Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Stenosis

Construction and validation of a clinical prediction model for asymptomatic obstructive coronary stenosis in patients with carotid stenosis

Background

Coronary artery stenosis occurs frequently in patients with carotid artery stenosis. We developed a clinical predictive model to investigate the clinical risk of asymptomatic obstructive coronary artery stenosis in patients with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50%.

Methods

From January 2018 to January 2022, carotid stenosis patients hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University's Department of Endovascular Surgery were subjected to a retrospective analysis of their clinical information and imaging results. Excluded criteria were patients with lacking data, symptomatic coronary stenosis, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and coronary stent implantation. Patients were separated into case and control groups according to whether or not they had obstructive coronary stenosis. Independent predictors were screened using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, and their accuracy was confirmed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. A Nomogram prediction model was developed using the aforementioned filtered factors. The model's discrimination and specificity were evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Internal validation employed the Bootstrap procedure. The clinical decision curve analysis (DCA) of the prediction model was developed to assess the clinical applicability of the model.

Results

The investigation included a total of 227 patients, of whom 132 (58.1%) had coronary artery stenosis. Hypertension, Grade I plaque, HbA1c ≥ 7.0%, MPV ≥ 9.2fl, and Fib ≥ 3.0 g/L were independent predictors, with OR values of (2.506, 0.219, 0.457, 1.876, 2.005), according to multivariate logistic regression. Risk factor screening and validation using lasso regression. The predictors chosen based on the optimal λ value are consistent with the predictors identified by multiple regression. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the model based on the above predictors was 0.701 (0.633-0.770), indicating that the model discriminated well. The calibration curve of the model closely matched the actual curve, and P > 0.05 in the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test indicated the model's accuracy. The results of the DCA curve demonstrate the clinical applicability of the prediction model.

Conclusion

Hypertension, grade I plaque, HbA1c ≥ 7.0%, MPV ≥ 9.2 fl, and Fib ≥ 3.0 g/L are predictors of asymptomatic coronary stenosis in patients with carotid stenosis ≥50%. The diagnostic model is clinically applicable and useful for identifying patients at high risk.

Methodological quality and redundancy of systematic reviews that compare endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid stenosis

A review of systematic reviews (SRs) and a critical appraisal study was conducted at Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). The objectives of this review are (1) to identify all published SRs comparing the effectiveness and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenosis, (2) to assess their methodological quality and (3) to compare the primary studies contained in each SR. We included 17 SRs published between 2005 and 2017. None of the SRs fulfilled all items of AMSTAR-2. The overall confidence in the results was graded as critically low for 16 SRs (94%) and low for 1 SR (6%). Five items were judged inadequate in all SRs: reference to a published protocol, explanation to the selection of study design, comprehensive search of the literature, methods for statistical combination of findings and consideration of the risk of bias on the results of meta-analysis. In total, 15 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included at least in one SR. The number of included RCTs in each SR was inconsistent (4 to 15) and was not related to the year of publication of the SR. Our study found redundant and low methodological quality SR comparing CAS versus CEA for carotid stenosis.

Carotid artery revascularization: endarterectomy versus endovascular therapy

Carotid endarterectomy is considered the gold standard for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The role of CEA has been defined by multiple randomized multicenter trials and CEA is the most studied surgical procedure. In recent years, with advances in endovascular techniques, carotid angioplasty, and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to CEA especially in high-risk patients. In this article, we review some of the most important trials on the invasive treatment of carotid artery stenosis and summarized the most recent treatment recommendations based on current evidence. The data overwhelmingly supports revascularization of patients with symptomatic stenosis between 70-90%, with a clear preference for CEA over CAS to be done within 14 days of symptom onset is possible. However, CAS is an acceptable alternative to CEA in certain symptomatic patients such as those with severe medical comorbidities, high riding plaques, contralateral occlusion, restenosis after prior CEA, and radiation-induced stenosis. Treatment of asymptomatic patients remains controversial because of advanced of modern medical therapy and large trials are underway to define the role of invasive revascularization in these patients.

