Drug-coated balloon dilation before carotid artery stenting of post-carotid endarterectomy restenosis

Drug-Coated Balloons for Treatment of Internal Carotid Artery Restenosis After Stenting: A Single-Center Mid-Term Outcome Study

PURPOSE

Endovascular and surgical treatments of stenosis of the extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) are common procedures, yet both introduce a risk of restenosis due to endothelial hyperplasia. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are designed to decrease neointimal hyperplasia, however rarely used in the neurovascular setting. This study retrospectively analyzes mid-term results of DCB-treated in-stent restenosis (ISR) of the ICA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical history, comorbidities, and periprocedural data of patients receiving DCB treatment for > 50% ISR of the ICA after carotid artery stenting were analyzed. Follow-up after DCB treatment was performed with Doppler ultrasound. Suspicious cases were checked with CT- or MR-angiography and-if there was agreement between the modalities-validated with digital subtraction angiography. Potential risk factors for restenosis and differences in outcomes after PTA with three types of DCB balloons were evaluated.

RESULTS

DCB treatment was performed in 109 cases, 0.9% of which involved in-hospital major stroke; no minor strokes occurred. A total of 17 patients (15.6%) had recurrent ISR after DCB treatment, after a mean time of 30.2 months (7-85 months). Tobacco use was significantly associated with a higher incidence of recurrent ISR.

CONCLUSION

DCB angioplasty for ISR is an effective treatment that may delay and decrease restenosis. Treating comorbidities and adopting lifestyle changes may additionally help prevent ISR.

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.

Treatment of Carotid Restenoses after Endarterectomy: A Retrospective Monocentric Study

BACKGROUND

To compare the different techniques for the treatment of carotid restenosis after carotid artery endarterectomy (CAE).

METHODS

Among 1,218 carotid surgeries carried out in our center between January 2010 and November 2017, 45 procedures were performed for carotid restenosis after CAE, including 11 by iterative conventional surgery and 34 with endovascular techniques (7 transluminal angioplasties alone [TLA], 9 carotid artery stenting [CAS], and 18 angioplasties with active balloons [drug-coated balloon {DCB}]). Perioperative data (cumulated rate of morbimortality [CRMM], duration of hospitalization) and postoperative results (survival, symptomatic restenoses > 50% or asymptomatic stenoses > 70% on ultrasound, reinterventions) were collected retrospectively and analyzed with Fisher's exact test. The long-term results were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier estimator and were compared with the log rank test (P < 0.05 was regarded as significant).

RESULTS

There was one secondary death due to a massive postoperative stroke in the endovascular (ENDO) group. No significant difference regarding CRMM (2.9%, P = 0.756) between the iterative conventional surgery (open surgery; OS) and the ENDO groups of was observed. Three hematomas were found in the OS group versus one in the ENDO group (P = 0.04). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the ENDO group (P < 0.001). No difference was found between the ENDO group and the OS group regarding the two-year survival or the survival without recurrent restenosis (86 vs. 100%, log rank = 0.804, and log rank = 0.114). There were 5 restenoses >70% and two reinterventions in the ENDO group (P > 0.05). The comparison of the different endovascular techniques did not show significant differences regarding the CRMM, the one-year overall survival, the survival without recurrent restenosis, or the survival without reintervention (89% in the DCB and CAS groups vs. 100% in the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA] group, log rank = 0.286; 87% in the DCB group vs. 100% in the PTA and CAS groups, log rank = 0.137; and 94% in the DCB group vs. 100% in the PTA and CAS groups, log rank = 0.585, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, endovascular procedures are equivalent to iterative conventional surgery for the treatment of carotid restenoses in terms of major complications, news restenoses, or survival with less hematoma and a shorter duration of hospitalization. We however could not identify the best endovascular strategy in this indication, and a controlled study comparing the various endovascular strategies is proposed.

