A comparison of carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection versus carotid endarterectomy under local anesthesia

Locoregional Versus General Anesthesia for Carotid Artery Stenting in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project

OBJECTIVES

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be performed by transfemoral or transcervical (TCAR) approaches and with a variety of anesthetic techniques. No current literature clearly supports one anesthetic method over another. We therefore sought to evaluate the outcomes of CAS procedures based on anesthetic approach.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2011 to 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

All individuals undergoing CAS during the study period.

INTERVENTIONS

Anesthetic type (locoregional versus general [GA]).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Locoregional anesthesia for CAS was used for 754 (65.5%) patients, with the remainder under GA. Demographic variables were comparable, as were the incidence of symptomatic presentation, high-risk anatomy or physiology, severity of the stenosis, and presence/severity of contralateral carotid disease. There was no difference in composite outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], and death) (7.0% v 6.1%, p = 0.53). The GA group had lower odds ratio of MI (0.12, p = 0.0362) but higher odds ratio of death (3.33, p = 0.008) and postoperative pneumonia (3.87, p = 0.0083), although on multivariable analysis the risk of death appeared confounded by respiratory variables. Multivariable and propensity score-weighted analyses did not identify a significant association of GA with the composite outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CAS in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, GA was not associated with the composite outcome but was associated with increased rates of postoperative pneumonia and decreased rates of MI. Further investigation should attempt to better clarify these relationships.

Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study

There are disparities among the results of meta-analyses under different circumstances of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. This study aimed to assess the efficacies of CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis at 5-year intervals and worldwide.Comparative studies simultaneously reporting CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis with at least 10 patients in each group were identified by searching PubMed and Embase in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles.The studies were stratified into different subgroups according to the publication year, location in which the study was mainly performed, and randomized and nonrandomized study designs.Thirty-five comparative studies encompassing 27,525 patients were identified. The risk ratios (RRs) of stroke/death when CAS was compared with CEA within 30 d of treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.32-1.74, P < 0.001) for overall, 1.50 (95% CI 1.14-1.98, P = 0.004) from 2011 to 2015, 1.61 (95% CI 1.35-1.91, P < 0.001) from 2006 to 2010, 1.59 (95% CI 1.27-1.99, P < 0.001) in North America, 1.50 (95% CI 1.24-1.81, P < 0.001) in Europe, 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.02, P < 0.001) for randomized, and 1.44 (95% CI 1.20-1.73, P < 0.001) for nonrandomized comparative studies. CEA decreased the risks of transient ischemic attack at 30 d (RR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.50-2.85, P < 0.001) and restenosis at 1-year (RR: 1.97, 95% CI 1.28-3.05, P = 0.002). Data from follow-up showed that the RRs of stroke/death were 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99, P = 0.04) at 1 year, 1.24 (95% CI 1.04-1.46, P = 0.01) at 4 year, and 2.27 (95% CI 1.39-3.71, P = 0.001) at 10 year. This systematic review, compared with those of other meta-analyses, included all available comparative studies and analyzed them at 5-year intervals, in different continents, and under different study designs. Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of CEA is superior to CAS for freedom from stroke/death within 30 d, especially from 2006 to 2015, in North America and Europe. Meanwhile, the superiority was also observed for restenosis at 1-year, transient ischemic attack within 30 d, and stroke/death at 4- and 10-year follow-ups.

Percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment by transluminal balloon angioplasty or stent insertion may be a useful alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004 and 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of endovascular treatment compared with carotid endarterectomy or medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched January 2012) and the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (1980 to January 2011) and Science Citation Index (1945 to January 2011). We also searched ongoing trials registers (January 2011) and reference lists and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing endovascular treatment (including balloon angioplasty or stenting) with endarterectomy or medical therapy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endovascular treatment as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials involving 7572 patients. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis at standard surgical risk, endovascular treatment was associated with a higher risk of the following outcome measures occurring between randomisation and 30 days after treatment than endarterectomy: death or any stroke (the primary safety outcome) (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.31, P = 0.0003; I(2) = 27%), death or any stroke or myocardial infarction (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.80, P = 0.002; I(2) = 7%), and any stroke (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34, P < 0.00001;I(2) = 12%). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.16 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.67) in patients < 70 years old and 2.20 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.29) in patients ≥ 70 years old (interaction P = 0.02).The rate of death or major or disabling stroke did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77, P = 0.13; I(2) = 0%). Endovascular treatment was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87, P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14, P < 0.00001; I(2) = 0%) and access site haematomas (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.77, P = 0.008; I(2) = 27%).The combination of death or any stroke up to 30 days after treatment or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.75, P = 0.005; I(2) = 0%), but the rate of ipsilateral stroke after the peri-procedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.45, P = 0.76; I(2) = 0%).Restenosis during follow-up was more common in patients receiving endovascular treatment than in patients assigned surgery (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.53, P = 0.007; I(2) = 55%). In patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, treatment effects on the primary safety (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.76, P = 0.18; I(2) = 0%) and combined safety and efficacy outcomes (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.33, P = 0.09; I(2) = 0%) were similar to symptomatic patients, but differences between treatments were not statistically significant. Among patients not suitable for surgery, the rate of death or any stroke between randomisation and end of follow-up did not differ significantly between endovascular treatment and medical care (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92, P = 0.41; I(2)= 79%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment is associated with an increased risk of peri-procedural stroke or death compared with endarterectomy. However, this excess risk appears to be limited to older patients. The longer term efficacy of endovascular treatment and the risk of restenosis are unclear and require further follow-up of existing trials. Further trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

Impact of silent ischemic lesions on cognition following carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The occurrence of silent ischemic lesions (SILs) is a common finding after carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of SILs on cognitive functioning following CAS.

METHODS

The retrospective study separated 131 patients with unilateral carotid stenosis into three groups: medication only, MRI-evaluated CAS and CT-evaluated CAS, and compared the sociodemographic factors, post-CAS images and Mini-Mental State Examination scores performed before and 6-12 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

Seven minor strokes occurred in the 99 patients receiving CAS. SILs were detected in 12 of 55 patients with diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) and in 3 of 37 patients with CT 1 week after CAS. In patients with DWI follow-up, the frequency of SILs was 8, 24, 43 and 60% in patients with 0-, 1-, 2- and 3-vessel coronary artery disease (p = 0.006). The frequency of SILs on DWI was 0, 32 and 33% in patients with improved, unchanged, or deteriorated cognitive functioning (p = 0.02). Such an association was not observed if based on SILs on CT or manifesting stroke.

CONCLUSION

The presence of coronary artery disease increases the risk for having post-CAS SILs, and the occurrence of SILs may be associated with cognitive changes after CAS.

Use of the Angiojet catheter to remove plaque outside a neuroprotection filter during carotid artery stenting

Carotid protection devices (CPD) during carotid artery stenting reduce the risk of cerebral embolization. The presence of debris outside the filter presents a problem as the material may be plaque or thrombus. We report a case that required the use of the Angiojet catheter to remove debris outside the CPD.

Cutting balloon angioplasty in percutaneous carotid interventions

PURPOSE

To report a prospective feasibility study of cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) applied in the predilation phase of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in highly calcified lesions.

METHODS

From January 2003 to February 2007, 178 consecutive patients (109 men; mean age 73.1+/-7.3 years) with highly calcified carotid lesions underwent CAS with CBA applied as a pre-specified strategy in the predilation phase of the procedure. All steps in the procedure were performed under cerebral filter protection. The cutting balloon ranged in diameter from 3 to 4 mm and was inflated at nominal pressures in the target lesion. Pre-CBA dilation with a low-profile coronary balloon was performed only when the cutting balloon was not able to cross the lesion. Selection of the filters and stents was at the operator's discretion. Primary endpoints were the all stroke and death rates at 30 days and 6 months. Secondary endpoints included cutting balloon success (positioning and full balloon inflation), CAS technical success (residual angiographic stenosis <30%), CAS procedural success (technical success and no complications), and in-hospital major complications.

