Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Occlusion

The Effect of Severe Contralateral Carotid Stenosis or Occlusion on Early Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: Stenosis of the carotid arteries, as a consequence of atherosclerosis is the most common cause of cerebrovascular insult (CVI). Severe (>70%) contralateral stenosis or occlusion (SCSO) of the carotid artery may represent an additional pre-operative risk factor  for neurologic incidents.             AIM: The aim of this study was to confirm and compare early perioperative results (0-30 days) of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with and without SCSO.                 PATIENT AND METHODS: In our retrospective-prospective study, we analysed the results of 273 CEA, divided into two groups based on the presence of significant contralateral stenosis or occlusion (non-SCSO and SCSO groups)             RESULTS: 273 CEA’s were performed, divided into two groups: SCSO groups 40 (14.7%) and non-SCSO group 233 (85.3%). Between the two groups, a statistically significant difference between patients was found (54.1% compared to 87.5%; p<0.0005), CEA with patch angioplasty (25.3% compared to 52.5%; p=0.001),  and CEA with the use of a shunt (3.9% compared to 35%; p<0.0005) in favour of the SCSO group. There was no statistically significant difference (SCSO was not identified as a risk factor) for any type of stroke or mortality. Logistically regression confirmed SCSO to be an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 21.58; 95% CI  1.27-36.3; p= 0.033) and any type of stroke or mortality (OR 9.27; 95% CI  1.61-53.22; p= 0.012). SCSO was not a predictor of any type of stroke within 30 days. Predictors of any type of stroke was dyslipidemia (OR 0.12, 95% CI  0.02-0.76; p= 0.024).             CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of early (30 day) perioperative complications between the analysed groups. The percentage of perioperative complications remains within the accepted parameters, and thus, SCSO should not be qualified as a significant risk factor for CEA. We are of the opinion that CEA remains a safe and acceptable options for patients with SCSO, and SCSO should not be a reason for preferential use of carotid stenting.

Outcomes and role of shunting during carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic patients

OBJECTIVE

Shunt placement during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is often advocated to protect the ischemic penumbra in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. This study assesses the effect of shunt placement on postoperative stroke risk in symptomatic patients undergoing CEA.

METHODS

We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2019) for CEA cases with complete CEA procedure-targeted data. Symptomatic patients were identified as having a preoperative diagnosis of stroke on presentation (DS), transient ischemic attack (TIA), amaurosis fugax (AF), or temporary monocular blindness (TMB). DS patients were further analyzed according to the severity of their stroke based on their modified Rankin Scale (mRS). To better assess the effect of shunt placement on stroke rate, we compared cases of CEA with patch angioplasty technique, with and without the use of intraoperative shunt. Patients who underwent carotid eversion or primary closure were excluded. Baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes were compared using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for postoperative stroke and cranial nerve injury.

RESULTS

We identified 4,652 cases of CEA with patch angioplasty in symptomatic patients, including 1,889 (40.6%) with shunt placement and 2,763 (59.4%) without. Age, race, and sex distributions were similar for both procedures. Compared to patients without shunt, those with shunt had significantly higher rates of emergency (9.1% vs 7.0%, P = .010) and non-elective surgery (40.3% vs 37.2%, P = .035), general anesthesia (97.0% vs 86.3%, P < .001), and bleeding disorders (27.2% vs 22.7%, P < .001). Thirty-day incidence of postoperative stroke was similar between patients who had shunt placement (3.2%) and those who did not (2.6%) (P = .219). Additionally, subgroup analysis failed to show any benefit of shunting on postoperative stroke regardless of preoperative symptoms or neurologic disability. In contrast, shunt placement was associated with increased rate of cranial nerve injury (4.1% vs 2.4%, P = .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that non-elective surgery (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.36-2.91, P < .001) and DS (vs TIA/AF/TMB) (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.12-2.41, P = .012) were predictive of 30-day postoperative stroke. After adjusting for confounders, shunt placement had no effect on stroke risk at 30 days but remained an independent risk factor for cranial nerve injury (aOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32-2.64, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic patients undergoing CEA with patch angioplasty, shunting is associated with increased risk of cranial nerve injury without reduction in postoperative stroke risk.

