Intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy is an independent risk factor for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the mainstay of treatment for patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, whereas carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is indicated in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, the impact of prior IVT on the outcomes of CEA (IVT-CEA) is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine whether IVT may create additional stroke and death risk for CEA, compared with CEA performed in the absence of a history of recent IVT, and to determine the optimal timing for CEA after IVT.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of IVT-CEA vs CEA, using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

We included 11 retrospective comparative studies, in which 135,644 patients underwent CEA and 2070 underwent IVT-CEA. The pooled rate of perioperative stroke was 4.2% in the IVT-CEA group and 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.58; P = .21), with a high heterogenicity (I2 = 93%). The rate of stroke/death was 5.9% in patients undergoing IVT-CEA 1.9% in those receiving CEA only (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.14; I2 = 92%; P = .09); after exclusion of studies including TIA as presenting symptom, stroke/death risk was 3.6% in IVT-CEA and 3.0% in CEA (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.53; I2 = 50%; P = .11). The risk of stoke decreased with a delay in the performance of CEA (P = .268). Using results of the metaregression, the calculated delay of CEA that allows for a <6% risk was 4.6 days. Compared with CEA, patients undergoing IVT-CEA had a significantly higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2.5% vs 0.1%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.21; I2 = 28%; P < .001) and neck hematoma requiring reintervention (3.6% vs 2.3%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I2 = 0%; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke, CEA can be safely performed after a prior endovenous thrombolysis, maintaining a stroke/death risk of <6%. After IVT, CEA should be deferred for ≥5 days to minimize the risk for intracranial hemorrhage and neck bleeding.

Safety of urgent carotid endarterectomy following thrombolysis

INTRODUCTION

Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the incidence of ischemic stroke is predicted to increase in coming years. Carotid atherosclerotic occlusive disease accounts for up to 20% of all ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence suggests that, in the setting of an acute ischemic stroke due to carotid disease, earlier treatment with carotid intervention results in better outcomes. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, systemic or intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has revolutionized ischemic stroke therapy, and intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) has become the principal treatment for acute ischemic stroke when administered within 3 to 4.5 hours of neurologic symptom onset. Given these trends in acute ischemic stroke therapy, vascular specialists are increasingly asked to perform carotid intervention following IVT, but reports in the literature examining outcomes in this circumstance are scarce, and the data regarding the appropriate interval from IVT to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains controversial.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature searches were performed in PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ovid examining journal articles published between January 1st, 1998 and September 30th, 2019. The search terms used were: "urgent carotid endarterectomy," "carotid endarterectomy" AND "thrombolysis," "acute stroke and thrombolysis," "timing of carotid endarterectomy," and various combinations of these terms.

EVIDENCE SYTNHESIS

A total of 21 published reports detailing outcomes in 1165 patients have been published to date, with an average interval from IVT to CEA of 7.1 days, a cumulative 30-day stroke and death rate of 4.1% (0-18%) and a mean frequency of intracranial hemorrhage of 2.6% (0-18%). The aggregate data from the 21 reported series suggest that CEA can be performed safely within the first 14 days after the onset of neurologic symptoms in patients receiving antecedent IVT, however, data regarding the safety of urgent CEA within 48 to 72 hours of thrombolysis is conflicting, with some series reporting excellent results and others showing an increased risk of ICH, stroke, and/or death in these select patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the trend toward expedited treatment of acute ischemic stroke with subsequent transfer to regional referral centers, vascular specialists will be confronted with an increasing number of patients who may require urgent CEA after antecedent IVT. Further study is warranted to clearly delineate the appropriate interval from IVT to CEA and, specifically, to establish the safety of CEA with 72 hours of tPA administration.

Thrombolysis is an Independent Risk Factor for Poor Outcome After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Thrombolysis is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke patients presenting in the appropriate time window. Studies suggest that the risk of recurrent ischemia is lower if carotid revascularization is performed early after the index event. The safety of early carotid revascularization in this patient population is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of carotid revascularization in patients who received thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients admitted through the emergency room with a primary diagnosis of carotid stenosis and/or occlusion. Each patient was reviewed for administration of thrombolysis, carotid endarterectomy, (CEA) or carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). Primary endpoints were intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), postprocedural stroke (PPS), poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality. Potential risk factors were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 310 257 patients were analyzed. Patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and underwent either CEA or CAS had a significantly higher risk of developing an ICH or PPS than patients who underwent either CEA or CAS without tPA administration. The increased risk of ICH or PPS in tPA-treated patients who underwent carotid revascularization diminished with time, and became similar to patients who underwent carotid revascularization without tPA administration by 7 d after thrombolysis. Patients who received tPA and underwent CEA or CAS also had higher odds of poor outcome and in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Thrombolysis is a strong risk factor for ICH, PPS, poor outcome, and in-hospital mortality in patients with carotid stenosis/occlusion who undergo carotid revascularization. The increased risk of ICH or PPS due to tPA declines with time after thrombolysis. Delaying carotid revascularization in these patients may therefore be appropriate. This delay, however, will expose these patients to the risk of recurrent stroke. Future studies are needed to determine the relative risks of these 2 adverse events.

