procedure at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications and the rate of restenosis/occlusion at follow-up. Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to compare outcomes and restenosis at follow-up.

RESULTS

We identified 75 emergency and 104 elective CAS patients. Emergency CAS patients had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral carotid occlusion (17% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and use of general anesthesia (19% vs. 4%, p = 0.001) than elective CAS. There were no significant differences between emergency and elective CAS in the primary (5.7% vs. 1%, p = 0.161) and secondary (9% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.232) outcomes. We did not find differences in the rate of restenosis/occlusion (7% vs. 11.6%; log-rank test p = 0.3) at a median of 13 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In our study, emergency CAS in symptomatic patients might have a similar safety and efficacy profile to elective CAS at 3 months and long-term follow-up.

Immediate and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy in different periods of ischemic stroke

Aim. Analysis of hospital and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in different periods of acute cerebrovascular event (ACVE). Materials and Methods. The given study was retrospective and was conducted using the method of patients sampling. In the period from 2010 to 2019, 1113 patients with ACVE in history who were later conducted CEA, were selected. Depending on the time interval between the last ACVE and CAE, all the patients were divided into 4 groups: the 1st group in the acutest period of ACVE (1-3 days) (n=24; 2.2%); the 2nd group in the acute period of ACVE (up to 28 days) (n=493; 44.3%); the 3rd group in the early rehabilitation period of ACVE (up to 6 months) (n=481; 43.2%); the 4th group in the late rehabilitation period of ACVE (up to 2 years) (n=115; 10.3%). The long-term period was 34.812.5 months. Results. In the hospitalization period of observation the following complications were found: lethal outcome ((group 1 0%; group 2 0.4% (n=2); group 3 0.2% (n=1); group 4 0%; р=0.16)); myocardial infarction ((group 1 0%; group 2 0.4% (n=2); group 3 0%; group 4 0.9% (n=1); р=0.35)); ACVE/transient ischemic attack (TIA), ((group 1 4.2% (n=1); group 2 0.4% (n=2); group 3 0.2% (n=1); group 4 0%; р1-2=0.01; р1-3=0.009; р1-4=0.01)). By the end of hospitalization period the composite endpoint consisting of lethal outcome + myocardial infarction + ACVE/TIA made in group 1 4.2% (n=1), in group 2 1.2% (n=6), in group 3 0.4% (n=2), in group 4 2.6% (n=3), р=0.08. Complications of the long-term follow-up period were: lethal outcome from all causes ((group 1 25% (n=6); group 2 5.5% (n=27); group 3 7.3% (n=35); group 4 14% (n=16); р1-2=0.002; р1-3=0.008; р2-4=0.012)); lethal outcome from cardiovascular causes ((group 1 4.2% (n=1); group 2 3.6% (n=18); group 3 4.8% (n=23); group 4 5.2% (n=6); р=0.79)), myocardial infarction ((group 1 12.5% (n=3); group 2 3.6% (n=18); group 3 5.4% (n=26); group 4 6.1% (n=7); р=0.15)), ACVE/TIA ((group 1 16.6% (n=4); group 2 6.3% (n=31); group 3 6% (n=29); group 4 11.3% (n=13); р=0.05)); composite endpoint including lethal outcome + myocardial infarction + ACVE/TIA ((group 1 54.2% (n=13); group 2 15.4% (n=76); group 3 18.7% (n=90); group 4 31.3% (n=36); р1-2=0.0001; р1-3=0.0001; р1-4=0.005; р2-4=0.0006; р3-4=0.012)). Conclusion. Application of CEA demonstrated effectiveness and safety in the acute and early rehabilitation period of ACVE.

Emergency Carotid Endarterectomy Instead of Carotid Artery Stenting Reduces Delayed Hemorrhage in Thrombectomy Stroke Patients

PURPOSE

Data in the literature suggest that thrombectomy with emergency carotid artery stenting (CAS) in acute stroke is associated with an increased hemorrhage rate. As we perform thrombectomy with the patient under general anesthesia, we avoid emergency CAS and perform emergency carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as an alternative to CAS in the same anesthesia session in our angiography suite whenever needed and possible.

METHODS

We compared 27 thrombectomy patients with emergency CEA and 62 thrombectomy patients with emergency CAS and glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitors and/or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the same time span.

RESULTS

The symptomatic hemorrhage rate was 0% (0/27) in the CEA group and 8% (5/62) in the CAS group (p = 0.317). The parenchymal hemorrhage rate (PH2) was 7% (2/27) in the CEA group and 16% (10/62) in the CAS group (p = 0.333). Both cases of PH2 in the CEA group occurred during the intervention and were diagnosed on immediate postinterventional imaging, whereas in the CAS group only 2/10 cases of PH2 occurred during the intervention and the remaining 8 PH2 occurred within 3 days after the intervention (p = 0.048). Clinical outcome at 90 days was comparable with 39% of CEA and 51% of CAS patients achieving good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale, mRS 0-2, p = 0.452).