Performance of Carotid Revascularization Procedures as Modified by Sex

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations on carotid revascularization postulate that women have both increased perioperative risks, such as stroke and death, as well as reduced benefit from intervention. These recommendations do not include data on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). This study strives to compare safety and benefits of TCAR, TFCAS (Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting), and CEA (Carotid Endarterectomy) with regard to patient sex.

METHODS

We performed retrospective analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) CEA and stenting registries, as well as TCAR Surveillance Project data. We compared outcomes after TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA based on sex. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke, death, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, stroke/TIA, and recurrent ipsilateral stroke and/or death at 1-year of follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 75,538 patients were included, of which 28,960 (38.3%) were female and 46,578 (61.7%) were male. TFCAS females had more than 2 times higher odds of stroke/death (OR:2.85, 95%CI: 2.21-3.67, P < 0.001) and stroke/death/MI (OR:2.23, 95%CI:1.75-2.83, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. Odds of TIA were also higher in both TFCAS females (OR:2.01, 95%CI:1.19-3.42, P = 0.010) and TCAR females (OR:1.91, 95%CI:1.09-3.35, P = .023) when compared to CEA females. However, only TFCAS females experienced increased odds of stroke/TIA (OR:1.96, 95%CI:1.45-2.65, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. TFCAS males had almost twice the odds of stroke/death (OR:1.74, 95%CI:1.39-2.16, P < 0.001) and 44% higher odds of stroke/death/MI (OR:1.44, 95%CI:1.19-1.75, P < 0.001), and more than 3-times increased odds of death (OR:3.45, 95%CI:2.53-4.71, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA males. Odds of in-hospital stroke were comparable between TFCAS and CEA after adjusting for covariates. TCAR males have half the odds of MI when compared to CEA males (OR:0.52, 95%CI:0.34-0.80, P = 0.003). At 1-year TCAR had comparable risk of stroke/death while TFCAS had increased risk of stroke/death when compared to CEA among both males and females.

CONCLUSION

TCAR performed similarly to CEA in both sexes regardless of symptomatic status. Stroke/death and stroke/death/MI rates were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic males and females treated by CEA or TCAR. The 1-year outcomes of TCAR were also comparable to CEA in both sexes. It seems that TCAR may be a safe alternative to CEA particularly in women when surgical risk prohibits CEA and while TFCAS is associated with substantial adverse outcomes.

Contralateral Stenosis and Echolucent Plaque Morphology are Associated with Elevated Stroke Risk in Patients Treated with Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis within a Controlled Clinical Trial (SPACE-2)

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACS) has a low risk of stroke. To achieve an advantage over noninterventional best medical treatment (BMT), carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) must be performed with the lowest possible risk of stroke. Therefore, an analysis of risk-elevating factors is essential. Grade of ipsilateral and contralateral stenosis as well as plaque morphology are known risk factors in ACS.

METHODS

The randomized, controlled, multicenter SPACE-2 trial had to be stopped prematurely after recruiting 513 patients. 203 patients were randomized to CEA, 197 to CAS, and 113 to BMT. Within one year, risk factors such as grade of stenosis and plaque morphology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Grade of contralateral stenosis (GCS) was higher in patients with any stroke (50%^ECST vs. 20%^ECST; p=0.012). Echolucent plaque morphology was associated with any stroke on the day of intervention (OR 5.23; p=0.041). In the periprocedural period, any stroke was correlated with GCS in the CEA group (70%^ECST vs. 20%^ECST; p=0.026) and with echolucent plaque morphology in the CAS group (6% vs. 1%; p=0.048). In multivariate analysis, occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery (CCO) was associated with risk of any stroke (OR 7.00; p=0.006), without heterogeneity between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSION

In patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, GCS, CCO, as well as echolucent plaque morphology were associated with a higher risk of cerebrovascular events. The risk of stroke in the periprocedural period was increased by GCS in CEA and by echolucent plaque in CAS. Due to small sample size, results must be interpreted carefully.