Hidden Readmissions after Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting

BACKGROUND

Historically, carotid procedures incur a readmission rate of approximately 6%; however, these studies are not nationally representative and are limited to tracking only the index hospitals. We sought to evaluate a nationally representative database for readmission rates (including different hospitals) after both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) and determine risk factors for poor outcomes including postoperative mortality and myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis utilizing the 2010-2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database to query patients aged >18 years undergoing CEA or CAS. Outcomes included initial admission mortality, and 30-day readmission, including mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). Univariable analysis of 39 demographic, clinical, and hospital variables was conducted with significance set at P < 0.05. Significant variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for readmission. Results were weighted for national estimates.

RESULTS

There were 527,622 patients undergoing carotid procedures and 13% (n = 69,187) underwent CAS. The 30-day readmission rate was 7% (n = 35,782), and of those, 25% (n = 8,862) were readmitted to a different hospital. When controlling for other factors, CAS was a risk factor for mortality at both index admission (odds ratio [OR] 2.29 [2.11-2.49]) and 30-day readmission (OR 1.48 [1.3-1.69]) and 30-day readmissions at both index hospital (OR 1.11 [1.07-1.14]) and different hospital (OR 1.38 [1.29-1.48]). Readmission to a different hospital increased mortality risk (OR 1.45 [1.29-1.63]) but did not have an effect on MI. Postoperative infections comprised 15% of readmissions while 6% of all readmissions were for stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously unreported, one in 4 readmissions after carotid procedures occur at a different hospital and this fragmentation of care could increase mortality risk after carotid procedures particularly for CAS which was also an independent risk factor for postoperative mortality and readmissions. Further validation is required to decrease unnecessary hospital after carotid procedures.

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.

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BACKGROUND

Microembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy for Treatment of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is common and is associated with increased risk of stroke. The relative efficacy and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis remain unclear. Five studies that recruited patients with asymptomatic but significant carotid stenosis, who underwent CEA or CAS, were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The analyzed outcomes included risks of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated and pooled for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated that compared with CEA, CAS was associated with a decreased risk of MI (RR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.26-0.91, P = 0.023) and slightly increased risk of stroke, although not significant (RR = 1.69, 95% CI = 0.97-2.92, P = 0.063). There was no difference in the death rates between the groups (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.17-2.18, P = 0.436). In the subgroup analysis, CAS was associated with a decreased risk of MI in mixed patients (RR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.26-0.78, P = 0.005), but not in asymptomatic patients (RR = 0.549, 95% CI = 0.26-1.17, P = 0.119). Compared with CAS, CEA was associated with decreased risk of perioperative stroke and increased risk of MI; it did not affect the risk of death in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. In the subgroup analysis, the decreased risk of MI after CAS was significant only in the mixed patients group. CAS was associated with higher risk of stroke but lower risk of MI than those with CEA. Both procedures appeared equivalent in terms of the risk of death.

Sonographic Evaluation of Complications of Extracranial Carotid Artery Interventions

Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting are among the most common peripheral vascular procedures performed worldwide. Sonography is the initial and often only imaging modality used in the evaluation of iatrogenic carotid arterial injuries. This pictorial essay provides an overview of the clinical and sonographic findings of complications after interventions in the extracranial carotid arteries, including dissection, fluid collections, pseudoaneurysm, thrombosis, thromboembolism, restenosis, and stent deformation. Grayscale, color, and pulsed Doppler imaging findings are reviewed, and correlations with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography are provided.

Carotid Artery Stenting

Carotid artery stenosis is relatively common and is a significant cause of ischemic stroke, but carotid revascularization can reduce the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with significant symptomatic stenosis. Carotid endarterectomy has been and remains the gold standard treatment to reduce the risk of carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) (or carotid artery stent implantation) is another method of carotid revascularization, which has developed rapidly over the last 30 years. To date, the frequency of use of CAS is increasing, and clinical outcomes are improving with technical advancements. However, the value of CAS remains unclear in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. This review article discusses the basic concepts and procedural techniques involved in CAS.

