Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments

Pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.

Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Look Into the Diagnostic and Management Strategies, and Related Complications

Carotid stenosis (CS) is a buildup of atherosclerotic plaque within the artery leading to a wide range of symptoms, from mild symptoms, including blurred vision and confusion, to much more life-threatening presentations, including paralysis due to stroke. The presentation is insidious, with symptoms exhibiting predominantly at severe stenosis; hence the emphasis is placed on the importance of early diagnosis, treatment, and lifestyle modifications. CS is seen undergoing almost the same pathogenesis of any atherosclerotic plaque formation, from endothelial damage of the artery lumen to the formation of a fibrous cap with a foam cell, lipid-filled core. The findings of our review article were consistent with the recent literature, depicting that comorbid hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and lifestyle aspects, including smoking and diet, played the most salient role in plaque development. Among several imaging modalities, duplex ultrasound (DUS) imaging is the widely preferred method in clinical practice. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting are the primarily advocated procedures for symptomatic severe stenosis, with similar long-term outcomes. Although, earlier clinical trials showed promising results in mitigating the risk of stroke among asymptomatic severe CS with surgical intervention. However, recent advancements have shifted the focus to medical management alone due to comparable results among the asymptomatic population. Both surgical and medical regimens are beneficial in treating patients, but it is still an ongoing debate as to which is predominantly superior. The currently advancing trials and research will help elucidate definitive guidelines. However, the massive impact of lifestyle modifications advocates some degree of individualized multidisciplinary management strategies.

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment

BACKGROUND

The use of mechanical thrombectomy to restore intracranial blood flow after proximal large artery occlusion by a thrombus has increased over time and led to better outcomes than intravenous thrombolytic therapy alone. Currently, the type of anaesthetic technique during mechanical thrombectomy is under debate as having a relevant impact on neurological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of anaesthesia for endovascular interventions in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register of Trials on 5 July 2022, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and seven other databases on 21 March 2022. We performed searches of reference lists of included trials, grey literature sources, and other systematic reviews.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with a parallel design that compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia, conscious sedation anaesthesia, or monitored care anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischaemic stroke. We also included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies without a comparator group, and studies with a retrospective design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of the stroke symptoms to 90 days after the start of the intervention. The main outcomes were functional outcome, neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation, adverse events, and quality of life. All included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 days) time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with 982 participants, which investigated the type of anaesthesia for endovascular treatment in large vessel occlusion in the intracranial circulation. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of stroke symptoms to 90 days after the procedure. Therefore, all included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 up to 90 days) time points. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia(early) We are uncertain about the effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to 0.31; P = 1.0; 1 study, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion (MD 2.91 minutes, 95% CI -5.11 to 10.92; P = 0.48; I² = 48%; 5 studies, 498 participants; very low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia may lead to no difference in neurological impairment up to 48 hours after the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.59; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 982 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in stroke-related mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence), all intracranial haemorrhages (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29; P = 0.63; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to non-general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.02; I² = 71%; 2 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 29%; 7 studies, 982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no available data for quality of life. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia (long-term) There is no difference in general anaesthesia compared to non-general anaesthesia for dichotomous and continuous functional outcomes (dichotomous: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.58; P = 0.16; I² = 29%; 4 studies, 625 participants; low-certainty evidence; continuous: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.06; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 978 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia showed no changes in stroke-related mortality compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; P = 0.44; I² = 12%; 6 studies, 843 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no available data for neurological impairment, all intracranial haemorrhages, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion, adverse events (haemodynamic instability), or quality of life. Ongoing studies We identified eight ongoing studies. Five studies compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia, one study compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia plus local anaesthesia, and two studies compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia. Of these studies, seven plan to report data on functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale, five studies on neurological impairment, six studies on stroke-related mortality, two studies on all intracranial haemorrhage, five studies on target artery revascularisation status, four studies on time to revascularisation, and four studies on adverse events. One ongoing study plans to report data on quality of life. One study did not plan to report any outcome of interest for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In early outcomes, general anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia with moderate-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability adverse events between groups with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia improves functional outcomes and time to revascularisation because the certainty of the evidence is very low. However, regarding long-term outcomes, general anaesthesia makes no difference to functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia did not change stroke-related mortality when compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. There were no reported data for other outcomes. In view of the limited evidence of effect, more randomised controlled trials with a large number of participants and good protocol design with a low risk of bias should be performed to reduce our uncertainty and to aid decision-making in the choice of anaesthesia.

Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis. For DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). For sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.