Severe contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion drive 30-day risk after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

The significant effects on the treatment of severe carotid stenosis by carotid endarterectomy have been widely recognized. However, it is controversial whether patients with severe contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion (SCSO) can benefit from carotid endarterectomy surgery. This study aimed to estimate the SCSO effects on early outcomes after carotid endarterectomy with selective shunting.

METHODS

Between August 2011 and October 2019, a total of 617 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy with selective shunting were analyzed. SCSO was defined as >70% luminal narrowing of the contralateral extracranial carotid stenosis or occlusion. Of these patients, 116 were categorized into an SCSO group while the rest were assigned to the non-SCSO group. Primary study outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse events, defined as stroke, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction during the perioperative period after carotid endarterectomy. Traditional multivariable logistic regression model and logistic regression model adjusted for propensity scores were used to estimate the SCSO effects on primary outcomes. Interaction and stratified analyses were conducted according to age, sex, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes), preoperative neurological deficit, preoperative symptoms, and shunt use.

RESULTS

Mean age was 68.5 ± 9.2 years (86.1% men). Overall major adverse events rate within 30 days was 2.5%. Major adverse events rates in SCSO and non-SCSO groups were 9.5% and 1.6%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, patients with SCSO had a higher risk of major adverse events (non-SCSO vs. SCSO: aOR 5.05 [95% CI, 1.78-14.55]). In 342 propensity score matched patients, results were consistent (propensity score: aOR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.13-12.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

SCSO is an independent predictor of 30-day major adverse events. Whether these patients with SCSO are suitable for carotid endarterectomy should be carefully considered.

Influence of contralateral carotid artery occlusions on short- and long-term outcomes of carotid artery stenting: a retrospective single-center analysis and review of literature

BACKGROUND

In the current literature, correlations between a contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) with mortality and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rates after carotid artery stenting (CAS) are often described with controversial conclusions. Moreover, long-term results of mortality, MACCE and restenosis rate are scarcely reported. This study examined the association between a CCO and the short- and long-term outcomes after CAS.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-six patients with CCO and without (No-CCO) who underwent between 2010 and 2017 to a CAS procedure in a single institution were retrospectively evaluated. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate mortality and MACCE rates in the short-term (defined as the occurrence during hospitalization and within 30-day) and after 3-year follow-up. The secondary aim of the study was to examine the restenosis rates in the short- and long-term period.

RESULTS

The overall success of CAS was 99.3% and the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 0.7% (one death). About MACCE, there were no major strokes in the CCO groups and 1 (1.4%) in the No-CCO group (P=1.00). The rate of 30-day minor strokes was 1.4% (1 patient) in the CCO group and 2.7% (2 patients) in the No-CCO group (P=1.00). In the 3-year follow-up, death occurred in 11 CCO vs. 6 No-CCO patients, respectively (15.1% vs. 8.2%, P=0.30). Regarding MACCE, major stroke occurred in 6 CCO vs. 2 No-CCO patients (8.2% vs. 2.7%, P=0.27), minor stroke in 6 CCO vs. 6 No-CCO (8.2% vs. 8.2%, P=1.0) and myocardial infarction in 6 CCO (8.2%) vs. 3 No-CCO patients (8.2 vs. 4.1%, P=0.49), respectively. Regarding the 30-day restenosis rate, it was observed in one patient (1.4%) in the CCO group while no cases were recorded in the No-CCO group, respectively (P=1.00). In the 3-year follow-up, greater than >50% restenosis was observed in 7 patients (9.6%) in the CCO group and in one patient (1.4%) in the No-CCO group (P=0.06), respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that CCO patients had a lower 3-year freedom from restenosis rate with respect to the No-CCO group (87.6% vs. 98.6%, P=0.024). A Cox regression model on 3-year restenosis highlighted female gender and hypertension to be statistically significant predictors of restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a preexisting CCO did not show a significative increased risk of procedural adverse events after CAS both in the immediate and long-term follow-up, but on the long term they are more likely to experience restenosis. CCO condition should be considered always as a clinical manifestation of a more aggressive carotid atherosclerosis.

Does severe contralateral carotid artery stenosis affect the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy?

