Carotid artery stenting in octogenarians using a proximal endovascular occlusion cerebral protection device: a multicenter registry

Vascular Anatomy and Not Age is Responsible for Increased Risk of Complications in Symptomatic Elderly Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Various studies have suggested that age ≥80 years is associated with a higher rate of complications after carotid artery stenting (CAS). The Buffalo Risk Assessment Scale (BRASS) predicts complications in symptomatic patients undergoing CAS. Application of the BRASS has shown the ability to improve patient selection. We used the BRASS system to evaluate whether the higher rate of complications associated with CAS in the elderly is related to vascular anatomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of CAS was performed at our institution over 7 years. Demographic information, anatomic characteristics, BRASS categorization, and outcome measures were compared between elderly (≥80 years) and younger patients (<80 years).

RESULTS

The study included 447 patients: 335 patients (75%) <80 years and 112 patients (25%) ≥80 years. There were significantly more elderly patients in the high-risk BRASS category (P < 0.01), and more young patients in the low-risk BRASS category (P = 0.04). The complication rates in the 2 groups were similar. Older patients were more likely to harbor complex vascular anatomy: they had significantly higher rates of types II and III aortic arches (P = 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively), higher percentage of tortuous carotid vessels (P < 0.01), and higher rates of hostile anatomy for deployment of distal embolic protection devices (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Complex vascular anatomy, rather than age, is the key factor behind the higher CAS-associated complication rate in the elderly. Complications can be avoided through proper patient selection and stratifying patients based on anatomic characteristics, which can be achieved through the BRASS scoring system.

Selective-versus-Standard Poststent Dilation for Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKROUND

The safety and efficacy of standard poststent angioplasty in patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement have not been well-established.

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stent placement and analyzed outcomes of standard-versus-selective poststent angioplasty.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Web of Science was performed for studies published between January 2000 and January 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies with >30 patients describing standard or selective poststent angioplasty during carotid artery stent placement.

DATA ANALYSIS

A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the following outcomes: periprocedural stroke/TIA, procedure-related neurologic/cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, bradycardia/hypotension, long-term stroke at last follow-up, long-term primary patency, and technical success.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 87 studies with 19,684 patients with 20,378 carotid artery stenoses. There was no difference in clinical (P = .49) or angiographic outcomes (P = .93) in carotid artery stent placement treatment with selective or standard poststent balloon angioplasty. Both selective and standard poststent angioplasty groups had a very high technical success of >98% and a low procedure-related mortality of 0.9%. There were no significant differences between both groups in the incidence of restenosis (P = .93) or procedure-related complications (P = .37).

LIMITATIONS

No comparison to a patient group without poststent dilation could be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in angiographic and clinical outcomes among series that performed standard poststent angioplasty and those that performed poststent angioplasty in only select patients.

Study of carotid disease in patients with peripheral artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To study the stenosis of the carotid arteries in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.

METHODS

we assessed 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in stages of intermittent claudication, rest pain or ulceration. Carotid stenosis was studied by echo-color-doppler, and considered significant when greater than or equal to 50%. We used univariate analysis to select potential predictors of carotid stenosis, later taken to multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of carotid stenosis was 84%, being significant in 40% and severe in 17%. The age range was 43-89 years (mean 69.78). Regarding gender, 61% were male and 39% female. Half of the patients had claudication and half had critical ischemia. Regarding risk factors, 86% of patients had hypertension, 66% exposure to smoke, 47% diabetes, 65% dyslipidemia, 24% coronary artery disease, 16% renal failure and 60% had family history of cardiovascular disease. In seven patients, there was a history of ischemic cerebrovascular symptoms in the carotid territory. The presence of cerebrovascular symptoms was statistically significant in influencing the degree of stenosis in the carotid arteries (p = 0.02 at overall assessment and p = 0.05 in the subgroups of significant and non-significant stenoses).

CONCLUSION

the study of the carotid arteries by duplex scan examination is of paramount importance in the evaluation of patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease, and should be systematically conducted in the study of such patients.