Radiographic and symptomatic brain ischemia in CEA and CAS: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In a systematic review, we compared ratio of new periprocedural radiographic brain ischemia (RBI) to the number of strokes and TIAs among patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

We searched 5 databases for entries related to brain ischemia in CEA or CAS from inception through September 2015. We included articles with CEA or CAS and systematic performance of preprocedural and postprocedural brain MRI and reporting of RBI and stroke incidence. We calculated a symptomatic risk ratio of number of strokes and TIAs to RBI. Random effects models were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies (5,431 participants) met the inclusion criteria. There were 22 cohorts in CEA, 34 in CAS with distal protection, 8 in CAS with proximal protection, 9 in CAS without protection, and 9 in CAS with unspecified devices. Overall, 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.6%-34.7%) had RBI, while 3.2% (95% CI 2.6%-3.8%) had clinical strokes or TIAs, with a stroke and TIA to RBI weighted ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.15-0.22). CEA had lower incidence of RBI compared to CAS (13.0% vs 37.4%) and also lower number of strokes and TIAs (1.8% vs 4.1%). The stroke and TIA to RBI ratio did not differ across 5 different types of carotid interventions (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 5 persons with periprocedural radiographic brain ischemia during CEA and CAS had strokes and TIAs. The stable ratio of stroke and TIA to radiographic ischemia suggests that MRI ischemia could serve as a surrogate measure of periprocedural risk.

Device selection for carotid stenting: reviewing the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently changed the status in the treatment of the extracranial carotid atheromasic disease. In recent years, evolution in both stents and protection devices as well as in carotid stenting techniques, has resulted in an important reduction in the rate of stroke in patients undergoing CAS procedures. Areas covered: The purpose of this article is reviewing the literature and summarizing the current evidence of the new available materials to underline the importance of the correct choice of the devices during the procedure. Expert commentary: Certainly a key issue in order to limit the periprocedural events to the lowest possible, is to select the appropriate device for the appropriate patient anatomy and clinical syndrome, the so called 'tailored approach'.

Carotid Stenting in Patients With High Risk Versus Standard Risk for Open Carotid Endarterectomy (REAL-1 Trial)

Carotid stenting (CAS) has been mainly offered to those patients considered at "high risk" for open carotid endarterectomy based on available data from large randomized clinical trials. However, several recent studies have called medical "high risk" into question for CAS indication. The REAL-1 trial evaluated the safety and perioperative and long-term effectiveness in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis with "high-risk" criteria treated with CAS and proximal protection device (MOMA) compared with those with standard surgical-risk features. This nonrandomized double-arm registry included 125 patients (40% symptomatic), 71 (56%) with "standard-risk" and 54 (44%) with "high-risk" criteria. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of any major adverse event, a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death within 30 days after the intervention or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days and up to 4 years. There was no significant difference in primary end point rate at 30 days between patients at "standard risk" and those with "high risk" (1.4% vs 1.9% respectively; hazard ratio for "standard risk" 1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, p = 0.77) nor estimated 4-year rate of ipsilateral stroke (1.3% vs 1.8%; hazard ratio for "standard risk" 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14, p = 0.9). In conclusion, 4-year postprocedure results demonstrated that CAS with proximal device (MOMA) is safe and effective for patients with and without "high-risk" for carotid endarterectomy.

Transcervical Carotid Artery Stenting Using a Prosthetic Arterial Conduit: Case Series of a Novel Surgical Technique

We present a series of 4 patients with carotid restenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) who underwent transcervical carotid artery stenting (CAS) using a novel prosthetic conduit technique. The patients were high risk for repeat CEA (short and obese necks) and had contraindications to transfemoral CAS (bovine arch, prior dissection). CAS was thus performed via a transcervical approach with a polytetrafluoroethylene conduit anastomosed to the proximal common carotid artery. The addition of a conduit allowed stent placement via a secure, stable platform. All patients recovered from their procedure without incident and are free from restenosis at follow-up.

