United Kingdom carotid artery stent registry: short- and long-term outcomes

Free-Cell Area Impact on Stroke Prevention in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: The "Carotid Artery sTenting And CeLl-area Impact on Stroke and Major Adverse events" (CATACLISMA) Multicenter Registry

PURPOSE

The study investigated the association between cell-stent area and cerebrovascular events incidence in asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational, retrospective, multicenter, cohort study. Between 2012 and 2022, all patients undergoing primary CAS for severe asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were evaluated. Three groups were defined on the basis of the cell area (open cell, OC; closed cell, CC; double layer, DL). Periprocedural primary outcomes were 30-day stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse event (MAE, stroke/mortality composite outcome) rates. Follow-up primary outcomes included overall survival, stroke-free survival (SFS), freedom from ipsilateral stroke (FFiS), and freedom from stroke-related mortality (FF-SRM). Data were analyzed at short-term (1 year) and mid-term (2.5 years) period.

RESULTS

A total of 1096 CAS were considered (787 men, 71.8%, median age = 74 years). Technical success was achieved in 99.5% procedures. Periprocedural 30-day stroke rate was 1.5% (OC: 1.1%, CC: 2.3%, DL: 1%, p=0.27), mortality was 0.7% (OC: 1.1%, CC: 0.3%, DL: 0.5%, p=0.35), and no MI was recorded. The MAE rate was 2.1% (OC: 2%, CC: 2.6%, DL: 1.5%, p=0.66). Median follow-up was 46 months. At 1 and 2.5 years, estimated overall survival was 96.1% and 91% (p=0.41), SFS was 99.1% and 98.2% (p=0.007, CC stroke rates 2.9% and 4.2% at timepoints), FFiS was 99.4% and 99% (p=0.014, CC FFiS rates 1.7% and 2.6% at timepoints) and FF-SRM was 99.5% and 99% (p=0.28). During follow-up, no stroke events occurred in DL group. CC design showed higher rates of any (4.2%) and ipsilateral stroke (2.6%) within 2.5 years.

CONCLUSION

In asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS, the contemporary overall stroke incidence is 1.5%. No statistical differences were observed in terms of 30-day stroke incidence among groups. The closed free-cell area showed higher rates of any and ipsilateral stroke within 2.5 years. The DL stents may offer the best available performances in terms of mid-term stroke prevention.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The study analyzed the contemporary results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) focusing on the impact of cell-stent area on peri- and post-operative cerebrovascular events in a multicenter real-world experience. In asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS the contemporary overall stroke incidence is 1.5%. No statistical differences were observed in terms of 30-day stroke incidence among groups. The closed free-cell area showed higher rates of any and ipsilateral stroke within 2.5 years. DL stents may offer the best available performances in terms of mid-term stroke prevention.

Carotid Artery Stenting With Double-Layer Stent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of significant stenosis is a cause of stroke due to both plaque prolapse and cerebral embolization. New types of stents with a double-layer structure have been designed to minimize plaque prolapse and embolization; these double-layer stents (DLSs) should be able to reduce the stroke risk; however, definite data on their performance are scarce in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, according to PRISMA guidelines; all studies on CAS with DLS (Roadsaver/Casper or CGuard) up to January 1, 2022, with a cohort of at least 20 patients were considered eligible. The present meta-analysis was approved and registered on PROSPERO register (CRD42022297512). Patients with tandem lesions or complete carotid occlusion were excluded from the study. The 30-day stroke rate after CAS was analyzed evaluating the preoperative symptomatic status and DLS occlusion. The estimated pooled rate of events was calculated by random effect model and moderators were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 1955 patients. The estimated overall (95% confidence interval [CI]) stroke rate was 1.4% (0.9%-2.2%, I2 = 0%), which was not influenced by the type of DLS used: CGuard 0.8% (0.4%-1.8%, I2 = 0%) versus Roadsaver/Casper 1.5% (0.7%-3.2%, I2 = 0%), p=0.30. The 30-day estimated stroke rate was 1.5% (0.8%-2.9%, I2 = 0%) in asymptomatic and 1.9% (1.0%-3.6%, I2 = 0%) in symptomatic patients, with no influence by moderators. The 30-day DLS occlusion rate was 0.8% (0.4%-1.8%, I2 = 0%). The publication bias assessment identified asymmetry in the asymptomatic populations.

CONCLUSION

The overall 30-day stroke rate in CAS with DLS is low (1.4%), with similar results in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Acute occlusion of DLS is rare (0.8%). Further studies are necessary to reduce the publication bias for asymptomatic patients.

CLINICAL IMPACT

CAS with DLS is associated to a low rate of 30-day stroke in both symptomatic (1.9%) and asymptomatic (1.5%) patients. The type of DLS (CGuard or Roadsaver/Casper) did not affect the 30-day stroke rate.

Surgical patient registries: scoping study of challenges and solutions

Patient surgical registries are essential tools for public health specialists, creating research opportunities through linkage of registry data with healthcare outcomes. However, little is known regarding data error sources in the management of surgical registries. In June 2022, we undertook a scoping study of the empirical literature including publications selected from the PUBMED and EMBASE databases. We selected 48 studies focussing on shared experiences centred around developing surgical patient registries. We identified seven types of data specific challenges, grouped in three categories- data capture, data analysis and result dissemination. Most studies underlined the risk for a high volume of missing data, non-uniform geographic representation, inclusion biases, inappropriate coding, as well as variations in analysis reporting and limitations related to the statistical analysis. Finally, to expand data usability, we discussed cost-effective ways of addressing these limitations, by citing aspects from the protocols followed by established exemplary registries.

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.