State of the art in carotid artery stenting: trial data, technical aspects, and limitations

The volume of carotid artery stenting (CAS) safety and efficacy data has grown exponentially over the last decade. Recent comparative data with carotid endarterectomy, the utility of embolic protection devices, peri-procedural medications, basic technical aspects of CAS, developments in carotid stent design, potential complications of CAS, and complication risk factors are discussed in this review.

Incidence of embolism associated with carotid artery stenting: open-cell versus closed-cell stents

Object

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be an alternative option for carotid endarterectomy in the prevention of ischemic stroke caused by carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of stent design on the incidence of procedural and postprocedural embolism associated with CAS treatment.

Methods

Ninety-six symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, consisting of 79 males and 17 females, with moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis and a mean age of 69.0 years were treated with CAS. The stent type (48 closed-cell and 48 open-cell stents) was randomly allocated before the procedure. Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes were assessed and compared. The symptomatic subgroup (76 patients) was also analyzed to determine the influence of stent design on outcome.

Results

New lesions on postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were significantly more frequent in the open-cell than in the closed-cell stent group (24 vs 12, respectively; p = 0.020). The 30-day clinical outcome was not different between the 2 stent groups. In the symptomatic patient group, stent design (p = 0.017, OR 4.173) and recent smoking history (p = 0.036, OR 4.755) were strong risk factors for new lesions on postprocedural DWI.

Conclusions

Stent design may have an influence on the risk of new embolism, and selecting the appropriate stent may improve outcome.

Carotid artery stenting: patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics that increase procedural complications

From the earliest experiences with carotid artery stenting (CAS) presumptive high risk features have included thrombus-containing lesions, heavily calcified lesions, very tortuous vessels, and near occlusions. In addition patients have been routinely excluded from CAS trials if they have contra-indications to dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and thienopyridines), a history of bleeding complications and severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) making femoral artery vascular access difficult. Variables that increase the risk of CAS complications can be attributed to patient characteristics, anatomic or lesion features, and procedural factors. Clinical features such as older age (≥80 years), decreased cerebral reserve (dementia, multiple prior strokes, or intracranial microangiopathy) and angiographic characteristics such as excessive tortuosity (more than two 90° bends within 5 cm of the target lesion) and heavy calcification (concentric calcification ≥ 3 mm in width) have been associated with increased CAS complications. Other high risk CAS features include those that prolong catheter or guide wire manipulation in the aortic arch, make crossing a carotid stenosis more difficult, decrease the likelihood of successful deployment or retrieval of an embolic protection device (EPD), or make stent delivery or placement more difficult. Procedure volume for the operator and the catheterization laboratory team are critical elements in reducing the risk of the procedure. In this article, we help CAS operators better understand procedure risk to allow more intelligent case selection, further improving the outcomes of this emerging procedure.

Carotid revascularization: a systematic review of the evidence

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based review of the periprocedural safety and long-term effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with particular attention paid to the use of embolic protection devices and patients at high risk for CEA.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Pubmed, and Embase) were searched to identify: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of CEA and CAS, and (2) prospective clinical trials assessing the safety of CAS in patients at high surgical risk. Pooled incidence rates and one-sided 95% confidence interval for the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death among high surgical risk patients were generated and compared to objective performance criteria (OPC) reported by previous trials.

RESULTS

Six RCTs and 14 prospective clinical trials met our search criteria. Selected RCTs showed inconsistency in reported periprocedural and long-term outcome rates. Pooled incidence rates of the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction or death in high surgical risk candidates were 5.59% and 7.92%, respectively. These results were noninferior to selected OPCs (P-value <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS represents a safe and effective stroke prevention strategy in high surgical risk patients when compared with CEA. The inconsistent results from the RCTs and the improved outcomes in the prospective clinical trials are likely related to variability in operator experience, use of embolic protection devices, and patient selection strategies.

Historical perspective of carotid artery stenting in Japan: analysis of 8,092 cases in The Japanese CAS survey

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We conducted a large retrospective survey of the clinical results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for about 10 years performed by neurointerventionists at 43 Japanese institutions. Hence, the historical perspective of CAS in Japan was demonstrated.