Background

This study aims to evaluate the effect of contralateral internal carotid artery stenosis on postoperative stroke and mortality rate and blood pressure alterations following carotid artery endarterectomy.

Methods

Between January 2009 and April 2017, a total of 152 carotid artery endarterectomy operations in 141 consecutive patients (30 females, 111 males; mean age 70.0±10.2 years; range, 48 to 92 years) with internal carotid artery stenosis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups as those with contralateral internal carotid artery stenosis <70% (n=95) and contralateral internal carotid artery stenosis ?70% (n=26). Stroke and mortality rates in the early postoperative period (within the first 30 days), postoperative blood pressure alterations at six and 24 hours, non-neurological outcomes, and baseline demographic characteristics were analyzed and compared between the groups.

Results

Both groups showed similar results in terms of the demographic characteristics. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative blood pressure alterations at six (p=0.917) and 24 hours (p=0.6), stroke rate (7.6% vs. 3.1%, p=0.282), mortality rate (3.8% vs. 2.1%, p=0.519), non-neurological complications (15.3% vs. 11.4%, p=0.736), and length of hospital stay (p>0.05) between the groups. The patients with contralateral severe internal carotid artery stenosis were younger (p=0.005).

Conclusion

The present study shows that the presence of a contralateral severe internal carotid artery stenosis does not increase the risk of postoperative stroke and mortality rates and blood pressure alterations. Therefore, carotid artery endarterectomy can be performed with acceptable complication rates in patients with contralateral severe internal carotid artery stenosis with strict perioperative hemodynamic monitoring.

Presence of Contralateral Carotid Occlusion Is Associated With Increased Periprocedural Stroke Risk Following CEA but Not CAS: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of 43 Studies and 96,658 Patients

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic role of contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) in perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS). Materials and Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched up to September 2018 to identify observational or randomized studies that compared outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with vs without CCO. Forty-three studies (46 arms) comprising 96,658 patients were selected (75,857 CEA and 20,801 CAS). The CCO group included 9258 patients. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Higgins I² test. I²>75% indicated significant heterogeneity. A random effects model was used to account for heterogeneity among studies. The results were reported as the odds ratios (ORs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression analysis examined potential confounders. Publication bias was quantified by the Egger method. Results: Carotid revascularization in patients with CCO was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.23, p<0.001; I²=0%), stroke (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.22, p<0.001; I²=46%), transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.27, p=0.001; I²=15%), and the composite endpoint of stroke/death (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.05, p<0.001; I²=0%). No difference was noted in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.31; p=0.388; I²=0%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that CEA in patients with CCO was associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.49, p<0.001; I²=14%), death (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.10, p<0.001; I²=0%), TIA (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.45, p<0.001; I²=13%), and stroke/death (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.10, p<0.001; I²=0%), whereas CCO patients who were treated with CAS were at an increased risk for death (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.60, p=0.023; I²=0%) but not stroke (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.47; p=0.080; I²=31%) or TIA (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.55; p=0.861; I²=43%). The meta-regression analysis did not find any significant association for any of the outcomes, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization outcomes are adversely affected by the presence of CCO. Patients with CCO have a significantly higher risk of periprocedural stroke, death, and TIA. CEA in patients with CCO is associated with an increased risk of perioperative stroke, death, TIA, and death/stroke, while CAS in the presence of a CCO is associated with an increased risk of periprocedural death but not stroke or TIA.

Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients with Contralateral Carotid Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from studies investigating the effect of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are variable in the literature. We sought to determine whether CEA or CAS is the optimal revascularization approach for patients with CCO.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I² statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed as needed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective observational cohort studies comprising 6346 patients were included. Patients in the CEA group had a significantly lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.71; I² = 0%). However, no significant differences were identified in terms of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients did not yield significant differences for stroke, MI, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CCO can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of stroke, MI, and MACE. However, patients treated with CEA have a lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality. Future studies can help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.

The impact of contralateral carotid artery stenosis on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Patients with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) have been excluded from randomized clinical trials because of a deemed high risk for adverse neurologic outcomes with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Evidence for this rationale is limited and conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes after CEA between patients with and without CCO and varying degrees of contralateral carotid stenosis (CCS).