Endovascular Revascularization of a Symptomatic Common Carotid Artery Occlusion

Although the common carotid artery is the second most common site for extracranial carotid artery stenosis, complete symptomatic occlusion in the absence of devastating stroke is rare. We present a case of complete common carotid artery occlusion failing medical management and requiring endovascular intervention. The clinical presentation, diagnostic investigations, and management of complete carotid artery occlusions are discussed.

Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in the same patient: A "direct" comparison

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and feasibility of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy, both procedures performed in the same patient. Forty-five subjects (33 males, 70 ± 7 years) underwent carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting, the counter procedure on the contralateral carotid performed after a variable period. We evaluated the post-procedural percentage of carotid stenosis at 30, 180 days and one-year follow-up, and the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction, New York Heart Association class progression, stroke, death, cardiovascular death, angina, transient ischemic attack and renal failure. Carotid artery stenting treatment reduced the degree of re-stenosis after 180 days equally to carotid endarterectomy procedure (difference: 0.033%, P = 0.285). No statistically significant differences were observed according to the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and New York Heart Association class progression, revealing odds ratio (OR) equal to 0.182 ( P = 0.361) for acute myocardial infarction and 0.303 ( P = 0.434) for New York Heart Association class progression. Carotid endarterectomy confirms its efficacy in carotid revascularization, but carotid artery stenting constitutes a good alternative when the procedures are selected based on patient-specific risk factors.

Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid angioplasty for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CE) compared with carotid angioplasty (CA) in preventing stroke. Whether the use of CE is more efficient in preventing stroke than CA is a matter of debate.

METHODS

Data were gathered from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of CE compared with CA on the risk of stroke. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were performed to identify studies till November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials performed on patients who received either CE or CA for stroke prevention were included.

RESULTS

Nine relevant trials (n = 7163) that met the inclusion criteria were identified. In a pooled analysis, CE resulted in 35 % reduction in relative risk (RR) for short-term stroke [RR, 0.65; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.89; P = 0.007)] and 22 % reduction in RR for long-term stroke (RR, 0.78; 95 % CI: 0.66-0.93; P = 0.006) relative to CA. However, CE also increased the risk of 30-day myocardial infarction by 114 % compared with CA (RR, 2.14; 95 % CI: 1.30-3.53; P = 0.003). Sensitivity analyses suggested that CE might influence the risk of 30-day major vascular events and 1-year major vascular events compared with CA.

CONCLUSIONS

CE could reduce the risk of stroke (whether short term or long term), but resulted in a relative increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. This study might guide appropriate judgments about treatment approach. It also provided evidence to justify general guidelines for patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Effect of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial Results on the Performance of Carotid Artery Stent Placement and Carotid Endarterectomy in the United States

BACKGROUND

CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) results, published in 2010, showed no difference in the rates of composite outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) between carotid artery stent placement (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

OBJECTIVE

To identify any changes in use and outcomes of CAS and CEA subsequent to the CREST results.

METHODS

We estimated the frequency of CAS and CEA procedures in the years 2009 (pre-CREST period) and 2011 (post-CREST period), using data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of pre- and post-CREST CAS-treated and post-CREST CEA-treated patients were compared with pre-CREST CEA-treated patients.

RESULTS

A total of 225,191 patients underwent CEA or CAS in the pre- and post-CREST periods. The frequency of CAS among carotid revascularization procedures did not change after publication of the CREST results (12.3% vs. 12.7%, P = .9). In the pre-CREST period, the CAS group (compared with the CEA group) had higher rates of congestive heart failure (P < .001), coronary artery disease (P < .001), and renal failure (P < .001). The post-CREST CAS group had a higher frequency of atrial fibrillation (P = .003), congestive heart failure (P < .0001), coronary artery disease (P < .0001), and renal failure (P = .0001). Discharge with moderate to severe disability (P < .0001) and postprocedure neurological complications (P = .005) were more frequently reported in the post-CREST CAS group. After adjusting for age, sex, and risk factors, the odds ratio (OR) for moderate to severe disability was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.2) in the pre-CREST CAS group and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-1.7) in the post-CREST CAS group compared with the reference group. The adjusted OR for neurological complications in the pre-CREST CAS group was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.1, P = .002), and 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-2.0, P = .01) in the post-CREST CAS group.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of CAS and CEA for carotid artery stenosis has not changed after publication of the CREST. The demographics, pretreatment comorbidity profile, and in-hospital complication rates remained unchanged during the 2 time periods.