Carotid endarterectomy after systemic thrombolysis in a stroke population

OBJECTIVE

Vascular specialists are increasingly being requested to perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for stroke patients, raising concerns about hemorrhagic complications. Few case series and registry reports have assessed the question, and even fewer studies have included a control group. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall outcome of patients undergoing CEA after IVT and to compare them with contemporary patients with CEA after simple stroke (non-IVT group). It also aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes of stroke patients requiring CEA between nonvascular and vascular centers.

METHODS

The data of 169 consecutive patients who have undergone CEA after stroke in a single center was analyzed from January 2011 to December 2016, 27 of them (16%) having undergone previous IVT. A comparative analysis between the non-IVT and the IVT groups was performed. The time between stroke diagnosis and referral to a vascular specialist was also studied.

RESULTS

Age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities were similar in both groups. Median time between stroke and CEA was 13 days (Q1-Q3, 8-23 days), with 16 of the 27 patients (59%) in the IVT group undergoing CEA less than 14 days after the initial event. There were three intracranial hemorrhages (2.1%) in the non-IVT group versus one (3.7%) in the IVT group (P = NS). The overall 30-day combined stroke and death rate was 7.1% (6.3% in the non-IVT group vs 11.1% in the IVT group; P = .70). The incidence of postoperative cervical hematoma requiring reoperation was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.7%; P = NS). The median time between diagnosis of stroke and referral to a vascular specialist was higher for patients in nonvascular centers compared with vascular centers (3.5 days vs 1.0 day; P < .001), which translated to fewer patients referred from nonvascular centers undergoing surgery in the 14-day window period (38% vs 67%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, CEA after IVT showed similar outcomes when compared with the overall CEA after stroke population. Stroke patients diagnosed in nonvascular centers were referred later than those in vascular centers and, although postoperative outcomes were similar, that was correlated with fewer patients undergoing surgery in a timely fashion.

Timing of carotid endarterectomy after recent minor to moderate stroke

OBJECTIVE

Early carotid endartectomy is generally favored by vascular surgeons in patients after a minor to moderate stroke. Herein, we compared the results of early versus delayed carotid endartectomy in patients presenting with similar National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale findings after a recent minor to moderate stroke.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 101 patients undergoing carotid endartectomy after a recent stroke in the distribution of the branches of the middle cerebral artery with >70% internal carotid artery stenosis from 2000 to February 2018 was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty patients had carotid endartectomy within 2 weeks (group A) and 41 had carotid endartectomy within 2-8 weeks of stroke (group B). Associated factors, such as coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, nicotine abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and renal failure, were similar in both groups. However, there was preponderance of male patients in group B (0.01). In group A, 35 patients presented with minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 1-4) and 25 had a moderate stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 5-15). In group B, 21 had a minor stroke and 20 had a moderate stroke (P = .54). Perioperative stroke occurred in 4 patients in group A and none in group B (P = .14), with perioperative stroke and death rate of 4.0%. Postoperative seizures occurred in 1 patient in group A and three in group B (P = .30).

CONCLUSION

Early as well as delayed carotid endartectomy in patients with minor to moderate stroke results in a satisfactory outcome. To prevent recurrent stroke in the waiting period, early carotid endartectomy should be preferred.

Combined interventional and surgical treatment of tandem middle cerebral artery embolus and internal carotid artery occlusion: case report

Tandem internal carotid artery (ICA) origin occlusion and middle cerebral artery (MCA) thromboembolism is a life-threatening condition with poor neurological outcome. The authors report on a patient presenting with acute ischemic stroke from a tandem ICA and MCA occlusion with penumbra. Emergency MCA mechanical thrombectomy was performed through percutaneous cervical ICA access due to the inability to cross the cervical carotid occlusion. Emergency carotid endarterectomy to reperfuse the poorly collateralized hemisphere and repair the ICA access site was performed 2 hours after completion of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) infusion. This case illustrates the shortest reported interval between tPA infusion and open surgical intervention for carotid revascularization, as well as the role of direct carotid artery access for mechanical thrombectomy. The authors also describe the use of a temporizing femoral artery-to-ICA shunt to maintain cerebral perfusion in the setting of ICA occlusion.