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CEA from 2003 to 2015 in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) registry. Patients were stratified by preoperative symptom status and presence of CCO. Multivariable analysis was used to account for differences in demographics and comorbidities. Our primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death risk.

RESULTS

Of 15,487 patients we identified who underwent CEA, 10,377 (67%) were asymptomatic. CCO was present in 914 patients, of whom 681 (75%) were asymptomatic. Overall, the 30-day stroke/death was 2.0% for symptomatic patients (CCO: 2.6%) and 1.1% for asymptomatic patients (CCO: 2.3%). After adjustment, including symptom status, CCO was associated with higher 30-day stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.3; P = .001), any in-hospital stroke (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.6; P < .001), in-hospital ipsilateral stroke (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .02), in-hospital contralateral stroke (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.2-11.4; P < .001), and prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001). CCS of 80% to 99% was only associated with a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01), not with in-hospital stroke. Neither CCO nor CCS was associated with 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CCO increases the risk of 30-day stroke/death, in-hospital strokes, and prolonged length of stay after CEA, the 30-day stroke/death rates in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with CCO remain within the recommended thresholds set by the 14 societies' guideline document. Thus, CCO should not qualify as a high-risk criterion for CEA. Moreover, there is no evidence that patients with CCO have lower stroke/death rates after carotid artery stenting than after CEA. We believe that CEA remains a valid and safe option for patients with CCO and that CCO should not be applied as a criterion to promote carotid artery stenting per se.

Characteristics that define high risk in carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Study Group of New England

OBJECTIVE

The Stenting with Angioplasty and Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial compared carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to carotid artery stenting (CAS) among high-risk patients using a model of risk that has not been validated by previous publications. The objective of our study was to determine the accuracy of this high-risk model and to determine the true risk factors that result in patients being at high risk for CEA.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for 3098 CEAs between 2003 and 2011 at 20 Vascular Surgery Group of New England (VSGNE) centers were used. SAPPHIRE general inclusion criteria and primary outcomes were assessed. Factors that were associated with the primary outcome by analysis of variance (P < .10) and not linearly dependent, as determined by a Pearson correlation analysis, were further assessed for an independent association by multivariate logistic regression. A risk index model was developed for these significant predictors to accurately define high-risk CEA.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 69.9 ± 9.5 years, 60% were male, and 45.7% were asymptomatic. The 1-year composite outcome event rate, defined as postoperative myocardial infarction and stroke or death, was 14.2%. Multivariate analysis (P < .05) found the following independently significant risk factors: age in years (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.1; P < .001), preadmission living in a nursing home (95% CI, 1.2-6.6; P = .020), congestive heart failure (95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001), diabetes mellitus (DM; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (95% CI, 1.2-1.5; P < .001), any previous cerebrovascular disease (95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003), and contralateral internal carotid artery stenosis (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .001). Three of the SAPPHIRE high-risk criteria-abnormal stress test, recurrent stenosis after CEA, and previous radiotherapy to the neck-were not independently associated with an adverse outcome. Independently significant risk factors not included in the SAPPHIRE criteria are inclusion of ages <80 years, preadmission living in a nursing home, DM, contralateral carotid stenosis, and any previous cerebrovascular accident. The risk index predictors are age in years (40-49: 0 points; 50-59: 2 points; 60-69: 4 points; 70-79: 6 points; 80-89: 8 points), living in a nursing home (4 points), any cardiovascular disease (2 points), congestive heart failure (5 points), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (3 points), DM (2 points), degree of contralateral stenosis (<50%: 0 points; 50%-69%: 1 point; 70%-near occlusion: 2 points; occlusion: 3 points). High-risk CEA is defined as >13 points, representing adverse outcome rate of 22.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPPHIRE and other previously reported high-risk CAS inclusion criteria do not include all of the factors found to be independently associated with outcomes. Further studies are required to determine whether CAS is inferior to CEA in high-risk patients using a validated model of risk. In addition, this preoperative assessment includes novel criteria that can be used to stratify risks.