CONCLUSION

The use of CEA is a feasible alternative to CAS in acute stroke and has the advantage that DAPT/GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors are not needed. All PH2 in CEA patients occurred during the intervention, implying that hemorrhage in this group is likely to be caused by reperfusion injury, whereas delayed hemorrhage is likely to be caused by DAPT/GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors.

Impact of Time Interval between Index Event and Stenting on Periprocedural Risk in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of time interval between index event and stenting on the periprocedural risk of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis and to determine the optimal timing of stenting.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 491 (322 symptomatic [65.6%] and 169 asymptomatic [34.4%]) patients undergoing carotid stenting. The symptomatic patients were categorized into Day 0-3, 4-7, 8-10, 11-14, 15-21, and >21 groups according to the time interval between index event and stenting. Periprocedural (≤30 days) risk for clinical (any neurological deterioration) and radiological (new infarction on postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging) events of stenting in each time interval versus asymptomatic stenosis was calculated with logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders, and provided as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Overall clinical event rate (4.3%) of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis was higher than that for asymptomatic stenosis (1.2%; OR, 3.979 [95% CI, 1.093-14.489]; p=0.036). Stenting in Day 0-3 (13.2%; OR, 10.997 [95% CI, 2.333-51.826]; p=0.002) and Day 4-7 (8.3%; OR, 6.775 [95% CI, 1.382-33.227]; p=0.018) was associated with high risk for clinical events. However, the clinical event rates in stenting after 7 days from index event (Day 8-10, 1.8%; Day 11-14, 2.5%; Day 15-21, 0%; Day >21, 2.9%) were not different from that in stenting for asymptomatic stenosis. Overall radiological event rate (55.6%) in symptomatic stenosis was also higher than that in asymptomatic stenosis (35.5%; OR, 2.274 [95% CI, 1.553-3.352]; p<0.001). The high risk for radiological events was maintained in all time intervals (Day 0-3 : 55.3%; OR, 2.224 [95% CI, 1.103-4.627]; p=0.026; Day 4-7 : 58.3%; OR, 2.543 [95% CI, 1.329-4.949]; p=0.005; Day 8-10 : 53.6%; OR, 2.096 [95% CI, 1.138-3.889]; p=0.018; Day 11-14 : 57.5%; OR, 2.458 [95% CI, 1.225-5.021]; p=0.012; Day 15-21 : 55.6%; OR, 2.271 [95% CI, 1.099-4.764]; p=0.028; Day >21 : 54.8%; OR, 2.203 [95% CI, 1.342-3.641]; p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that as stenting was delayed, the periprocedural risk for clinical events decreased. The clinical event risk was high only in stenting within 7 days and comparable with that for asymptomatic stenosis in stenting after 7 days from index event, although the radiological event risk was not affected by stenting timing. Therefore, our results suggest that delayed stenting after 7 days from symptom onset is a safe strategy for symptomatic stenosis.

Critical Appraisal on the Quality of Reporting on Safety and Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Stenting With Flow Reversal

Transcarotid revascularization is an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting, designed to avoid aortic arch manipulation and concomitant periprocedural stroke. This article aims to perform a detailed analysis on the quality of the currently available evidence on safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization. Although current evidence is promising, independent randomized controlled studies comparing transcarotid artery revascularization with carotid endarterectomy in recently symptomatic patients are lacking and will be necessary to establish the true value of transcarotid artery revascularization in carotid artery revascularization.

[Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Carotid Artery Disease]

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Carotid Artery Disease Abstract. A quarter of all ischemic strokes is caused by atherosclerotic obliterations of the extra- and intracranial brain-supplying vessels. The prevalence of atherosclerotic extracranial carotid stenosis rises up to 6-15 % from the age of 65. The risk of stroke in symptomatic carotid stenosis, i.e. after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), is very high at 25 % within 14 days. Conservative therapy is the cornerstone of treatment by controlling the risk factors, treatment with platelet aggregation inhibitors and antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the first line treatment for symptomatic patients with a >50 % and asymptomatic patients with a >60 % carotid stenosis. In order to ensure the best possible treatment of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis, interdisciplinary cooperation in diagnostics, therapy and aftercare in a neuromedical centre of maximum care is necessary.