RESULTS

Cutting balloon success was achieved in all 178 patients. In 32 (18.0%), pre-CBA dilation was necessary due to inability to cross the lesion with the cutting balloon initially. CAS technical success was achieved in all patients. One (0.6%) patient suffered transient neurological intolerance due to flow cessation from massive debris in the distal filter; this event was completely resolved after the filter was removed (CAS procedural success 99.4%). One patient suffered a major stroke at day 15 (0.6% 30-day all stroke and death rate). At the 6-month follow-up, 174 (97.7%) patients were evaluated; 1 patient died from myocardial infarction at day 35, and 2 patients died from non-neurological or cardiac causes at days 103 and 158. The cumulative all stroke and death rate was 2.2%.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that CBA performed during the predilation phase of CAS in highly calcified lesion is a safe and useful method to prepare this lesion subset for stenting.

Carotid Stenting without Angioplasty and without Protection: The Advantages of a Less Invasive Procedure

SUMMARY

Endovascular stenting is a consolidated alternative to thrombendarterectomy in the treatment of extracranial carotid artery atheromasic stenosis. The most common complication of stenting is a distal embolism causing clinically silent orsymptomatic cerebral ischaemia. To prevent this complication distal embolism protection devices are often used but their effectiveness remains unsettled. In addition, there is some evidence that distal embolism may actually be triggered by the protection systems due to clot formationat their distal surface or in the intimal lesions these systems cause. Another rarer complicationis hyperperfusion syndrome arising during both stenting and thrombendarterectomy but more common in endovascular procedures. To avoid these complications the Neuroradiology Service at Bellaria Hospital (Bologna Local Health Trust) has devised a mini-invasive carotid stenting technique that does not require either distal embolism protection or angioplasty. The technique uses only the radial force exerted by the self-expanding stent to widen the atherosclerotic stenosis slowly and gradually. The goal of treatment has also changed from a prompt restoration of the atheromasic vessel's original calibre to slow transformation of the hemodynamic significance of the stenosis. The technique's success lies mainly in selecting the stenosis to treat using CT angiography to analyse plaque morphology and structure.We used the technique to treat 83 stenotic lesions in 75 patients. The study aims to describe and discussour experience.

Risk factors and angiographic technical considerations to guide carotid intervention

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with embolic protection is currently accepted as treatment for patients considered to be at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of this study was (1) to determine what proportion of patients treated with CEA would be categorized as "high" risk by currently accepted criteria, (2) to characterize preoperative angiographic findings in patients with carotid stenosis, and (3) to determine the potential technical challenges of CAS in these patients. Consecutive patients who underwent CEA from January 1999 through August 2004 prior to introduction of CAS at our institution were identified. Demographics, indications, perioperative complications, and deaths were reviewed. Published guidelines defining high risk for CEA were applied, and preoperative angiograms were examined for technical limitations to CAS. Two hundred and seventy-nine CEAs were performed in 259 patients for asymptomatic carotid occlusive disease (57%), transient ischemic attacks (35%), or stroke (8%) during the study period. Of these, 35.5% (n = 99) would have met one or more high-risk criteria. Overall risks of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, and death were 1.1%, 2.2%, and 0.4% (n = 279), respectively, with a combined major complication rate of 3.3%. No difference in major complication rates was observed between standard-risk and high-risk patients. Preoperative angiograms were available for review in 83.5% of CEAs (n = 233). The distribution of aortic arch configurations included types I (3.5%), IIa (39.5%), IIb (54.5%), and III (1.3%). Aortic arch anomalies were observed in 15.5% (n = 35) of angiograms. There were 77.7% (n = 181) with one or more angiographic findings that would have increased the technical difficulty of CAS, but only 17.6% had relative angiographic contraindications to CAS. A significant proportion of patients with carotid stenosis previously managed with CEA would be categorized as high risk and considered potential candidates for CAS by currently accepted criteria. Based on preoperative angiography, technically challenging factors, some of which limit the ability to perform CAS, are common and should be anticipated when planning CAS.

