Early carotid endarterectomy following thrombolysis in the hyperacute treatment of stroke

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peri-Procedural Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Interventions Following Thrombolysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after thrombolytic therapy (TT).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients who underwent CEA/CAS after TT.

RESULTS

In 25 studies (n = 147 810 patients), 2 557 underwent CEA (n = 2 076) or CAS (n = 481) following TT. After CEA, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3 - 7.5) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.6). After CAS, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 14.9% (95% CI 11.9 - 18.2) and ICH was 5.5% (95% CI 3.7 - 7.7). In case control studies comparing CEA outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural death/stroke was non-significantly higher after TT (4.3% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% CI 0.74 - 7.47), but ICH was significantly higher after TT (2.2% vs. 0.12%; OR 7.82, 95% CI 4.07 - 15.02), as was local haematoma formation (3.6% vs. 2.26%; OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.33). In case control studies comparing CAS outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural stroke/death was significantly higher after TT (5.2% vs. 1.5%; OR 8.49, 95% CI 2.12 - 33.95) as was ICH (5.4% vs. 0.7%; OR 7.48, 95% CI 4.69 - 11.92). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated an inverse association between the time interval from intravenous (IV) TT to undergoing CEA and the risk of peri-procedural stroke/death (p = .032). Peri-operative stroke/death was 13.0% when CEA was performed three days after TT and 10.6% when performed four days after TT, with the risk reducing to within the currently accepted 6% threshold after six-seven days had elapsed.

CONCLUSION

Peri-procedural ICH and local haematoma were significantly more frequent in patients undergoing CEA after TT (vs. no TT), although there were no randomised comparisons. Peri-procedural hazards were also significantly higher for CAS after TT. The inverse relationship between timing to CEA and peri-procedural stroke/death mandates careful patient selection and suggests that it may be safer to defer CEA for six-seven days after TT.

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.

Safety of Early Carotid Endarterectomy after Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

The timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is still a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of early carotid interventions in patients treated with thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using prospectively collected data from consecutive patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis within 14 days after the index neurological event during the period from January 2013 to July 2016. Patients who had undergone IVT before CEA were identified. The primary outcome measures were any stroke and death rate at 30 days, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and surgical site bleeding requiring intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were included for the final analysis. Among these, 13 (14.0%) patients had undergone IVT before CEA while 80 (86.0%) patients had CEA only. The median time interval between IVT and CEA was 2 days (range: 0-13). A subgroup of 6 patients underwent CEA within 24 hours of administration of IVT. The 30-day combined stroke and death rate was 7.7% (1 of 13) among patients undergoing IVT before CEA and 5.0% (4 of 80) among those undergoing CEA only (P = 0.690). In the IVT group, there were no cerebral hemorrhages or significant surgical site bleeding events requiring reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience indicates that CEA performed early after IVT for acute ischemic stroke, aiming not only to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence but also to achieve neurological improvement by reperfusion of the ischemic penumbra, may be safe and can lead to favorable outcomes.

Emergent Carotid Thromboendarterectomy for Acute Symptomatic Occlusion of the Extracranial Internal Carotid Artery

Background:

Strokes secondary to acute internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion are associated with an extremely poor prognosis. The best treatment approach in this setting is still unknown. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of emergent surgical revascularization of acute extracranial ICA occlusion in patients with minor to severe ischemic stroke.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was performed using prospectively collected data of consecutive patients who underwent carotid thromboendarterectomy for symptomatic acute ICA occlusion during the period from January 2013 to December 2015. Primary outcomes were disability at 90 days assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and neurological deficit at discharge assessed using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Secondary outcomes were the recanalization rate, 30-day overall mortality, and any intracerebral bleeding.

Results:

During the study period, a total of 6 patients (5 men and 1 woman) with a median age of 64 years (range: 58-84 years) underwent emergent reconstruction for acute symptomatic ICA occlusion within a median of 5.4 hours (range: 2.9-12.0 hours) after symptoms onset. The median presenting NIHSS score was 10.5 points (range: 4-21). Before surgery, 4 patients (66.7%) had been treated by systemic recombinant tissue plasminogen activator lysis. The median time interval between initiation of intravenous thrombolysis and carotid thromboendarterectomy was 117.5 minutes (range: 65-140 minutes). Patency of the ICA was achieved in all patients. On discharge, the median NIHSS score was 2 points (range: 0-11 points). There was no postoperative intracerebral hemorrhage and zero 30-day mortality rate. At 3 months, 5 patients (83.3%) had a good clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 2).

Conclusion:

Patients presenting with minor to severe ischemic stroke syndromes due to isolated extracranial ICA occlusion may benefit from emergent carotid revascularization. Thorough preoperative neuroimaging is essential to aid in selecting eligible candidates for acute surgical intervention.

Very Early Carotid Endarterectomy After Intravenous Thrombolysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

The timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after thrombolysis is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyse a cohort of patients undergoing urgent endarterectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke.

METHODS

This was an observational study. Prospective databases were reviewed and matched to identify patients who underwent CEA early after intravenous thrombolysis (2009-14). The focus was carotid surgery performed within 12 hours of stroke onset in patients with a high grade (≥70%) symptomatic carotid stenosis, associated with vulnerable plaques or stroke in evolution, and evidence of a significant salvageable ischaemic penumbra on perfusion computed tomography scan. Demographic and clinical information, as well as data on relevant outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Thirty four consecutive stroke patients who underwent CEA within 2 weeks of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke and ipsilateral high grade carotid stenosis were identified. In 11 patients the surgical procedure was performed within 12 hours of the onset of symptoms. All patients showed a clinical improvement after combined treatment. The 3 month outcome was favourable (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 2) in 10 patients. No haemorrhagic complications were registered. There was neither peri-operative stroke nor stroke within 3 months of surgery. One patient died from acute myocardial infarction 3 days after intervention.