A Review on the Comparison of Different Treatments for Carotid In-Stent Restenosis

Different treatment options for carotid in-stent restenosis (ISR) have been reported with good outcome, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), repeated carotid angioplasty stenting (CAS) and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with drug-coated balloons (DCBs). However, the optimal treatment option for ISR has not yet been determined. A systematic literature search was performed in the databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and unpublished data from clinicaltrials.gov from 1990 to March 1, 2019. Studies were enrolled if they reported treatment strategies for carotid ISR treatment and met the inclusion criteria. After study inclusions, data were extracted and summarized. Totally 25 cross-sectional studies were included, containing 5 comparative studies, 16 studies using repeated PTA, and 4 studies adopting CEA treatment. Our study summarized the current available data, showing that all the studies could effectively relieve the carotid ISR by significantly improving the angiographic stenosis and decreasing the peak systolic velocity values. Meanwhile, CEA treatment had the best long-term effects in relieving restenosis, while re-PTA with stenting/balloon angioplasty had a certain rate of restenosis, ranging from 33% to 83%. Furthermore, re-PTA/stenting and balloon angioplasty treatment had less complications compared with CEA. Also, we analyzed the risk factors that might affect the long-term prognosis of carotid ISR patients. The therapeutic measures for carotid ISR had their own features, with CEA had the highest efficacy while re-PTA/stenting and balloon angioplasty were with less complications. More large-scale comparative clinical studies are needed to further ascertain the best strategies.

The incidence of carotid in-stent stenosis is underestimated ≥50% or ≥80% and its clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The incidence of carotid in-stent stenosis has been reported to vary between 1% and 30%. Most published studies have short follow-up, which may lead to underestimation of the incidence of in-stent stenosis. This study analyzed the incidence of ≥50% and ≥80% in-stent stenosis using validated duplex ultrasound criteria and its clinical implications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 450 carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures (February 6, 2001-December 19, 2016). All patients had postoperative carotid duplex ultrasound examination, which was repeated at 1 month, 6 months, and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis (internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity of ≥224 cm/s) and ≥80% in-stent stenosis (internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity of ≥325 cm/s), freedom from reintervention, and survival.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 40.3 months. A total of 201 patients (45% [201/450]) had CAS for symptomatic disease. Primary CAS was done in 291 patients (65%); in the remaining 35%, CAS was done for postcarotid endarterectomy (CEA) stenosis. A total of 101 patients (23%) had ≥50% late carotid in-stent stenosis, and of these, 33 (7.4%) had ≥80% in-stent stenosis. Nineteen patients (4.3%) developed late transient ischemic attack and three (0.7%) late stroke. Twenty-three (5.2%) patients had late reintervention. Rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis in the whole series were 85%, 79%, 75%, 72%, and 70% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis for primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis were not statistically significant (P = .540). The rates of freedom from ≥80% in-stent stenosis for the whole series were 96%, 95%, 93%, 90%, and 89% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from ≥80% in-stent stenosis for primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis were also not statistically significant (P = .516). Rates of freedom from reintervention were 98%, 96%, 93%, 93%, and 91% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively, and there were no significant differences between primary CAS and CAS for post-CEA stenosis (P = .939). The overall late survival rates were 99%, 97%, 96%, 94%, and 91% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of ≥50% in-stent stenosis is relatively high; however, the rates of ≥80% stenosis and late neurologic events are low. Longer follow-up of patients with ≥50% carotid in-stent stenosis may yield higher incidence of ≥80% stenosis.

Stent technology in ischemic stroke

Atherosclerotic disease of the cerebral vasculature is a major cause of stroke worldwide. Atherosclerosis that is refractory to best medical management may require revascularization. In these instances, endovascular treatment provides a popular and safe alternative to open surgical techniques. The authors provide an overview of stent technology in the treatment of ischemic stroke, discussing the major studies evaluating stenting for extracranial carotid artery, vertebral artery, and intracranial atherosclerotic disease. The authors describe the commonly used stents with respect to their individual characteristics and technical limitations. Current and future developments in stent technology are also discussed, with areas for further innovation and clinical research.

Successful treatment of recurrent carotid in-stent restenosis and drug-eluting balloon failure with a coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffold: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Carotid in-stent restenosis is associated with substantial risk of recurrent restenosis, even after drug-eluting balloon usage.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We hereby report the case of a patient with recurrent carotid in-stent restenosis and drug-eluting balloon failure treated with a coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffold, achieving a satisfactory acute and long-term result, as disclosed by duplex ultrasound scan performed more than 1 year after the procedure.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

While awaiting for external validation, this clinical vignette supports expanding the armamentarium of endovascular specialists focusing on carotid artery disease, while providing further proof of the safety and efficacy of current bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.