Casper vs. Closed-Cell Stent: Carotid Artery Stenting Randomized Trial

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.

Relationship between annular calcification of plaques in the carotid sinus and perioperative hemodynamic disorder in carotid angioplasty and stenting

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the correlation between annular plaque calcification in the carotid sinus and perioperative hemodynamic disorder (HD) in carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS).

METHODS

The clinical data of 49 patients undergoing CAS due to narrowing of the carotid sinus were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had preoperative carotid computed tomography angiography (CTA) and were divided into HD and non-HD groups based on the occurrence of HD in the perioperative period of CAS. HD was defined as persistent bradycardia (heart rate < 60 beats per min) or persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in the perioperative period and lasting for at least 1 h. The baseline data, including the degree of carotid artery stenosis, plaque length, plaque thickness, calcified plaque morphologies (i.e., plaque circumferential angle: < 90° defined as dotted calcification; 90°-180° defined as arcuate calcification; > 180° defined as annular calcification), contralateral carotid artery conditions, balloon diameter, and stent types, were compared between the two groups. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors for the occurrence of HD.

RESULTS

Among the 49 patients undergoing CAS, 14 (28.57%) developed perioperative HD, and 35 did not. Annular calcification was more common in the patients in the HD group than in the non-HD group. No significant differences in the probabilities of dotted and arcuate calcifications were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The duration of continuous dopamine consumption in the HD group was 9-71 h. The average hospital stay of the HD group (10.14 ± 4.17 days) was significantly longer than that of the non-HD group (6.57 ± 1.9 days; p < 0.001). Patients in the HD group had significantly more pronounced lumen stenosis (p = 0.033) and longer plaque length (p = 0.034) than those in the non-HD group. After adjusting for age and sex, multivariate regression analysis showed that the presence of annular plaque calcification was an independent predictor of HD (odds ratio: 7.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.46-40.37, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of annular plaque calcification in the carotid sinus was an independent risk factor for perioperative HD in CAS. Preoperative carotid CTA assists with the early identification of high-risk patients who may develop HD.

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.

Contemporary Results of Carotid Artery Stenting Using Low-Profile Dual-Metal Layer Nitinol Micromesh Stents in Relation to Single-Layer Carotid Stents

PURPOSE

To evaluate patients characteristics, procedural details, perioperative outcomes, and midterm results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed with the Roadsaver/Casper stent (Terumo Corp, Tokyo, Japan) as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available carotid stents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 200 consecutive patients who underwent a total of 205 elective CAS procedures due to severe internal carotid artery stenosis between April 2015 and December 2018. Procedural data and outcomes for patients treated with the Roadsaver/Casper stent implantation (100 procedures, in 97 patients) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (90 procedures, in 88 patients) were compared. Fifteen patients were treated with CGuard carotid stent (InspireMD, Tel Aviv, Israel), and outcomes were reported separately. Primary endpoints were the occurrence of major adverse cerebrovascular events (MACE), including death, ipsilateral stroke, and transitory ischemic attack (TIA). Secondary endpoints were the rate of intrastent stenosis, the need for reintervention, and the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and need for inotropic support.

RESULTS

No difference in demographics and preoperative risk factors were observed between patients treated with and without the Roadsaver/Casper stent. The mean procedure time was shorter in the Roadsaver/Casper group (40.7±16.9 vs 49.4±27.3 minutes; p=0.008), while radial percutaneous access was more frequent (24% vs 5%; p<0.001). The rate of stroke/TIA/death at 30 days was 3% in the Roadsaver group vs 1% in the first-generation stent group (p=0.623). The primary patencyrate was 100% and 93.4% at 1- and 3-year of follow-up in the Roadsaver/Casper groupand 99% and 94.3% in the other stent group, respectively (p=0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing CAS, the Roadsaver/Casper stent was used to treat more symptomatic and vulnerable carotid plaques as compared to other carotid stents. Nevertheless, patients treated with this low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed low events rates at both 30 days and follow-up, similar to that observed for other stents.

Thirty-Day Results of the Novel CGuard-Covered Stent in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide early-term evaluation, safety, and efficacy of the novel CGuard (Inspire MD, Tel Aviv, Israel) micromesh self-expanding stent with embolic protection system (EPS) during carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent CAS with CGuard carotid stent system from January 2018 to September 2020 in a tertiary center were prospectively evaluated. Primary endpoints included technical success and perioperative neurological events (0-48 hours). Secondary endpoint was the rate of neurologic, cardiac events, and death (major adverse event or MAE) at 30 days. Patency of CGuard, peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end diastolic velocity (EDV) were evaluated at 30 days with duplex ultrasound.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients underwent CAS procedure. Forty patients were symptomatic, and 63 patients were asymptomatic with stenosis greater than 70%. Technical success was 100%. Local anesthesia was applied in 94 patients (93%). Embolic protection devices were used in 6 patients (5.8%). Access site complications were 1.9%. Mean internal carotid artery stenosis diameter reduced from 79.47% to 14.68%. Two patients had transient ischemic attack (1.9%) and 1 patient experienced a cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) perioperatively. External carotid artery (ECA) occlusion occurred in 1.9%. Four patients experienced jaw claudication (3.8%) postoperatively. Mean time of operation was 41 minutes. Mean duration of hospitalization was 3.1 days. The 30-day rate of MAE was 0%. CGuard patency was 100%, mean internal carotid PSV was reduced from 251.57 to 77.29 cm/s, and mean internal carotid EDV was reduced from 154.62 to 24.63 cm/s at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that CGuard stent with EPS is an effective and safe device for treatment of carotid artery stenosis with acceptable low perioperative neurologic events, even with low embolic protection device usage. Larger multicenter and randomized studies are necessary to confirm its long-term efficacy.

Is it possible to prevent cerebral embolization by improving the design and technology of carotid stent implantation?

INTRODUCTION

The prevention of atherosclerotic plaque fragmentation during carotid artery stenting is a fundamental problem in decreasing the risk of disability of patients. The goal of this review is to clarify whether the stent design can have a decisive impact on the rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

AREAS COVERED

Different designs of the carotid stents are briefed and the advantages and disadvantages of different stent designs are discussed as well as the results of their clinical use. Various solutions are presented to reduce cerebral embolism during carotid artery stenting.

EXPERT OPINION

There is no conclusive evidence for the benefits of closed cell and hybrid stents. The stent design cannot completely resolve the problem of cerebral embolism. Most of the events of cerebral microembolism occur at the stages of stent delivery rather than protrusion of an atherosclerotic plaque in the long-term follow-up. Most likely, minimization of the risks for periprocedural and postprocedural strokes requires not only the new solutions in stent design as well as the corresponding delivery systems and brain embolic protection systems, but also the new strategies of preprocedural drug stabilization of the atherosclerotic plaque in the carotid artery. Abbreviations: CAS, carotid artery stenting; CE, carotid endarterectomy; DW-MRI, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging; ECA, external carotid artery; ICA, internal carotid artery; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound examination; OCT, optical coherence tomography.