CONCLUSION

This experience suggests that very early CEA after thrombolysis, aimed at removing the source of potential embolisation and restoring blood flow, may be safe and can lead to a favourable outcome.

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).

Stroke in patients with occlusion of the internal carotid artery: options for treatment

Ischemic stroke may occur in patients in whom vascular imaging shows the ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) to be occluded. In younger patients this is often due to carotid artery dissection, while in older people this most likely results from cardiac embolism or thrombosis secondary to high-grade stenosis at the carotid bifurcation. Interventional techniques aim at recanalization of the carotid artery for early restoration of cerebral blood flow and secondary prevention of future strokes. In chronic ICA occlusion the ischemic infarct may be related to hemodynamic compromise. In this situation, extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery was introduced, but its role remains still unclear. Ischemic stroke may also occur in patients with a chronic occlusion of the contralateral ICA. This situation demands the usual stroke treatment, but surgical and neuroradiological interventions face a higher risk than unilateral vascular pathology. Medical treatment supports stroke prevention in carotid artery occlusion.

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

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) for acute ischemic stroke are proven therapies; however, the safety of CEA in stroke patients who recently received IV-tPA has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of CEA in stroke patients who recently received IV-tPA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis was performed. The primary end point was postoperative symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). A univariate analysis of potential risk factors for sICH, including IV-tPA therapy, timing of CEA, degree of stenosis, and stroke severity, was performed. Factors with a value of P < .1 on univariate analysis were tested further.

RESULTS

Among 142 patients, 3 suffered sICH after CEA: 2 of 11 patients treated with IV-tPA (18.2%) and 1 of 131 patients not treated with IV-tPA (0.8%). Both IV-tPA patients suffering sICH underwent CEA within 3 days of tPA administration. On univariate analysis, IV-tPA (P = .02), female sex (P = .09), shorter time between ischemic event and CEA (P = .06), and lower mean arterial pressure during the first 48 hours of admission (P = .08) were identified as risk factors for sICH. On multivariate analysis, IV-tPA was the only significant risk factor (P = .002 by stepwise logistic regression; P = .03 by nominal logistic regression).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that IV-tPA is an independent risk factor for sICH after CEA. This suggests that CEA should be pursued cautiously in patients who recently received IV-tPA. Early surgery may be associated with an increased risk for sICH.

ABBREVIATIONS

CEA, carotid endarterectomyIV-tPA, intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activatorMAP, mean arterial pressureNASCET, North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy TrialNIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke ScaleNINDS, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokesICH, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhageTIA, transient ischemic attack.

Urgent Carotid Surgery: Is It Still out of Debate?

Patients with symptomatic tight carotid stenosis have an increased short-time risk of stroke and an increased long-term risk of ischaemic vascular events compared with the general population. The aim of this study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and limitations of urgent CEA or CAS, in patients with carotid stenosis greater than 70% and clinically characterized by recurrent TIA or brain damage following a stroke (<2.5 cm). This study involved 28 patients divided into two groups. Group A consisted of sixteen patients who had undergone CEA, and group B consisted of twelve patients who had undergone CAS. Primary endpoints were mortality, neurological morbidity (by NIHSS) and postoperative hemorrhagic cerebral conversion, at 30 days. Ten patients (62.5%) of group A experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while in 4 cases (26%) the deficit remained stable. Two cases of neurologic mortality are presented. At 1 month, 9 patients (75%) of group B experienced an improvement in their initial neurological deficit while 3 patients (25%) had a neurological impairment. Urgent or deferred surgical or endovascular treatment have a satisfactory outcome considering the profile in very high-risk patient population. Otherwise in selected patients CEA seems to be preferred to CAS.

Safety of early carotid artery stenting after systemic thrombolysis: a single center experience

Background. Patients with acute ischemic stroke due to internal carotid artery (ICA) disease are at high risk of early stroke recurrence. A combination of IV thrombolysis and early carotid artery stenting (CAS) may result in more effective secondary stroke prevention. Objective. We tested safety and durability of early CAS following IV thrombolysis in stroke patients with residual stenosis in the symptomatic ICA. Methods. Of consecutive patients treated with IV rtPA, those with residual ICA stenosis ≥70% or <70% with an ulcerated plaque underwent early CAS (>24 hours). The protocol included pre-rtPA MRI and MR angiography, and post-rtPA carotid ultrasound and CT angiography. Stroke severity was assessed by the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Three- and twelve-month stent patency was assessed by ultrasound. Twelve-month functional outcome was assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Results. Of 145 consecutive IV rtPA-treated patients, 6 (4%) underwent early CAS. Median age was 76 (range 67-78) years, median NIHSS at stroke onset was 12 (range 9-16) and 7 (range 7-8) before CAS. Median onset-to-CAS time was 48 (range 30-94) hours. A single self-expandable stent was implanted to cover the entire lesion in all patients. The procedure was uneventful in all patients. After 12 months, all patients had stent patency, and the functional outcome was favourable (mRS ≤ 2) in all but 1 patient experiencing a recurrent stroke for new-onset atrial fibrillation. Conclusion. This small case series of a single centre suggests that early CAS may be considered a safe alternative to CEA after IV rtPA administration in selected patients at high risk of stroke recurrence.