Carotid restenosis after endarterectomy and stenting: a critical issue?

Surveillance and risk factors for early restenosis following transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Restenosis after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a known complication. When identified in the early postoperative period, it may be related to technique. We evaluated our TCAR experience to identify potentially modifiable factors impacting restenosis.

METHODS

This is a single-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing TCAR from November 2017 to July 2022. Restenosis was defined as >50% stenosis on duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination or computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis's test. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of 61 interventions, 11 (18%) developed restenosis within the median follow-up of 345 days (interquartile range, 103-623 days). Among these patients, 82% (9/11) had >50% stenosis, and 18% (2/11) had >80% stenosis. Both patients with high-grade restenosis were symptomatic and underwent revascularization. Diagnosis of post-TCAR restenosis was via DUS examination in 45% (5/11), CTA in 18% (2/11), or both CTA/DUS examination in 36% (4/11). Restenosis occurred within 1 month in 54% (6/11) and 6 months in 72% (8/11) of patients. However, three of the six patients with restenosis within 1 month had discordant findings on CTA vs DUS imaging. Patient comorbidities, degree of preoperative stenosis, medical management, balloon size, stent size, lesion characteristics, and predilatation angioplasty did not differ. Patients with restenosis were younger (P = .02), had prior ipsilateral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 6.5; P = .02), had history of neck radiation (OR, 18.3; P = .01), and lower rate of postdilatation angioplasty (OR, 0.11; P = .04), without an increased risk of neurological events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although post-TCAR restenosis occurred in 18% of patients, only 3% of patients had critical restenosis and required reintervention. Patient factors associated with restenosis were younger age, prior endarterectomy, and history of neck radiation. Although early restenosis may be mitigated by improved technique, the only technical factor associated with restenosis was less use of postdilatation angioplasty. Balancing neurological risk, this factor may have increased application in appropriate patients. Diagnosis of restenosis was inconsistent between imaging modalities; current surveillance paradigms and diagnostic thresholds may warrant reconsideration.

Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series

Background: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. Methods: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. Results: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77–1.25; I² = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72–1.48; I² = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82–1.21; I² = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0–2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0–2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that “real-world” outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.

Residual stenosis after carotid artery stenting: Effect on periprocedural and long-term outcomes

Objective

This study investigated the effect of residual stenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) on periprocedural and long-term outcomes.

Methods

Patients treated with CAS for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid arterial stenosis were consecutively enrolled. Residual stenosis was estimated from post-procedure angiography findings. The effects of residual stenosis on 30-day periprocedural outcome and times to restenosis and clinical outcome were analyzed using logistic regression models and Wei-Lin-Weissfeld models, respectively.

Results

A total of 412 patients (age, 64.7 ± 17.0 years; male, 82.0%) were enrolled. The median baseline stenosis was 80% (interquartile range [IQR], 70–90%), which improved to 10% (0–30%) for residual stenosis. Residual stenosis was significantly associated with periprocedural outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 0.983; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.965–0.999, P = 0.01) after adjustment for baseline stenosis, age, hypertension, symptomaticity, and statin use. Over the 5-year observation period, residual stenosis did not increase the global hazard for restenosis and clinical outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.011; 95% CI, 0.997–1.025. In the event-specific model, residual stenosis increased the hazard for restenosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.041; 1.012–1.072) but not for clinical outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.011; 0.997–1.025).

Conclusions

Residual stenosis after carotid artery stenting may be useful to predict periprocedural outcome and restenosis.

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.

Efficacy of carotid artery stenting on stroke prevention of octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

Octogenarians account for a third of ischemic stroke (IS) patients and applying endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS), as a secondary prevention, in these patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate peri-procedural and long term clinical and angiographic impact of CAS on octogenarians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, 102 patients aged over 80 years old with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis presenting by non-disabling IS or transient ischemic attack and having undergone CAS were evaluated prospectively from January 2012 to July 2016. All patients received standard stroke care during the study follow up period. Peri-procedural complication, cerebrovascular accidents, restenosis in target vessel and mortality rate were recorded and the collected data were analyzed to evaluate safety and durability of CAS in octogenarians.

RESULTS

48 (47.06%) males and 54 (52.9%) females with the mean age of 83.39 ± 2.53 (range, 80-88) years were followed in a mean period of 24.5 ± 14.1 months (6-50 months). Success rate of CAS was 100%; whereas, the peri-procedural complication rate was 5.8% (only one patient experienced acute ischemic stroke during the procedure). Restenosis and recurrent cerebrovascular accidents were observed in 3.9% and 9.8% of the cases, respectively. Recurrent cerebrovascular accident leading to death was seen in 2.9% of the cases. The median patient event-free survival was 20 months.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular CAS seems to be a safe and durable method for secondary prevention in ischemic stroke following symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in octogenarians.

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.

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting

As a common etiology for ischemic stroke, atherosclerotic carotid stenosis has been targeted by vascular surgery since 1950s. Compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is almost similarly efficacious and less invasive. These advantages make CAS an alternative in treating carotid stenosis. However, accumulative evidences suggested that the long-term benefit-risk ratio of CAS may be decreased or even neutralized by the complications related to in-stent restenosis (ISR). Therefore, investigating the mechanisms and identifying the influential factors of ISR are of vital importance for improving the long-term outcomes of CAS. As responses to intrinsic and extrinsic injuries, intimal hyperplasia and vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation have been regarded as the principle mechanisms for ISR development. Due to the lack of consensus-based definition and consistent follow-up protocol, the reported incidences of ISR after CAS varied widely among studies. These variations made the inter-study comparisons of ISR largely illogical. To eliminate restenosis after CAS, both surgery and endovascular procedures have been attempted with promising results. For preventing ISR, drug-eluting stents and antiplatelets have been proposed as potential solutions.

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.