Peri-procedural Risk with Urgent Carotid Artery Stenting: A Population based Swedvasc Study

Impact of Shunting Practice Patterns During Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the effect of surgeons' shunting practice and shunt use on the early outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in recently symptomatic patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study based on a multicenter national prospective database. The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2010-2019) was queried for CEAs performed within 14 days after an ipsilateral stroke or transient ischemic attack. Surgeons were gauged as routine shunters if they shunted in >95% of CEAs, otherwise were classified as selective shunters. In-hospital stroke and death rates were compared between routine and selective shunters, stratifying by type of index event (transient ischemic attack versus stroke) and timing of CEA (≤2 versus >2 days).

RESULTS

Thirteen thousand four hundred sixty-nine CEAs were performed after a transient ischemic attack (43%) or stroke (57%), 3186 (24%) by routine shunters, and 10 283 (76%) by selective shunters. Comparing routine and selective shunters, in-hospital stroke (1.9% versus 2.4%; P=0.09) and death (0.4% versus 0.5%; P=0.73) rates were similar. A lower stroke rate (1.5% versus 4.2%; P=0.02) was achieved by routine shunters for CEA performed <2 days after an ischemic stroke. Among selective shunters, a higher stroke rate occurred in case of shunt use (2.9% versus 2.3%; P<0.01), mainly due to cases presenting with stroke (3.5% versus 2.4%; P<0.01) but not transient ischemic attack (1.8% versus 1.5%; P=0.57). Awake anesthesia was adopted in 7.8% of cases by selective shunters and in 0.8% by routine shunters, without impact on the perioperative stroke rate (1.8% versus 2.3%; P=0.349).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large national cohort, the overall outcomes of CEA were similar between routine and selective shunters. A lower postoperative stroke rate was achieved by routine shunters in CEA performed <2 days after an ischemic stroke. Among selective shunters, intraoperatively indicated shunting determined an increased stroke rate, likely due to intraoperative hypoperfusion. These data may guide the decision regarding timing of CEA and shunting intention in symptomatic patients.

Circulating Biomarkers Predict Symptomatic but Not Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Subjects exposed to risk factors such as age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking are prone to atherosclerotic events.

AIMS

The main aim of this longitudinal cohort study was to determine whether the role of novel plasma biomarkers for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease is different in subjects developing symptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS), as opposed to those with incident asymptomatic CAS.

METHODS

The following biomarkers were measured in 5,550 middle-aged subjects in a population-based cohort study: C-reactive protein (CRP), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 mass and activity, proneurotensin, midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP), copeptin, and cystatin C. After exclusion of those with prevalent CAS, subjects were thereafter followed in national patient registers for 23.4 (interquartile range 19.5-24.3) years regarding incident symptomatic and asymptomatic CAS.

RESULTS

Among 110 patients with confirmed incident CAS, 56 were symptomatic and 54 were asymptomatic. When including conventional risk markers in a Cox regression analysis, NT pro-BNP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-2.11), MR-proADM (HR 1.40; CI: 1.13-1.73), cystatin C (HR 1.21; CI: 1.02-1.43), and CRP (HR 1.53; CI: 1.13-1.73) were independently associated with incident symptomatic CAS, whereas no plasma biomarker was associated with incident asymptomatic CAS.

CONCLUSION

Plasma biomarkers NT pro-BNP, MR-proADM, cystatin C, and CRP were independently associated with incident symptomatic CAS, whereas no such association could be demonstrated with incident asymptomatic CAS. As these biomarkers indicate future development of clinically relevant atherosclerotic CAS, their potential utility in relation to intensified preventive measures and selection of potential candidates for carotid surgery should be further evaluated.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF SYMPTOMATIC CAROTID STENOSIS SURGICAL TREATMENT IN A SINGLE CENTER SERIES

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of preoperative ischemic brain lesion (IBL) volume, assessed by Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance brain imaging (DW-MRI) with RAPID® processing, and surgery timing in predicting post-operative neurological outcomes in symptomatic carotid stenosis (SCS) patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with SCS who underwent CEA between January 2010 and June 2020 were considered. IBLs ipsilateral to the stenosis were identified in the preoperative magnetic resonance brain (MRI). The volume was quantified in mL and correlated with 30-day rates of stroke and stroke/death by χ2 and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

134 patients were surgically treated for SCS during the entire study period. CEA procedures were defined as emergent, urgent, or elective if performed within 48 hours, between 48 hours and 14 days, or after 14 days from symptoms onset, respectively. Cumulative new ipsilateral stroke rate was 4,5%, with a statistically higher neurological complications in emergent patients compared to urgent and elective patients (10,6%, 1,47% and 0% respectively, p 0,039). ROC curve analysis showed a volume of 10 mL was predictive of postoperative stroke with 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity. A IBL volume >10mL was an independent risk factor for postoperative stroke. Infact, the perioperative neurological complication rate was significantly different in high-IBL volume patients (>10 mL) compared with low-IBL volume patients (<10 mL) (p 0,003) CONCLUSIONS: : The present study suggest that the optimal timing for CEA is between 48 hours and 14 days. Furthermore, the present study suggests that the presence of the IBL, by itself, is not definitively related with an unsatisfactory neurological outcome. However, an IBL higher than 10 mL should be as a reliable threshold value adverse neurological result in SCS patients.