Outcomes of 1000 Carotid Wallstent Implantations

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) with Wallstents in a single-center experience. Methods: From January 2003 to December 2013, 1000 carotid artery lesions were treated with Carotid Wallstents under cerebral protection in 877 patients (mean age 71.7±8 years; 621 men). Indications for treatment were de novo lesions (>70% asymptomatic and >60% symptomatic); stenoses following carotid endarterectomy, radiation, or neck surgery; contralateral laryngeal nerve palsy; and high surgical risk. All the patients underwent duplex ultrasound and clinical evaluation during follow-up; radiography was performed when fracture or stent migration was suggested by ultrasound. Results: Procedure success was achieved in 99.3% of patients. Major and minor 30-day adverse events occurred in 2.1% of patients, including stroke (1.8%: 1.3% minor, 0.5% major), myocardial infarction (0.1%), and death (0.2%). Plaque morphology, nature of stenosis, and symptomatic status were significantly associated with the risk of postoperative neurologic events. Restenosis occurred in 3.2% at a mean 45.5-month follow-up and was significantly associated with diabetes, smoking, symptomatic stenosis, de novo stenosis, and calcification (plaque III/IV). No fracture or migration was registered during follow-up. Conclusion: CAS is a valid method for treating carotid artery disease, with very low rates of major adverse events and neurologic complications. The Carotid Wallstent seems to have excellent results, even with complex plaque morphology, and a low incidence of restenosis at follow-up.

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.

[Epidemiology of cerebral perioperative vascular accidents]

OBJECTIVES

Stroke is a well-described postoperative complication, after carotid and cardiac surgery. On the contrary, few studies are available concerning postoperative stroke in general non-cardiac non-carotid surgery. The high morbid-mortality of stroke justifies an extended analysis of recent literature.

ARTICLE TYPE

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Firstly, Medline and Ovid databases using combination of stroke, cardiac surgery, carotid surgery, general non-cardiac non-carotid surgery as keywords; secondly, national and European epidemiologic databases; thirdly, expert and French health agency recommendations; lastly, reference book chapters.

RESULTS

In cardiac surgery, with an incidence varying from 1.2 to 10% according to procedure complexity, stroke occurs peroperatively in 50% of cases and during the first 48 postoperative hours for the others. The incidence of stroke after carotid surgery is 1 to 20% according to the technique used as well as operator skills. Postoperative stroke is a rare (0.15% as mean, extremes around 0.02 to 1%) complication in general surgery, it occurs generally after the 24-48th postoperative hours, exceptional peroperatively, and 40% of them occurring in the first postoperative week. It concerned mainly aged patient in high-risk surgeries (hip fracture, vascular surgery). Postoperative stroke was associated to an increase in perioperative mortality in comparison to non-postoperative stroke operated patients.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative stroke is a quality marker of the surgical teams' skill and has specific onset time and induces an increase of postoperative mortality.

Carotid stenting with distal protection in high-surgical-risk patients: one-year results of the ASTI trial

PURPOSE

This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study evaluated the periprocedural and 1-year outcomes in high-surgical-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis treated with the Adapt Carotid Stent plus FilterWire EZ distal protection catheter (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study enrolled 100 patients (32 symptomatic, 63 asymptomatic, 5 unknown) at high risk for carotid endarterectomy due to prespecified anatomical criteria and/or medical comorbidities. Thirty-day and 1-year follow-up included clinical evaluation, carotid duplex ultrasound, and independent neurologic and NIH stroke scale assessments. One-year endpoints included the composite rate of major adverse events (MAE), defined as death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) and the rates of late ipsilateral stroke (31-365 days), target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis.