Meta- analysis and meta-regression analysis of the associations between sex and the operative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy

Background

Subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials (RCT) of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis suggest less benefit in women compared to men, due partly to higher age-independent peri-operative risk. However, a meta-analysis of case series and databases focussing on CEA-related gender differences has never been investigated.

Methods

A systematic review of all available publications (including case series, databases and RCTs) reporting data on the association between sex and procedural risk of stroke and/or death following CEA from 1980 to 2015 was investigated. Pooled Peto odds ratios of the procedural risk of stroke and/or death were obtained by Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis. The I² statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. Potential publication bias was assessed with the Egger test and represented graphically with Begg funnel plots of the natural log of the OR versus its standard error. Additional sensitivity analyses were undertaken to evaluate the potential effect of key assumptions and study-level factors on the overall results. Meta-regression models were formed to explore potential heterogeneity as a result of potential risk factors or confounders on outcomes. A tria sequential analysis (TSA) was performed with the aim to maintain an over- all 5 % risk of type I error, being the standard in most meta- analyses and systematic reviews.

Results

58 articles reported combined stroke and mortality rates within 30 days of treatment. In the unselected overall meta-analysis, the incidence of stroke and death in the male and female groups differed significantly (Peto OR, 1,162; 95 % CI, 1.067-1.266; P = .001), revealing a worse outcome for female patients. Moderate heterogeneity among the studies was identified (I² = 36 %), and the possibility of publication bias was low (P = .03). In sensitivity analyses the meta-analysis of case series with gender aspects as a secondary outcome showed a significantly increased risk for 30-day stroke and death in women compared to men (Peto OR, 1.390; 95 % CI, 1.148-1.684; P = .001), In contrast, meta-analysis of databases (Peto OR, 1.025; 95 % CI, 0.958-1.097; P = .474) and case series with gender related outcomes as a primary aim (Peto OR, 1.202; 95 % CI, 0.925-1.561; P = .168) demonstrated no increase in operative risk of stroke and death in women compared to men.

Conclusions

Metanalyses of case series and databases dealing with CEA reveal inconsistent results regarding gender differences related to CEA-procedure and should not be transferred into clinical practice.

Selecting an appropriate surgical treatment instead of carotid artery stenting alone according to the patient's risk factors contributes to reduced perioperative complications in patients with internal carotid stenosis: a single institutional retrospective analysis

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the perioperative complications for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS) in a Japanese single institute between the use of carotid artery stenting (CAS) alone or the use of an appropriate individualized treatment method allowing either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or CAS based on patient risk factors. Based on the policy at our hospital, only CAS was performed on patients (n = 33) between January 2005 and November 2009. From December 2009 to December 2012, either CEA or CAS (tailored treatment) was selected for patients (n = 61) based on individual patient risk factors. CEA was considered the first-line treatment in all cases. In high-risk CEA cases, CAS was performed instead (n = 11), whereas in low-risk CEA cases, CEA was performed (n = 19). Further, in moderate-risk CEA cases based on own criteria, CAS was considered first, whereas for high-risk CAS cases, CEA was performed (n = 17). For low-risk CAS cases, CAS was performed (n = 9). Perioperative clinical complications (any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days) were compared between both periods. Significantly reduced perioperative complications were observed during the tailored period (4/61 sites, 6.6%) as compared with the CAS period (8/33 sites, 24.2%) [Fisher’s exact test p = 0.022; odds ratio, 4.56 (CAS/tailored); 95% confidence interval, 1.26–16.5]. Selecting an appropriate individualized treatment method according to patient risk factors, as opposed to adhering to a single treatment approach such as CAS, may contribute to improved overall outcomes in patients with ICS.