Time is brain: an update

The '6-month' threshold for treating symptomatic patients is obsolete. There is compelling evidence that the highest-risk period for stroke (after suffering a transient ischemic attack) is the first 2 weeks, especially the first few days, and that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) confers maximal benefit when performed early. Despite well-documented anxieties, there is increasing evidence that CEA can be performed safely within the first 7 days after onset of symptoms, although risks may be higher when performed within 48 h. The role for carotid artery stenting in the hyperacute period remains uncertain. Centers performing carotid artery stenting within 14 days of symptom onset with risks equivalent to CEA should be encouraged to continue and help others to achieve similar outcomes. For the majority, however, CEA will probably remain the safer option. 'Best medical therapy' and risk factor modification should be started as soon as a transient ischemic attack is suspected, while the early introduction of dual antiplatelet therapy may reduce recurrent events prior to CEA, without increasing perioperative bleeding complications.

Urgent carotid intervention is safe after thrombolysis for minor to moderate acute ischemic stroke

OBJECTIVE

Carotid intervention shortly after an acute neurologic ischemic event is being performed more frequently in stroke centers to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. Thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is offered to select patients with ischemic stroke symptoms who present within 4.5 hours. However, there is a paucity of data as to whether tPA followed by urgent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) has an increased risk of complications, particularly intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We sought to determine the periprocedural complications of urgently performed CEA or CAS following tPA.

METHODS

From January 2009 to January 2015, 762 patients underwent carotid interventions (CEA, n = 440; CAS, n = 322) at a tertiary referral center and 165 patients (21.6%) underwent an urgent CEA or CAS during the index hospitalization for an acute transient ischemic attack or stroke. We compared the effect of intravenous tPA on 30-day complications, including ICH. The χ(2) and Fisher exact tests were used to determine significance between groups.

RESULTS

During the 6-year period, 165 patients underwent urgent carotid interventions (CEA, n = 135; CAS, n = 30) for acute neurologic symptoms. Of these, 19% (31 patients [CEA, n = 25; CAS, n = 6]) had tPA for an acute stroke; the remaining (134 patients [CEA, n = 110; CAS, n = 24]) fell outside of the tPA time window. Most strokes were minor or moderate with a mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6.6 (range, 0-19). The mean time to intervention for both groups was 2.4 days (0-15 days). The 30-day stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rates were 9.7% (3 of 31) for the tPA group compared with 4.5% (6 of 134) for the no-tPA group (P = .37). Including bleeding complications in these 30-day outcomes, there was no difference between the tPA (3 of 31) and the no-tPA cohorts (8 of 134; P = .43). In the tPA group, there were one ICH, one neck hematoma/death, and an additional death; in the no-tPA group, there were one ICH, two neck hematomas, one stroke, two myocardial infarctions, one ICH/death, and one additional death. No significant increased rates of bleeding were noted within the tPA group (2 of 31) compared with the no-tPA group (4 of 134; P = .32). Moreover, in the tPA cohort, more than half of the patients (17 of 31) underwent revascularization within 72 hours (CEA = 13; CAS = 4) with outcomes similar to those who underwent revascularization after 72 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombolysis followed by urgent CEA or CAS is not associated with an increased risk of complications in select patients who present with acute neurologic symptoms. Selection of patients is important; there was no ICH and only one death in each group for patients with minor to moderate ischemic stroke (NIHSS score <10).

Carotid Endarterectomy: Current Concepts and Practice Patterns

Background Stroke is the number one cause of disability and third leading cause of death among adults in the United States. A major cause of stroke is carotid artery stenosis (CAS) caused by atherosclerotic plaques. Randomized trials have varying results regarding the equivalence and perioperative complication rates of stents versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of CAS. Objectives We review the evidence for the current management of CAS and describe the current concepts and practice patterns of CEA. Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant studies regarding CEA and stenting for the management of CAS. Results The introduction of CAS has led to a decrease in the percentage of CEA and an increase in the number of CAS procedures performed in the context of all revascularization procedures. However, the efficacy of stents in patients with symptomatic CAS remains unclear because of varying results among randomized trials, but the perioperative complication rates exceed those found after CEA. Conclusions Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to treat carotid artery disease through medical therapy, CEA, and stenting. Although data from randomized trials differ, it is important for surgeons to make clinical decisions based on the patient. We believe that CAS can be adopted with low complication rate in a selected subgroup of patients, but CEA should remain the standard of care. This current evidence should be incorporated into practice of the modern vascular surgeon.