RESULTS

Of the 100 enrolled patients, technical success was achieved in 90.9 % (90/99). The 30-day MAE rate (5.1 %) consisted of major stroke (2.0 %) and minor stroke (3.1 %); no deaths or MIs occurred. The 1-year MAE rate (12.2 %) consisted of death, MI, and stroke rates of 4.4, 3.3, and 8.9 %, respectively. Late ipsilateral stroke (31-365 days) rate was 1.1 %. Symptomatic patients had higher rates of death (11.1 vs. 1.7 %) and MI (7.4 vs. 1.7 %), but lower rates of major (7.4 vs. 10.0 %) and minor stroke (0.0 vs. 6.7 %), compared with asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Results through 1 year postprocedure demonstrated that carotid artery stenting with Adapt Carotid Stent and FilterWire EZ is safe and effective in high-risk-surgical patients.

Carotid revascularization: risks and benefits

Despite a decline during the recent decades in stroke-related death, the incidence of stroke has remained unchanged or slightly increased, and extracranial carotid artery stenosis is implicated in 20%–30% of all strokes. Medical therapy and risk factor modification are first-line therapies for all patients with carotid occlusive disease. Evidence for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% with either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is compelling, and several trials have demonstrated a benefit to carotid revascularization in the symptomatic patient population. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is more controversial, with the largest trials only demonstrating a 1% per year risk stroke reduction with CEA. Although there are sufficient data to advocate for aggressive medical therapy as the primary mode of treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there are also data to suggest that certain patient populations will benefit from a stroke risk reduction with carotid revascularization. In the United States, consensus and practice guidelines dictate that CEA is reasonable in patients with high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, a reasonable life expectancy, and perioperative risk of less than 3%. Regarding CAS versus CEA, the best-available evidence demonstrates no difference between the two procedures in early perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, and no difference in 4-year ipsilateral stroke risk. However, because of the higher perioperative risks of stroke in patients undergoing CAS, particularly in symptomatic, female, or elderly patients, it is difficult to recommend CAS over CEA except in populations with prohibitive cardiac risk, previous carotid surgery, or prior neck radiation. Current treatment paradigms are based on identifying the magnitude of perioperative risk in patient subsets and on using predictive factors to stratify patients with high-risk asymptomatic stenosis.

Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

[Carotid artery stenting technique]

Over the past 25 years carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Most of all younger patients and symptomatic patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion particularly benefit from CAS. To achieve an optimal result with CAS, patient selection and even more important, knowledge and experience of the interventionist is crucial. The periprocedural complication rate of CAS in large experienced centers is lower (2-3%) than those in randomized trials. Several different devices are now available which allow the procedure to be tailored according to patient anatomy and lesion complexity. Complications like hyperperfusion syndrome and intracerebral bleeding, rupture of side branches of the external or internal carotid artery as well as problems caused by slow flow can be widely avoided by adequate experience.

Results of carotid artery stenting with transcervical access

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is usually performed with femoral access; however, this access may be impeded by anatomic limitations. Moreover, many embolic events happen during aortic arch catheterization. To overcome these problems, transcervical access to the carotid artery can be used as an alternative approach for CAS.