The influence of contralateral occlusion on results of carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry

OBJECTIVE

Data on the influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are conflicting and are absent for carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study evaluated the influence of CCO on CEA and CAS.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with and without CCO in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry. Primary outcome was a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and its individual components. Further analysis was done to identify the influence, if any, of symptom status on outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 1128 CAS and 666 CEA patients with CCO. CAS patients were more often symptomatic with a greater incidence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and New York Heart Association class >III. Absolute risk of periprocedural MACE (2.7% for CAS vs. 4.2% for CEA), death (1.1% for CAS vs. 0.7% for CEA), stroke (2.1% for CAS vs. 3.1% for CEA), and MI (0.3% for CAS vs. 0.6% for CEA) was statistically equivalent for both. This equivalence was maintained when patients with CCO were segregated according to symptom status and after adjusting for periprocedural risk. There were 16,646 patients without contralateral occlusion (5698 CAS; 10,948 CEA). Patients without contralateral occlusion with CEA have better outcomes in periprocedural MACE (1.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 4.2% for patients with CCO), and stroke (1.1% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 3.1% for patients with CCO) (P < .0001 for both). In CAS patients, CCO did not significantly affect periprocedural MACE (3.2% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.7% for patients with CCO), death (0.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 1.0% for patients with CCO), stroke (2.3% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 2.1% for patients with CCO), or MI (0.6% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs. 0.3% for patients with CCO). In CEA patients, CCO increased MACE, primarily by increasing stroke rates in asymptomatic (0.7% vs. 2.0%; P = .0095) and symptomatic (1.7% vs. 4.9%; P = .0012) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CEA is preferred in patients without contralateral occlusion, regardless of symptom status, based on lower rates of periprocedural MACE, death, and stroke, the benefit of CEA is lost in patients with CCO because of increased stroke rates in CCO patients after CEA but not after CAS regardless of symptom status. The results of CAS and CEA in patients with CCO are equivalent and within acceptable American Heart Association guidelines.

The indications of carotid artery stenting in symptomatic patients may need to be reconsidered

According to the 2011 and the 2014 updated American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Guidelines, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is indicated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of symptomatic carotid patients. According to these recommendations, CAS is preferred to CEA in symptomatic patients with specific technical, anatomic, or physiological characteristics that render these individuals at "high risk" for surgery (e.g., contralateral carotid occlusion, previous neck irradiation, recurrent carotid stenosis, and so forth). This article presents emerging data suggesting that most of these criteria do not comprise contraindications for CEA. In fact, CEA is associated with similar (or even better) outcomes compared with CAS in many such "high-risk" patients. Based on these results, the indications of CAS in symptomatic patients may need to be reconsidered.

Gender and Outcomes of Carotid Artery Interventions

The benefits of carotid artery revascularization in women have been debated since the publication of large randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to medical therapy. Institutional series have historically had an underrepresentation of women and/or have lacked power for adequate analysis. Recent evidence from large databases reveals possible gender-based differences in outcomes of carotid artery stenting versus CEA. In this review, we evaluated clinical articles from 1991 to 2012, using Pubmed and Web of Science, which addressed gender and outcomes of carotid artery revascularization procedures. Our goal was to determine whether gender is associated with adverse outcomes following carotid artery interventions in patients with carotid artery disease.

Contralateral carotid artery occlusion is not a contraindication to carotid endarterectomy even if shunts are not routinely used

OBJECTIVE

Although controversial, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been proposed as being safer than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with a contralateral internal carotid occlusion (CCO). Arguably, with a CCO, CAS should be even safer than CEA if a shunt is not used. Accordingly, we reviewed our experience with 2183 CEAs performed routinely without a shunt to evaluate the risk of CEA performed in a subset of 147 patients with a CCO.

METHODS

Between 1988 and 2011, 147 CEAs (111 men [75%], 36 women [25%]) were routinely performed without a shunt despite CCO. Of these patients, 76% were asymptomatic. CEAs were performed by seven surgeons using standard techniques (not eversion), with patients under general anesthesia and blood pressure maintained at >130 mm Hg. All patients received heparin (7500 U), and protamine reversal was routine. Median cross-clamp time was 20 minutes (range, 14-40 minutes).

RESULTS

Three neurologic events occurred ≤ 30 days (2.0%). One transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred immediately, and one occurred on the first postoperative day due to occlusion of the endarterectomy site. One patient sustained an immediate stroke and died of a large computed tomography-documented atheroembolic shower.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate the safety of CEA in the presence of a CCO, even when performed without a shunt. It is unlikely that the stroke or delayed TIA could be attributed to nonshunting or CCO. Even if so, the stroke and death rates would be lower than those previously reported for patients undergoing CEA in the presence of a CCO. This may be due to short cross-clamp times, careful technique, general anesthesia, and blood pressure support. Given these low adverse event rates, our experience refutes the assumption that patients with a CCO are at such a high risk for CEA that the only alternative is CAS.