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment by transluminal balloon angioplasty or stent insertion may be a useful alternative to carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of endovascular treatment compared with carotid endarterectomy or medical therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 14 March 2007) and the following bibliographic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2007), EMBASE (1980 to March 2007) and Science Citation Index (1945 to March 2007). We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised trials of endovascular treatment compared with endarterectomy or medical therapy for carotid artery stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Search results were validated by a second review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Data were available from 12 trials (3227 patients) but not all contributed to each analysis. The primary outcome comparison of any stroke or death within 30 days of treatment favoured surgery (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, P = 0.02, not significant (NS) in the random-effects model). The following outcome comparisons favoured endovascular treatment over surgery: cranial neuropathy (OR 0.07, P < 0.01); 30 day neurological complication or death (OR 0.62, P = 0.004, NS in the random-effects model, with significant heterogeneity). The following outcome comparisons showed little difference between endovascular treatment and surgery: 30 day stroke, myocardial infarction or death (OR 1.11, P = 0.57 with significant heterogeneity); stroke during long-term follow up (OR 1.00). Comparison between endovascular treatment with or without protection device showed no significant difference in 30 day stroke or death (OR 0.77, P = 0.42 with significant heterogeneity). Analysis of stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure in asymptomatic carotid stenosis showed no difference (OR 1.06, P = 0.96). In patients not suitable for surgery, there was no significant difference in 30 day stroke or death (OR 0.39, P = 0.09 with significant heterogeneity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data are difficult to interpret because the trials are heterogeneous (different patients, endovascular procedures, and duration of follow up) and five trials were stopped early, perhaps leading to an over-estimate of the risks of endovascular treatment. The pattern of effects on different outcomes does not support a change in clinical practice away from recommending carotid endarterectomy as the treatment of choice for suitable carotid artery stenosis.

Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting is a Safe and Durable Procedure in a Community Hospital

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been touted as a reasonable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for high-risk surgical candidates. Several published CAS series, primarily from academic centers, show immediate results approaching those of CEA. However, very little is known about long-term results with CAS, particularly in the community hospital setting. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed our CAS experience. From February 1999 to July 2003, 44 consecutive patients underwent placement of 46 stents. The mean patient age was 73 years, and 57 per cent were men. Most patients were asymptomatic (74%). High-risk categories included prior CEA (71%), other anatomic risks (13%), and/or significant medical comorbidities (16%). Technical success was achieved in all 46 cases. At 30 days, there were no deaths and one stroke, giving a combined stroke/mortality of 2 per cent. Clinical follow-up was obtained on all 44 patients at a mean follow-up of 42 months. Duplex scans performed on 44 stents (96%), at a mean follow-up of 40 months, demonstrated four 60 per cent to 79 per cent recurrent stenoses. CAS in a community hospital can have a 30-day stroke/mortality equivalent to CEA. The procedure is durable, with no critical (80%–99%) carotid restenoses and no stroke or transient ischemic attacks referable to a stented carotid artery in long-term follow-up.

A Short Incision for Carotid Endarterectomy Results in Decreased Morbidity

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of a short incision (<5 cm) on the complication rate of the carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 1994 to December 2005, 874 patients underwent 1048 primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedures. Seven hundred and sixty nine operations were performed through a long neck incision (group A), while 279 were performed through a smaller incision (<5 cm) according to a standard protocol (group B). Preoperative and postoperative cranial nerve assessment was completed on all patients. The main outcome measures were stroke, death, cranial and cervical nerve injuries rates.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was 0.26% in group A and 0.35% in group B (p=.792). The stroke rate was 0.13% and 0% in group A and B respectively (p=.839). The mean length of stay was 2.59 days in group A and 1.67 days in group B (p<.0001). In group A the overall incidence of motor and sensory nerve deficits was 13.5% (104 CEA, 92 patients) but in group B 2.9% (8 CEA, 7 patients, p<.0001, odds ratio [OR] 0.189, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.091-0.393).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid endarterectomy through a small incision is a feasible and safe approach that provides cosmetic results and fewer nerve complications without compromising the safety of the procedure.

Carotid Artery Stent Placement with Embolic Protection: Single-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of carotid artery stent placement with embolic protection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a 2-year period (May 2003 to April 2005), 232 patients underwent carotid artery stent placement with the Acculink RX stent-graft and an embolic protection device. There were 150 men (mean age,70 years; age range, 58-85 years) and 82 women (mean age, 76 years; age range, 56-82 years). One hundred sixty-five patients were symptomatic and 67 were asymptomatic. All patients were at high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

RESULTS

The procedure was technically successful in 231 patients. The procedure was stopped in one patient due to asystole. In three patients, a cervical approach was necessary owing to aortic arch anatomy. During the procedure,11 patients (4.74%) experienced bradycardia and two developed a major stroke (0.86%). The mean follow-up was 30 months (range, 12-36 months). Four patients died. No stent occlusion was observed. During the late follow-up period(>30 days), two patients (0.86%) had minor strokes, three (1.29%) had nonfatal transient ischemic attacks, and seven(3.01%) had myocardial infarctions.

