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

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS

BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

Medical and Surgical Management of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Carotid artery stenosis is a condition where the carotid artery is blocked by fatty cholesterol deposits called plaque, increasing the risk of stroke. Elderly individuals with high cardiovascular risk are more susceptible, along with smokers, those with high cholesterol, males, and older individuals. Young females may also be affected by fibromuscular dysplasia. Carotid stenosis significantly raises stroke risk, and the severity is closely linked to stroke incidence and other cardiovascular events. Early detection and treatment are essential to prevent complications. Treatment options include medical and surgical interventions, such as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). The choice between surgery and medical management varies depending on patient characteristics and risk factors. This review explores carotid artery stenosis pathophysiology, risk factors, the importance of early detection and treatment, and the surgical approaches of CEA and CAS, addressing their roles and controversies. Healthcare professionals must understand these aspects to provide optimal care to patients with this condition.

Update in Carotid Disease

This review of the literature analyzes publications over the past five years on various problems associated with carotid endarterectomy: 1. Is the eversion or classical technique of surgery with plastic repair of the reconstruction area with a patch more effective? 2. Carotid endarterectomy or carotid angioplasty with stenting is more optimal? 3. When should brain revascularization be performed after the development of ischemic stroke? 4. Should a temporary shunt be used to protect the brain during carotid endarterectomy? 5. How to prevent and treat different types of intraoperative ischemic strokes? 6. What tactics of treatment of patients with combined lesions of the carotid and coronary arteries is more effective? 7. What are the causes and methods of elimination of restenosis of the internal carotid artery known? 8. Is carotid endarterectomy safe in old age?

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.

Carotid Stenosis Patients with a Remote History of Cerebrovascular Events have Increased Risk of Major Adverse Events Over Asymptomatic Patients

INTRODUCTION

Asymptomatic patients with a remote history of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke are not well studied as a separate population from asymptomatic patients with no prior history of TIA or stroke. We compared in-hospital outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) among symptomatic, remote history of neurologic symptoms, and asymptomatic patients.

METHODS

Data from patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative database undergoing TCAR (Jan 2017 to Apr 2020) or TFCAS (May 2005 to Apr 2020) was analyzed. Symptomatic status was defined as TIA and/or stroke occurring within 180 days prior to procedure. Asymptomatic status was divided into patients with no history of TIA/stroke (asymptomatic) and TIA/stroke occurring more than 180 days prior to procedure (remote history of neurologic symptoms). Student's T-test and Pearson Chi-Squared test were used to compare baseline patient characteristics and outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

There were 7,158 patients who underwent TCAR (symptomatic: 2,574; asymptomatic: 3,689; asymptomatic with a remote history of neurologic symptoms: 895) and 18,023 patients who underwent TFCAS (symptomatic: 6,195; asymptomatic: 10,333; asymptomatic with a remote history of neurologic symptoms: 1,495). Regardless of symptom status, the mean patient age was 73 years for TCAR and 69 years for TFCAS. 64% of patients in the study were male and 36% of patients were female. Mean long-term follow up data ranged between 208 to 331 days within the three patient groups. Carotid stenosis patients with a remote history of neurologic symptoms had higher rates of TIA, stroke, TIA/stroke, stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI than asymptomatic patients, and these rates were similar to those of symptomatic patients. Comparing TCAR and TFCAS among remote history of neurologic symptom patients, there were statistically significant reductions in the odds of stroke/death (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.84, P = 0.011) and stroke/death/MI (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.87, P = 0.013) after TCAR. This was likely driven by the increased rate of death for TFCAS remote history of neurologic symptoms patients (0.9%) compared to asymptomatic patients (0.6%).

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic patients with a remote history of TIA/stroke do not have the same outcomes as asymptomatic patients without a history of TIA/stroke and are at higher risk of adverse in-hospital events. Patients with a remote history of TIA/stroke have increased risk of in-hospital death after TFCAS and may benefit from TCAR.

Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence

Background and Purpose

Carotid stenosis is arterial disease narrowing of the origin of the internal carotid artery (main brain artery). Knowing how to best manage this is imperative because it is common in older people and an important cause of stroke. Inappropriately high expectations have grown regarding the value of carotid artery procedures, such as surgery (endarterectomy) and stenting, for lowering the stroke risk associated with carotid stenosis. Meanwhile, the improving and predominant value of medical intervention (lifestyle coaching and medication) continues to be underappreciated.

Methods and Results

This article aims to be an objective presentation and discussion of the scientific literature critical for decision making when the primary goal is to optimize patient outcome. This compilation follows from many years of author scrutiny to separate fact from fiction. Common sense conclusions are drawn from factual statements backed by original citations. Detailed research methodology is given in cited papers. This article has been written in plain language given the importance of the general public understanding this topic. Issues covered include key terminology and the economic impact of carotid stenosis. There is a summary of the evidence-base regarding the efficacy and safety of procedural and medical (non-invasive) interventions for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusions are drawn with respect to current best management and research priorities. Several "furphies" (misconceptions) are exposed that are commonly used to make carotid stenting and endarterectomy outcomes appear similar. Ongoing randomized trials are mentioned and why they are unlikely to identify a routine practice indication for carotid artery procedures. There is a discussion of relevant worldwide guidelines regarding carotid artery procedures, including how they should be improved. There is an outline of systematic changes that are resulting in better application of the evidence-base.

Conclusion

The cornerstone of stroke prevention is medical intervention given it is non-invasive and protects against all arterial disease complications in all at risk. The "big" question is, does a carotid artery procedure add patient benefit in the modern era and, if so, for whom?

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An International, multispecialty, expert review and position statement

OBJECTIVES

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies.

RESULTS

Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients <75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in 2021: The Jury is Still Out. An International, Multispecialty, Expert Review and Position Statement

OBJECTIVES

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies.

RESULTS

Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients < 75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.