Contralateral carotid occlusion in endovascular and surgical carotid revascularization: a single centre experience with literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

The influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on the outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS) is debated. This study aims to evaluate CEA and CAS results in patients with CCO.

METHODS

All carotid revascularizations from 2005 to 2011 were analyzed, focusing on the role of CCO on 30-day cerebral events and death (CED). A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the results of the literature by random effect.

RESULTS

Of the 1,218 carotid revascularizations performed in our institution, 706 (57.9%) were CEA and 512 (42.1%) were CAS. CED occurred in 3.6% of the CEAs and 8.2% of the CASs (p = .001). CCO was present in 37 (5.2%) CEAs and 38 (7.4%) CASs. In CEA, CCO patients had a higher CED compared with the non-CCO patients (16.2% vs. 2.9%, p = .001), as confirmed by multiple regression analysis (OR [odds ratio]: 5.1[1.7-14.5]). In CAS, CED was not significantly different in the CCO and non-CCO patients (2.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.23). The comparative analysis of the CCO patients showed a higher CED in CEA compared with that in CAS (16.2% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.04). Meta-analysis of 33 papers (27 on CEA and 6 on CAS) revealed that CCO was associated with a higher CED in CEA, but not in CAS (OR: 1.82 [1.57-2.11]; OR: 1.22 [0.60-2.49], respectively).

CONCLUSION

CCO can be considered as a risk factor for CED in CEA, but not in CAS. CAS appears to be associated with lower CED than CEA in CCO patients.

Impact of practice patterns in shunt use during carotid endarterectomy with contralateral carotid occlusion

PURPOSE

This study investigated the association between surgeon practice pattern in shunt placement and 30-day stroke/death in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO).

METHODS

Among 6379 CEAs performed in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) between 2002 and 2009, we identified 353 patients who underwent CEA with CCO and compared the 30-day stroke/death rate with 5279 patients who underwent primary, isolated CEA with a patent contralateral carotid artery. Within patients with CCO, we examined the 30-day stroke/death rate across the reason for shunt placement and two distinct surgeon practice patterns in shunt placement: surgeons who selectively used a shunt (≤95% of CEAs) or routinely used a shunt (>95% of CEAs). We used observed/expected (O/E) ratios to provide risk-adjusted comparisons across groups.

RESULTS

Of 353 patients with CCO, 118 (33%) underwent CEA without a shunt, 173 (49%) underwent CEA using a shunt placed routinely, and 62 (18%) had a shunt placed for a neurologic indication. Rates of 30-day stroke/death across categories of reason for shunt use were no shunt, 3.4%; routine shunt, 4.0%; and shunt for indication, 4.8% (P = .891). The risk of 30-day stroke/death was higher for surgeons who selectively placed shunts (5.6%) in all their CEAs and lower for surgeons who routinely placed shunts (1.5%, P = .05). The risk of 30-day stroke/death was >1 in patients undergoing selective shunting (O/E ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.7) and <1 for surgeons who placed shunts routinely (O/E ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9). Stroke/death rates were lowest when individual surgeons' intraoperative decisions reflected their usual pattern of practice: 1.5% stroke/death rate when "routine" surgeons placed a shunt, 3.4% when "selective" surgeons did not place a shunt, and 7.6% stroke/death rate for "selective" surgeons who placed a shunt (P = .05 for trend).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of 30-day stroke/death is higher in CEA in patients with CCO than with a patent contralateral carotid artery. Surgeons who place shunts selectively during CEA have higher rates of stroke/death in patients with CCO. This suggests that shunt use for CCO during CEA is associated with fewer complications, but only if the surgeon uses a shunt as part of his or her routine practice in CEA. Surgeons should preoperatively consider their own practice pattern in shunt use when faced with a patient who may require shunt placement.