Predictors of Stroke, Myocardial Infarction or Death within 30 Days of Carotid Artery Stenting: Results from the International Carotid Stenting Study

OBJECTIVES

Stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death are complications of carotid artery stenting (CAS). The effect of baseline patient demographic factors, processes of care, and technical factors during CAS on the risk of stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) were investigated.

METHODS

In ICSS, suitable patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis > 50% were randomly allocated to CAS or endarterectomy. Factors influencing the risk of stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS were examined in a regression model for the 828 patients randomized to CAS in whom the procedure was initiated.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 7.4% suffered stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS. Independent predictors of risk were age (risk ratio [RR] 1.17 per 5 years of age, 95% CI 1.01-1.37), a right-sided procedure (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.91), aspirin and clopidogrel in combination prior to CAS (compared with any other antiplatelet regimen, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.98), smoking status, and the severity of index event. In patients in whom a stent was deployed, use of an open-cell stent conferred higher risk than use of a closed-cell stent (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.11-3.33). Cerebral protection device (CPD) use did not modify the risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of patients for CAS should take into account symptoms, age, and side of the procedure. The results favour the use of closed-cell stents. CPDs in ICSS did not protect against stroke.

Prognostic Factors for Neurologic Outcome in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis. The long-term outcome and prognostic factors in Asian population after CAS are not clear. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors among Asian patients who have undergone CAS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 246 patients with CAS. Annual carotid duplex ultrasound was used to identify restenosis. Peri-procedural complications, restenosis, neurologic outcomes, and mortality were recorded. Cox regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 49.2 months. Procedural success was achieved in 237 patients (98.3%), and protection devices were used in 208 patients (84.5%). Within 30 days of CAS, 13 (4.3% per procedure) peri-procedural complications occurred. During the follow-up period, 24 (9.7%) patients developed restenosis, and 37 (15.0%) developed ischemic strokes. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, head and neck radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 9.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.38-29.1, p < .001], stent diameter (HR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.58-0.89, p = .003), and predilatation (HR = 3.08 95% CI, 1.21-7.81, p = .018) were independent predictors for restenosis. In Cox regression analysis, hypercholesterolemia (HR = 0.25, 95% CI, 0.07-0.94, p = .04), head and neck radiotherapy (HR = 6.2, 95% CI, 1.8-21.3, p = .004), and restenosis (HR = 3.6, 95% CI, 1.1-11.18, p = .04) were predictors for recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS provides reliable long-term results in Asian patients with carotid stenosis. Restenosis is associated with an increased rate of recurrent stroke and should be monitored carefully following CAS.

KEY WORDS

Carotid artery disease • Prognosis • Cerebrovascular disease.

The Effect of Stent Cell Geometry on Carotid Stenting Outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of stent cell geometry on midterm results of carotid artery stenting (CAS).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

One hundred fifty-five patients underwent CAS between February 2010 and December 2012. Ninety-one open- and 84 closed-cell stents were used in this non-randomized, retrospective study. Periprocedural complications were defined as the ones happened during the procedure or within 30 days afterwards. Starting from the 6th month after the procedure, in-stent restenosis was detected with multidetector computed tomography angiography and classified into four groups from focal restenosis to occlusion.

RESULTS

Eleven complications were encountered in the periprocedural period (four on the open- and seven on the closed-cell group). Total complication rate was 6.3% (11/175). No significant difference was detected in terms of periprocedural complications between two groups (p = 0.643). There was statistically significant difference between stent design groups in regard to radiological findings (p = 0.002). Sixteen of open-cell stents and three of closed-cell stents had focal restenosis. One closed-cell stent had diffuse proliferative restenosis and one open-cell stent had total occlusion.

CONCLUSION

In-stent restenosis was more common in open-cell stent group, which have larger free cell area than closed-cell stents. Although our radiologic findings promote us to use closed-cell design if 'possible', no difference was detected in terms of clinical outcomes.

Endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting: the quest continues part two

BACKGROUND

Although randomized trials on carotid artery stenting (CAS) could not establish its equivalence to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, CAS is rapidly evolving. Data on long-term outcome after CAS from randomized trials have now become available and ongoing, prospectively held registries frequently publish their results in increasing numbers of patients. We have therefore reviewed the currently available literature and provide an update of our previous article on this topic.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed literature searches were performed to identify relevant studies regarding current status of CEA and stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis remains unclear because of varying results in randomized trials. Although multiple registries do report promising results after CAS, peri-interventional stroke/death rates still exceed those rates currently found after CEA. Therefore, CEA remains the "gold standard" in treating these patients.

[Current guidelines on carotid artery stenting. Critical evaluation]

Scientific data underlying current guidelines on treatment of carotid artery stenosis is subject to interdisciplinary discussion. In particular selective weighting of the randomized European studies leads to conflicting levels of recommendation and levels of evidence, especially when directly comparing guidelines under surgical versus endovascular guidance. Surgical guidelines recommend a limitation of carotid artery stenting (CAS) to symptomatic patients with specific surgical/anatomical disadvantages and/or severe comorbidities. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend the use of CAS only in patients at increased surgical risk but at the same time requires morbidity and mortality rates comparable to those of surgical interventions. Even one step further, the American guidelines and specifically the associated comments of the German Society of Cardiology on the above mentioned ESC guidelines put CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on a par in terms of treatment alternatives, presupposing analogous CEA complication rates. Differential interpretation of the so far inadequate data is a common issue of current evidence-based medicine. The difficulty in conceptualization of new studies concerning the therapy of carotid stenosis lies in the funding these large projects and also on the high patient number required to achieve adequate statistical power. Furthermore, during the estimated long study period substantial changes of current techniques and devices can be anticipated which might render the study results in part outdated by the time of publication. However, as long as no new randomized study results comparing medical, surgical and interventional treatment of carotid stenosis are available, the question on the optimal therapy for patients with carotid artery disease remains unanswered.