Carotid artery interventions - endarterectomy versus stenting

Current management of patients with carotid artery stenosis is based on well-established guidelines, including surgical procedures - carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) - and optimal medical treatment alone. Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA are similar, suggesting strong clinical durability for both treatments. Recent advances, which include the emergence of novel endovascular treatment tools and techniques, combined with more recent randomised trial data shed new light on optimal patient selection and treatment in contemporary practice. Improved, modern technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered micromesh stents yield better outcomes and should result in further improvements in CAS. In centres of excellence, nowadays, the majority of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis can be successfully treated with either CEA or CAS.

Procedural embolic protection strategies for carotid artery stenting: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is an established procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis for either primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Randomized clinical trials have shown an increased risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular events with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate this risk, including alternative vascular access site, proximal/distal embolic protection devices, and dual-layer stents, among others.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a general overview of current embolic protection strategies for CAS. The phases of the procedure which can affect the early risk of stroke and how to reduce it with novel techniques and devices have been discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Innovations in device technologies have dramatically improved the safety and efficacy of CAS. To minimize the gap with surgery, a thorough, patient-oriented approach should be pursued. Endovascular technologies and techniques should be selected on an individual basis to address unique lesion characteristics and vascular anatomies. Meticulous pre-procedural planning, both clinical and anatomical, is needed to assess the embolic risk of each procedure. Only by having an in-depth understanding of the wide range of available endovascular devices and techniques, the operator will choose the most appropriate strategy to optimize CAS results.

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

Endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis using a dual-layer micromesh stents: a systematic review

Introduction: We aimed to review the safety and effectiveness of dual-layer micromesh stents for the endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis.Methods: Electronic bibliographic databases were searched using the words 'micromesh carotid stent'. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards.Results: The search of the Literature retrieved 84 results. After assessment of full texts, 13 papers were included in the study. The analyzed studies included 797 patients, 32.1% of them were symptomatic. The reported technical success rate was 100% in all cases. During early follow-up, complications occurred overall in 16/797 patients (2%: 12 strokes, 3 deaths, and one transient ischemic attack). The study with the longest follow-up reported a survival rate of 82% at 4 years and a stroke-free survival rate of 84% at 4 years.Conclusion: With the limit of low data quality, the use of dual-layer stents was reported to be as safe and effective at 30 days for the endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis. The reported technical success was 100% in all cases. Further data coming from randomized controlled trials and larger cohort studies with longer follow-up are nevertheless needed for a better evaluation.

The predictive value of CHADS2 score for subclinical cerebral ischemia after carotid artery stenting (from the PREVENT-CAS trial)

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is being increasingly used as an alternative revascularization procedure to carotid endarterectomy; however, subclinical ischemic cerebral lesions after CAS remain as a matter of concern. Hence, we aimed to assess the clinical utility of the CHADS₂ score in predicting subclinical ischemic events after CAS.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 107 patients (mean age: 70.4 ± 6.6 years, male:77) who underwent CAS for carotid artery revascularization. The patients having symptomatic transient ischemic attack or stroke after CAS were excluded. The presence of new hyperintense lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) without any neurological findings was considered as silent ischemia. Patients were classified into two groups as DWI-positive and DWI-negative patients.

RESULTS

Among study population, 28 patients (26.2%) had subclinical embolism. The DWI-positive group had a significantly higher CHADS2 scores, older age, more frequent history of stroke, higher proportion of type III aortic arch, and longer fluoroscopy time than the DWI-negative group. Increased CHADS₂ score was identified as one of the independent predictors of silent embolism (OR = 5.584; 95%CI: 1.516-20.566; p = .010), and CHADS₂ score higher than 2.5 predicted subclinical cerebral ischemia with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 71% (AUC: 0.793; 95% CI: 0.696 - 0.890; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CHADS₂ score was able to predict the risk of periprocedural subclinical ischemic events in CAS and might be of clinical value in the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis.