Transcarotid Artery Stenting: Hype or Hope?

Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverTM Dual-Layer Carotid Stent System

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) using first-generation single-layer stents is widely accepted as a good alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but it is associated with worse outcomes in terms of both plaque prolapse and cerebral embolization.

AIM

To evaluate the perioperative and midterm outcomes of CAS using the new-generation RoadsaverTM dual-layer micromesh-covered carotid stent.

METHODS

Herein, we present the results of an observational, retrospective, multicentric study on non-consecutive patients who underwent the CAS procedure between January 2017 and December 2022 at three Italian, high-volume vascular surgery centers. The inclusion criteria were the patients' eligibility for the CAS procedure in accordance with the current Italian guidelines, and the implantation of a Roadsaver stent. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were included in the study. The patients requiring reintervention for carotid restenosis following CEA were also included. Perioperative data regarding procedural success was defined as the successful implantation of the device in the desired position, less than 30% residual stenosis, and the absence of intraoperative neurological complications. The primary outcome was any adverse cerebrovascular event such as stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the procedure and/or after discharge. The secondary outcomes were the need for further intervention, and all-cause death following procedure.

RESULTS

Three-hundred-fifty-three (353) patients were included in our study; the mean age was 74.3 years. A total of 5.9% of the patients were symptomatic on their operated side, while 7.3% had contralateral carotid occlusion. A cerebral embolic protection device (CPD) was employed in all patients. A total of 13.3% of the patients were operated on for restenosis after CEA Technical success was achieved in 96.9% of the cases with an intraoperative report of six TIAs (1.7%) and six ipsilateral strokes (1.7%). The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. The thirty-day follow up showed one TIA and one more stroke. At the mean 35-month follow-up time, the primary outcome was present in six patients (1.7%), where four TIAs (1.1%) and two strokes (0.5%) were reported. Restenosis occurred in five patients (1.4%). Death for any cause was reported in 11 patients (3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

As most recent, high-quality studies show, the CAS procedure with second-generation devices such as the Roadsaver stent is safe and effective in preventing carotid-related cerebrovascular events in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The intraoperative and postoperative cerebrovascular complication rate in high volume centers is very low, ensuring confidence in its employment for the CAS procedure along with a CPD as a valid alternative to CEA.

Role of carotid duplex in the assessment of carotid artery restenosis after endarterectomy or stenting

Introduction

Redo carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are often performed when there is evidence of post-procedural restenosis. The incidence of restenosis after carotid reconstruction is not negligible, ranging from 5 to 33%. The diagnosis of significant internal carotid artery (ICA) restenosis is usually based on duplex ultrasound (US) criteria, mostly on peak-systolic flow velocity (PSV). However, there have been no generally accepted duplex US criteria for carotid restenosis after CAS or CEA.

Methods

In this systematic review, the PubMed/ Medline and Scopus databases were screened to find trials that reported duplex US criteria for significant restenosis after CEA and/or CAS. Only those reports were analyzed in which the restenoses were also assessed by CT/MR or digital subtraction angiography as comparators for duplex US.

Results

Fourteen studies met the predetermined search criteria and were included in this review. In most studies, PSV thresholds for significant in-stent ICA restenosis after CAS were higher than those for significant stenosis in non-procedurally treated (native) ICA. Many fewer studies investigated the US criteria for ICA restenosis after CEA. Despite the heterogeneous data, there is a consensus to use higher flow velocity thresholds for assessment of stenosis in stented ICA than in native ICA; however, there have been insufficient data about the flow velocity criteria for significant restenosis after CEA. Although the flow velocity thresholds for restenosis after CAS and CEA seem to be different, the large studies used the same duplex criteria to define restenosis after the two procedures. Moreover, different studies used different flow velocity thresholds to define ICA restenosis, leading to variable restenosis rates.

Discussion

We conclude that (1) further examinations are warranted to determine appropriate duplex US criteria for restenosis after CAS and CEA, (2) single duplex US parameter cannot be used to reliably determine the degree of ICA restenosis, (3) inappropriate US criteria used in large studies may have led to false restenosis rates, and (4) studies are required to determine if there is a benefit from redo carotid artery procedure, such as redo-CEA or redo-CAS, starting with prospective risk stratification studies using current best practice non-invasive care alone.

Transcarotid versus transfemoral access for cerebrovascular intervention: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cerebrovascular intervention is an excellent option to treat cerebrovascular diseases. Interventional access is a prerequisite and a foundation for cerebrovascular intervention, which is crucial to the success of an intervention. Although transfemoral arterial access (TFA) has become a popular and acceptable method of access for cerebrovascular angiography and intervention in clinical practice, it has some drawbacks that limit the usage in cerebrovascular interventions. Therefore, transcarotid arterial access (TCA) has been developed in cerebrovascular interventions. We aim to conduct a systematic review to compare the safety and efficacy of TCA with TFA for cerebrovascular intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this protocol, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols were followed. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched mainly from 1 January 2004, to the formal search date. Additionally, reference lists and clinical trial registries will be searched. We will include clinical trials with more than 30 participants, which reported the endpoints of stroke, death and myocardial infarction. Two investigators will independently select studies, extract data and assess bias risk. A standardised mean difference with 95% CI will be presented for continuous data, and a risk ratio with 95% CI will be presented for dichotomous data. On inclusion of sufficient studies, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be conducted. The funnel plot and Egger's test will be used to assess publication bias.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As only published sources will be used in this review, ethical approval is not required. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316468.

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.