CONCLUSION

Carotid artery stent placement with cerebral protection by using the specific devices compares favorably to previously reported surgical results.

Clinical outcomes and cost comparison of carotid artery angioplasty with stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has evolved as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid occlusive disease. Some concerns have arisen regarding the high cost of stents and neuroprotection devices, which may inflate the overall procedural costs relative to CEA. We report here a review and analysis contrasting the clinical outcomes and associated hospital costs incurred for patients treated with either CAS or CEA.

METHODS

Ninety-four consecutive patients with surgically amenable carotid stenosis were offered CAS or CEA. Forty-six patients elected CAS, and 48 patients underwent CEA. CAS was performed with the Smart Precise or Acculink stents, and all procedures included neuroprotection (Filter Wire or Accunet). CEA was performed with patients under general anesthesia with routine shunting and with Dacron or bovine pericardium patches. Clinical outcomes such as perioperative mortality, major adverse events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and death), length of stay, and the incidence of hemodynamic instability were analyzed. Total costs, indirect costs, and direct procedural costs associated with hospitalization were also reviewed.

RESULTS

CAS was associated with a shorter length of stay compared with CEA (1.2 vs 2.1 days; P = .02). Differences in perioperative mortality (0% vs 2%; P = NS), major adverse events (2% vs 10%; P = .36), strokes (2% vs 4%; P = NS), myocardial infarctions (0% vs 4%; P = .49), and hypotension necessitating pressor support (21% vs 18%; P = NS) were not statistically significant. By using cost to charge ratio methodology according to the Medicare report, CAS was associated with higher total procedural costs (US dollars 17,402 vs US dollars 12,112; P = .029) and direct costs (US dollars 10,522 vs US dollars 7227; P = .017). The differences in indirect costs were not significant (US dollars 6879 vs US dollars 4885; P = .063).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS with neuroprotection was associated with clinical outcomes equivalent to those with CEA but had higher total hospital costs. These higher costs reflect the addition of expensive devices that have improved the technical success and the clinical outcomes associated with CAS.

Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Stenting under the Circumstance of Neuroprotection Device. A Retrospective Analysis

SUMMARY

In this study, in order to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (CAS) with the use of neuroprotection in symptomatic patients, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 27 patients (19 men, eight women; median age, 69.2 years), all of whom had been scheduled to undergo bilateral CAS in a single setting. All patients presented with severe atherosclerotic bilateral carotid stenosis (> 50% for symptomatic side, > 80% for asymptomatic side), exhibiting symptoms of either a cerebrovascular accident or of a transient ischemic attack on at least one side. 48 arteries were treated with self-expandable stents. Neuroprotection devices were utilized for bilateral CAS in 11 patients, and in 16 unilateral CAS patients. We did not perform the second procedure in six patients, in cases in which a patient exhibited (a) hemodynamic instability, (b) a new neurological impairment, or (c) restlessness after a prolonged time for the first CAS. The second procedure was postponed in a staged manner. We achieved a mean residual stenosis of 8.1 +/- 5.0 % in the treated lesions. The mean procedural time for bilateral CAS was three hours and 18 minutes. 17 patients (63%) developed transient bradycardia during the balloon dilatation of one or both of the relevant arteries. Three patients (11%) exhibited persistent bradycardia and hypotension, which required the administration of intravenous vasopressors for several days (2~7 days). None of the patients ultimately required pacemakers, or any further therapy. Two of the patients (7%) developed transient ischemic attack during the periprocedural period, but recovered completely. One patient developed a new minor stroke after the first procedure, and the second procedure was delayed in a staged manner.We observed no periprocedural deaths, major strokes, or myocardial infarctions, nor did we detect any cases of hyperperfusion syndrome within 30 days. In summary, simultaneous bilateral CAS with neuroprotection can be performed in a single setting without increased concerns with regard to hyperperfusion syndrome, hemodynamic instability, thrombo-embolism, or procedure time, when the first CAS has been safely completed with no evidence of complications in a wellmanaged procedure time.