Long-Term Mortality After Carotid Stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an established procedure for the treatment of atherosclerotic disease affecting the extracranial internal carotid artery. Recent population-based studies have suggested that long-term survival after CAS may be limited, thereby questioning its efficacy in a real-world scenario.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients undergoing CAS for asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis by a neurosurgeon or interventional neuroradiologist at our institution between 2008 and 2018. Patient and disease characteristics were recorded, as was the incidence of periprocedural and overall ischemia and mortality after CAS. Risk factors for recurrent ischemia and mortality were identified using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

There were 238 patients who met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 69.7 years and most patients were male (69.7%); 62.2% underwent CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of CAS for treatment of asymptomatic stenosis declined over the study period (P = 0.006). Fourteen patients (5.9%) experienced new or recurrent ipsilateral ischemia during follow-up, with 8 (3.4%) experiencing a stroke with permanent neurologic deficit. Fifty-nine patients (24.8%) died during follow-up, with a median time to death of 111.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.1-133.6) on Kaplan-Meier analysis. Increasing age at time of CAS (unit risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = 0.011) and comorbid congestive heart failure (risk ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.39-4.13; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for mortality during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike population-based studies, our results indicate acceptable long-term survival after CAS in adequately selected patients.

Carotid Revascularization: Current Practice and Future Directions

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

Outcome differences between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, and in-hospital mortality

Objective: We study whether the carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) differ from each other in postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, along with neurological complications (perioperative stroke and transient ischemic attack), in-hospital mortality, and estimated medical cost. Methods: This study used data of patients with carotid artery stenosis from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2011-2014) from the United States of America. Based on the procedure that patients received, individuals were categorized into groups of CAS and CEA. Multilevel analyses were conducted to examine the difference in the following outcomes: postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and medical costs between CAS and CEA. The patient age, gender, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, primary payer, emergency department service record, bed size of hospital, region of the hospital, and location of the hospital were adjusted in each model. In addition, preexisting cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) were adjusted for when predicting postoperative ventricular arrhythmia; postoperative CVDs were adjusted for in the model of in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 127,321 carotid artery stenosis hospitalizations were included in our analyses (n = 17,074 in CAS, n = 110,247 in CEA). Multivariate logistic regressions showed that compared with patients underwent CAS, those with CEA had a lower odds of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.66-0.98]), less neurological complications (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.51-0.59] in general; OR = 0.63, 95% CI: [0.57-0.69] in ischemic stroke; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: [0.20-0.32] in hemorrhagic stroke; and OR = 0.58, 95% CI: [0.47-0.71] in transient ischemic attack), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: [0.42-0.64]). Generalized linear model indicated patients undergoing CEA had lower medical cost (β = -4329.99, 95% CI: [-4552.61, -4107.38]) than patients undergoing CAS. Conclusions: In short-term outcomes, CEA was associated with a lower risk of postoperative ventricular arrhythmia, neurological complications, in-hospital mortality, and lower cost as compared with CAS.

Editor's Choice - Overview of Primary and Secondary Analyses From 20 Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Carotid Artery Stenting With Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to carry out primary and secondary analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 20 RCTs (126 publications) was carried out.

RESULTS

Compared with CEA, the 30 day death/stroke rate was significantly higher after CAS in seven RCTs involving 3467 asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.64) and in 10 RCTs involving 5797 symptomatic patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38-2.11). Excluding procedural risks, late ipsilateral stroke was about 4% at 9 years for both CEA and CAS, i.e., CAS was durable. Reducing procedural death/stroke after CAS may be achieved through better case selection, e.g., performing CEA in (i) symptomatic patients aged > 70 years; (ii) interventions within 14 days of symptom onset; and (iii) situations where stroke risk after CAS is predicted to be higher (segmental/remote plaques, plaque length > 13 mm, heavy burden of white matter lesions [WMLs], where two or more stents might be needed). New WMLs were significantly more common after CAS (52% vs. 17%) and were associated with higher rates of late stroke/transient ischaemic attack (23% vs. 9%), but there was no evidence that new WMLs predisposed towards late cognitive impairment. Restenoses were more common after CAS (10%) but did not increase late ipsilateral stroke. Restenoses (70%-99%) after CEA were associated with a small but significant increase in late ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.96-7.67; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS confers higher rates of 30 day death/stroke than CEA. After 30 days, ipsilateral stroke is virtually identical for CEA and CAS. Key issues to be resolved include the following: (i) Will newer stent technologies and improved cerebral protection allow CAS to be performed < 14 days after symptom onset with risks similar to CEA? (ii) What is the optimal volume of CAS procedures to maintain competency? (iii) How to deliver better risk factor control and best medical treatment? (iv) Is there a role for CEA/CAS in preventing/reversing cognitive impairment?

Secular Trends in Procedural Stroke or Death Risks of Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, stroke risk associated with carotid disease has decreased, reflecting improvements in medical therapy and a more rigorous control of vascular risk factors. It is less clear whether the procedural risk of carotid revascularization has declined over time.

METHODS

We analyzed temporal changes in procedural risks among 4597 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis treated with carotid artery stenting (n=2326) or carotid endarterectomy (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials between 2000 and 2008, using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each source trial. Models were additionally adjusted for age and other baseline characteristics predicting treatment risk. The primary outcome event was any procedural stroke or death, occurring during or within 30 days after revascularization.