METHODS

Cases were stratified into three separate periods based on the approval status of devices: the first period, in which off-label CAS was performed using balloon protection; the second period, using a limited number of approved devices under filter protection; the third period, using appropriate protection selected from several different options based on the preoperative evaluation (tailored CAS). Clinical results were retrospectively evaluated. Then 30-day results of each period were examined. The major adverse event (MAE) was defined as stroke, myocardial infarction or death.

RESULTS

Between January 2001 and December 2010, a total of 8,092 cases were registered, including 4,072, 1,526 and 2,494 in the first, second and third period, respectively. In the first period, 92 % of CAS was performed under balloon protection. In contrast, 91 % was done under filter protection in the second period. In the third period, various protection methods were used, including balloon (31 %), filter (50 %) and proximal protection (18 %). The rate of MAE at 30 days was 6.1 %, 10.2 % and 3.5 % in the first, second and third periods, respectively, and 6.3 % in all periods combined. The rate of MAE in the third period was significantly lower than that in the first and second periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The historical paradigm of CAS in Japan was demonstrated. Due to the improvement of devices, increasing experience and appropriate selection of protection, CAS is continuing to evolve into a safer and more efficacious method of stroke prevention.

Is age of 80 years a threshold for carotid revascularization?

Background and purpose:

Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of carotid stenotic disease. With increasing life expectancy clinicians are more often confronted with patients of higher age. Octogenarians were often excluded from randomized trials comparing CAS to CEA because they were considered high-risk for revascularization. Conflicting results on the peri-procedural outcome of carotid revascularization in these patients have been reported. In order to objectively evaluate whether age above 80 years should be an upper limit for indicating carotid revascularization we systematically reviewed the currently available literature.

Methods:

Literature was systematically reviewed between January 2000 and June 2010 using Pubmed and Embase, to identify all relevant studies concerning CAS and CEA in octogenarians. Inclusion criteria were 1) reporting outcome on either CEA or CAS; and 2) data subanalysis on treatment outcome by age. The 30-day Major Adverse Event (MAE) rate (disabling stroke, myocardial infarction or death) was extracted as well as demographic features of included patients.

Results:

After exclusion of 23 articles, 46 studies were included in this review, 18 involving CAS and 28 involving CEA. A total of 2.963 CAS patients and 14.365 CEA patients with an age >80 years were reviewed. The MAE rate was 6.9% (range 1.6 - 24.0%) following CAS and 4.2% (range 0 – 8.8%) following CEA.

A separate analysis in this review included the results of one major registry 140.376 patients) analyzing CEA in octogenarians only reporting on 30-day mortality and not on neurological or cardiac adverse events. When these data were included the MAE following CEA is 2.4% (range 0 – 8.8%)

Conclusions:

MAE rates after CEA in octogenarians are comparable with the results of large randomized trials in younger patients. Higher complication rates are described for CAS in octogenarians. In general, age > 80 years is not an absolute cut off point to exclude patients from carotid surgery. In our opinion, CEA should remain the golden standard in the treatment of significant carotid artery stenoses, even in the very elderly.

Age and outcomes after carotid stenting and endarterectomy: the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High stroke event rates among carotid artery stenting (CAS)-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) lead-in registry generated an a priori hypothesis that age may modify the relative efficacy of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In the primary CREST report, we previously noted significant effect modification by age. Here we extend this investigation by examining the relative efficacy of the components of the primary end point, the treatment-specific impact of age, and contributors to the increasing risk in CAS-treated patients at older ages.

METHODS

Among 2502 CREST patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of age on the CAS-to-CEA relative efficacy, and the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients.

RESULTS

Age acted as a treatment effect modifier for the primary end point (P interaction=0.02), with the efficacy of CAS and CEA approximately equal at age 70 years. For CAS, risk for the primary end point increased with age (P<0.0001) by 1.77-times (95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.28) per 10-year increment; however, there was no evidence of increased risk for CEA-treated patients (P=0.27). Stroke events were the primary contributor to the overall effect modification (P interaction=0.033), with equal risk at ≈64 years. The treatment-by-age interaction for CAS and CEA was not altered by symptomatic status (P=0.96) or by sex (P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after CAS versus CEA were related to patient age, attributable to increasing risk for stroke after CAS at older ages. Patient age should be an important consideration when choosing between the 2 procedures for treating carotid stenosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.