METHODS

An electronic search of the literature using PubMed was performed. All studies reporting the results of CAS using the transcervical approach were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 12 studies reporting the results of 739 CAS procedures performed in 722 patients (mean age, 75.5 years). Of 533 lesions reported, 235 (44%) were symptomatic, with no data regarding symptomatic status available for 206 lesions. Two techniques were used: direct CAS with transcervical access (filter protected or unprotected) in 250 patients and CAS with transcervical access under reversed flow (with arteriovenous shunt in most cases) in 489 patients. Local anesthesia was used in 464 of 739 procedures (63%), and the remaining were performed under general anesthesia or cervical block. Technical success was 96.3% for 579 procedures with available data (558 successful procedures and 21 failures: inability to cross the lesion, 10; dissection, 5; failure of predilatation, 1; stent thrombosis, 1; patient agitation, 1; and no data, 3). The incidence of conversion to open repair was 3.0% (20 of 579 procedures: 18 carotid endarterectomies and two common carotid-internal carotid bypass grafts). Stroke occurred in eight patients (two fatal) and a fatal myocardial infarction in one patient. The incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death was 1.1%, 0.14%, and 0.41%, respectively. The incidence of stroke was 1.2% (3 of 250) in direct CAS with transcervical access and 1.02% (5 of 489) in CAS under reversed flow (P > .05). Transient ischemic attack occurred in 20 patients (2.7%). Local complications were encountered in 17 of 579 CAS (2.9%), comprising 15 hematomas and two patients with transient laryngeal palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS with the transcervical approach is a safe procedure with low incidence of stroke and complications. It can be used as an alternative to femoral access in patients with unfavorable aortoiliac or aortic arch anatomy.

Carotid surgery in private practice: what kind of change in the last 15 years?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study analyzes and compares the results of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CE) for atherosclerotic stenosis obtained by 2 surgeons during two 5-year periods. Group 1 (G1) represents the first period (January 1994-December 1998) and group 2 (G2) represents the second period (January 2006-December 2010). Our objective was to answer the 2 following questions: (1) Has the population changed between these 2 periods with regard to age, risk factors, and symptoms? (2) Have the techniques we used in G2--local anesthesia and eversion technique--improved the results?

METHODS

G1 included 682 CE procedures on 610 patients and G2 included 629 procedures on 592 patients. The following factors were analyzed in G1 and G2: distribution of age and sex, the main risk factors (diabetes and cardiovascular risk), symptomatology, the degree of stenosis, the preoperative computed tomography (CT) data, the type of anesthesia (general or local), the use of an intraoperative shunt, surgical techniques, postoperative patency, cardiac complications, central and peripheral neurologic complications, and reoperations. In conformity with the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial classifications, stenosis of >70% was included in this survey. Loops, tumors, aneurysms, and restenosis were excluded. Heparin (300 U.I./kg) was administered. Shunt placing was selective. The 3 most common techniques used were eversion, longitudinal CE with patch angioplasty, and CE with direct closure. Postoperative patency was controlled by intravenous digital angiography or duplex ultrasonography. Follow-up occurred until postoperative day 30.

RESULTS

Compared with G1, the incidence of arterial hypertension, diabetes, and coronary atherosclerosis treated by angioplasty increased significantly in G2; local anesthesia replaced general anesthesia in G2, and fewer intraoperative shunts were used (P = 0.034). The technique of direct closure of the arteriotomy was no longer used. In contrast to G1, in G2 no postoperative carotid thromboses (P = 1.8) and no lethal strokes (P = 5.44) were observed. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events on postoperative day 30 was 1.7% in G1 compared with 0.79% in G2. The combined mortality and morbidity rate--including reoperations and peripheral neurologic deficits--was 3.95% in G1 compared with 3.81% in G2.

CONCLUSION

Despite a major increase in risk factors, the combined use of local anesthesia and eversion technique, when technically feasible, improved our results in G2.

Carotid artery stenting update

Stroke is the third leading cause of death and the most common cause of long-term disability in the USA. Approximately 25% of strokes are due to carotid artery disease. The mechanisms of stroke include thrombotic occlusion, thrombus embolism, atheroembolism and dissection or subintimal hematoma. Today, endarterectomy is the standard of care for management of significant carotid artery disease. The SAPPHIRE trial has proved the noninferiority of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy in ‘high-risk’ patients, which led to the US FDA approval of carotid stent for high-risk patients. The CREST trial is the largest randomized trial comparing stenting versus endarterectomy and showed no significant difference in death, stroke or myocardial infarction. Over the last 15 years, the accumulation of experience, the improvement of stent platforms and embolic protection devices, and the strong demand from patients for a less invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy has made carotid artery stenting an equally efficient and safe procedure for the prevention of stroke.