RESULTS

The procedural stroke or death risk decreased significantly over time in all patients (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; P=0.006). This effect was driven by a decrease in the carotid endarterectomy group (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P=0.003), whereas no significant decrease was found after carotid artery stenting (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04; P=0.33). Carotid endarterectomy patients had a lower procedural stroke or death risk compared with carotid artery stenting patients, and the difference significantly increased over time (interaction P=0.031). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the results remained essentially the same.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of stroke or death associated with carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis decreased over an 8-year period, independent of clinical predictors of procedural risk. No corresponding reduction in procedural risk was seen in patients treated with stenting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S), NCT00004732 (CREST), ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE), and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

[Early carotid endarterectomy in patients after endured acute cerebral circulation impairment]

Recent years have witnessed a series of studies dedicated to assessment of optimal terms of performing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after sustained acute cerebral circulatory impairment (ACCI). However, there is no commonly accepted opinion concerning feasibility and safety of early CEA in 'symptomatic' patients. The 2015 Guidelines of the American Heart Association suggest that surgical intervention should be performed within the shortest terms or during 2 weeks after a neurological event (class IIb, level B evidence). In the presented herein review of literature most authors demonstrated safety and efficacy of performing early CEA after endured ACCI. However, further prospective, randomized studies are needed in order to work out new standards of examination and to determine optimal surgical policy.

Carotid plaque magnetic resonance imaging and recurrent stroke risk: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Carotid atherosclerotic plaque is an important cause of carotid artery stenosis. The features of carotid atherosclerotic plaque detected by relevant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), such as lipid core, plaque hemorrhage, and fibrous cap rupture, have been confirmed to be associated with the occurrence of the first cerebral ischemic event. Meanwhile, the features of carotid atherosclerotic plaque can be used as biomarkers to predict the occurrence of cerebral ischemic event. However, the mechanism of recurrent stroke is still unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed to summarize the association between features of carotid artery plaque detected by MRI and recurrent stroke, so as to find biomarkers that can predict recurrent stroke.

METHODS

Electronic search will be performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to October 30, 2018. We will include cohort studies with an average follow-up time of >1 month in which lipid-rich/necrotic cores (LRNC), intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), and thinned or ruptured fibrous caps (TRFC) are associated with recurrent ipsilateral stroke or ischemic events. We will perform heterogeneity assessment before carrying out meta-analysis. According to the heterogeneity, we select random effect model or fixed effect model for meta-analysis of the included cohort studies.

RESULTS

Review Manager 5.3 software will be used to calculate the combined hazard ratio value and 95% confidence interval (CI). This meta-analysis will provide high-quality data analysis of LRNC, IPH, and TRFC and ipsilateral recurrent stroke or ischemic events, including biomarkers as major predictors.

CONCLUSION

The systematic review will provide evidence to assess the association between features of carotid plaque and ipsilateral recurrent stroke or ischemic events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019124043.

[Some comments on the 2017 European Guidelines on treatment of atherosclerotic lesions of brachiocephalic arteries]

Analysed herein are the indications for primary interventions in patients with atherosclerotic lesions of internal carotid arteries according to the recommendations laid down in the 2017 Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

Real-world Experience of Carotid Artery Stenting in Japan: Analysis of 8458 Cases from the JR-NET3 Nationwide Retrospective Multi-center Registries

We aimed to clarify the outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the Japanese population. For this purpose, we reviewed data from the Japanese Registry of NeuroEndovascular Therapy 3 (JR-NET3), a retrospective, nation-wide, multi-center, observational study of neuroendovascular treatments in Japan. Of the 9207 patients who underwent CAS between January 2010 and December 2014, 8458 satisfied the inclusion criteria for our analysis. The outcome statistics of this JR-NET3 cohort were compared to those of JR-NET1 and 2 cohorts fitting the same inclusion criteria. Of the 8458 JR-NET3 patients analyzed, 8042 (95.1%) were treated by surgeons with board certification from the Japanese Society for NeuroEndovascular Therapy. Technical success was achieved in 8417 patients (99.5%), whereas 198 patients (2.3%) had clinically significant complications (CSCs). These findings mirrored those obtained for the JR-NET1 and 2 cohorts. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for CAS-associated CSC included symptomatic lesion [odds ratio (OR), 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-3.00; P = 0.003] and hypoechoic lesion on carotid artery ultrasound (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21-2.84; P = 0.005), whereas use of closed-cell stents was a predictor of better outcome (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79; P = 0.002). The findings of JR-NET3 reflect good outcomes of CAS, but non-modifiable risk factors reflecting lesion characteristics remain of concern. Using closed-cell stents is advisable. Technological advances such as the introduction of new materials may help further improve CAS outcomes in Japanese patients.