Carotid Artery Occlusive Disease

Carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy surgery techniques: A 30‑year time‑lapse

Carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting (CAS), are the most important axes in carotid artery interventional management. A bibliometric analysis permits an easier access to the current literature trends and information to design future studies. The aim of the present study was to identify the knowledge routes on CAS and examine the research front on the topic. The search was interpreted in Scopus, from 1994 to 2023, and included only original articles and reviews. The BibTex format was used to download all citation and bibliographic data. The present analysis was conducted in two parts, a descriptive one and a network extraction process. Between 1994 and 2023, 34,503 references and 7,758 authors were recorded. The annual growth rate was 21.64%. The CAVATAS trial was the most cited article. As regards word trends, since 2017, trans-carotid stenting, risk factors and plaque characteristics are highlighted. CAS remains an area of high interest with a publication growth rate of >20% per year. As numerous questions remain to be answered, the need to determine the role of CAS may drive further research.

Cognitive Function After Carotid Artery Revascularization

Clinical investigations designed to contrast the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus best medical therapy and CEA versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients with carotid artery stenosis have been based on the traditional endpoints of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. Cognitive function is being increasingly recognized as an important outcome measure that affects patient well-being and functional status. However, it has not been evaluated systematically in the context of carotid revascularization. A decline in cognitive function could occur from microembolic ischemia during surgical dissection (CEA) or intravascular instrumentation (CAS). It could also occur from hypoperfusion during clamping (CEA) or balloon dilation (CAS). Conversely, restoring perfusion could improve cognitive dysfunction that might have occurred from a state of chronic hypoperfusion. It is still unclear whether these complex interactions ultimately result in a net improvement or a deterioration of cognitive function. Furthermore, it is not known whether the 2 methods of carotid revascularization have a differential effect on cognitive outcomes. It is becoming increasingly clear, though, that there is a positive relationship between improvement in cognition and improvement in functional outcome of patients. Vascular surgeons will be well served to remain informed and even actively engaged in the development of this field if they wish to continue providing the high-quality, well-informed care they have traditionally offered to patients with carotid stenosis.

Recurrent carotid stenosis after CEA and CAS: diagnosis and management

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the preferred method for cerebral revascularization in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently emerged as a less invasive alternative to endarterectomy. Carotid stenting has been demonstrated to be technically feasible and safe in high-risk patients. It has been approved as an acceptable method for revascularization in circumstances where CEA yields suboptimal results. While the final role of CAS in carotid revascularization will be determined on the basis of ongoing randomized trials, it is clear that stenting will continue to be performed in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be a corresponding increase in the number of in-stent restenosis cases. Considerable controversy exists regarding the clinical significance, natural history, threshold for management, and appropriate intervention of recurrent carotid stenosis after endarterectomy and after stenting. This review analyzes current information on this important clinical problem and presents evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of recurrent carotid stenosis.

Treatment of carotid artery disease: Stenting or surgery?

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the only form of cerebral revascularization for which Level 1 evidence of effectiveness has been reported. Recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of carotid artery stenting (CAS) as an alternative to CEA. Its popularity is due to the perceived advantages of a less invasive treatment for carotid occlusive disease. Two randomized trials have reported no difference in the composite stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rate between CAS and CEA. However, these trials were not powered to identify superiority between the two procedures. A trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health is currently underway to make that determination. The lead-in phase of this trial noted low complication rates with CAS. These results have encouraged the US Food and Drug Administration to approve the use of CAS in patients with neurologic symptoms (ie, ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and amaurosis fugax) in association with severe medical co-morbidities. Patients with carotid restenosis after previous CEA, anatomically inaccessible lesions above C2, and radiation-induced stenoses may also benefit from preferential treatment with CAS. The National Institutes of Health have now expanded the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) to include asymptomatic patients, and resulting data will help to clarify the role of CAS in this subset as well.

Procedural safety and short-term outcome of ambulatory carotid stenting

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Ambulatory procedures increase patient comfort and enhance cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the feasibility and safety of ambulatory carotid stenting.

METHODS

A selected group of patients was admitted and discharged the same day after the carotid stenting procedure. Immediate and short-term outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

A total of 98 ambulatory carotid stenting procedures (98 hemispheres in 92 patients) were performed. There were 66 men (72%), and the mean age was 70+/-9 years. Of the patients, 28% had neurological symptoms related to the treated artery within 3 months before the procedure. Sixteen percent of the patients had prior carotid endarterectomy, 4% had prior ipsilateral neck radiation, and 8% had complete occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery. Successful access site hemostasis was ensured in all patients with suture-mediated vascular closure devices in 96 (98%) and manual compression in 2. Clinical follow-up was available for 96% of the patients at a mean time of 6+/-4 months. There were no neurological events, deaths, repeated procedures, or major access site complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory carotid stenting is both safe and feasible. This approach will enhance the applicability of the procedure by increasing patient comfort and potentially reducing procedural costs.