Impact of Time Interval between Index Event and Stenting on Periprocedural Risk in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of time interval between index event and stenting on the periprocedural risk of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis and to determine the optimal timing of stenting.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 491 (322 symptomatic [65.6%] and 169 asymptomatic [34.4%]) patients undergoing carotid stenting. The symptomatic patients were categorized into Day 0-3, 4-7, 8-10, 11-14, 15-21, and >21 groups according to the time interval between index event and stenting. Periprocedural (≤30 days) risk for clinical (any neurological deterioration) and radiological (new infarction on postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging) events of stenting in each time interval versus asymptomatic stenosis was calculated with logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders, and provided as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Overall clinical event rate (4.3%) of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis was higher than that for asymptomatic stenosis (1.2%; OR, 3.979 [95% CI, 1.093-14.489]; p=0.036). Stenting in Day 0-3 (13.2%; OR, 10.997 [95% CI, 2.333-51.826]; p=0.002) and Day 4-7 (8.3%; OR, 6.775 [95% CI, 1.382-33.227]; p=0.018) was associated with high risk for clinical events. However, the clinical event rates in stenting after 7 days from index event (Day 8-10, 1.8%; Day 11-14, 2.5%; Day 15-21, 0%; Day >21, 2.9%) were not different from that in stenting for asymptomatic stenosis. Overall radiological event rate (55.6%) in symptomatic stenosis was also higher than that in asymptomatic stenosis (35.5%; OR, 2.274 [95% CI, 1.553-3.352]; p<0.001). The high risk for radiological events was maintained in all time intervals (Day 0-3 : 55.3%; OR, 2.224 [95% CI, 1.103-4.627]; p=0.026; Day 4-7 : 58.3%; OR, 2.543 [95% CI, 1.329-4.949]; p=0.005; Day 8-10 : 53.6%; OR, 2.096 [95% CI, 1.138-3.889]; p=0.018; Day 11-14 : 57.5%; OR, 2.458 [95% CI, 1.225-5.021]; p=0.012; Day 15-21 : 55.6%; OR, 2.271 [95% CI, 1.099-4.764]; p=0.028; Day >21 : 54.8%; OR, 2.203 [95% CI, 1.342-3.641]; p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that as stenting was delayed, the periprocedural risk for clinical events decreased. The clinical event risk was high only in stenting within 7 days and comparable with that for asymptomatic stenosis in stenting after 7 days from index event, although the radiological event risk was not affected by stenting timing. Therefore, our results suggest that delayed stenting after 7 days from symptom onset is a safe strategy for symptomatic stenosis.

Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients With Crescendo Transient Ischemic Attacks: A Systematic Review

Importance

Thromboembolic stroke attributable to an ipsilateral carotid artery plaque is a leading cause of disability in the United States and a major source of morbidity. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting at minimizing stroke risk in patients with minor stroke and transient ischemic attack. However, there is no consensus on guidelines for medical management and the timing of revascularization in patients with multiple recurrent episodes of transient ischemic attack over hours or days, an acute neurological event known as crescendo transient ischemic attack.

Objective

To review the management of and timing of intervention in patients presenting with crescendo transient ischemic attack.

Evidence Review

This systematic review included all English-language articles published from January 1, 1985, to January 1, 2019, available from PubMed (MEDLINE) and Google Scholar. Articles were excluded if they did not include analysis of patients with symptoms, did not report the timing of intervention after crescendo transient ischemic attack, or mixed analysis of patients with stroke in evolution with patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the modified rating from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.

Observations

Patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack were found to have a higher risk of stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy compared with patients with a single transient ischemic attack or stable stroke. With medical therapy alone, a considerable number of patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack experience a completed stroke within several months and have a poor prognosis without intervention. Urgent carotid endarterectomy, typically performed within 48 hours of initial presentation, is beneficial in carefully selected patients. There have been several reports of operative treatment within the first 24 hours of presentation; however, review of these reports does not show any additional benefit from emergency treatment. Carotid artery stenting is reserved only for selected patients with prohibitive surgical risk for endarterectomy. The literature does not clearly support any additional benefit of intravenous heparin therapy over mono or dual antiplatelet therapy prior to carotid endarterectomy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Crescendo transient ischemic attack is best managed with optimal medical management as well as urgent carotid endarterectomy within 2 days of presentation. Surgical endarterectomy appears to be preferred because of the increased embolic potential of bifurcation plaque, whereas stenting is an option for patients with contraindications for surgery. With ongoing advances in cerebrovascular imaging and medical treatment of stroke, there is a need for better evidence to determine the optimal timing and preoperative medical management of patients with crescendo transient ischemic attack.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Very Urgent Carotid Intervention for Symptomatic Carotid Disease

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing of carotid intervention for symptomatic carotid stenosis remains unclear. The objective was to investigate outcomes of very urgent (< 48 h from neurological event) in comparison to urgent (≥ 48 h from neurological event) carotid intervention for symptomatic carotid disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out of randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting peri-procedural outcomes of carotid intervention in relation to the length of time since the neurological event (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42017075766). Ipsilateral stroke and death were defined as the primary outcome endpoints. Transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and myocardial infarction (MI) were secondary outcome parameters. Comparative outcomes were calculated and reported as dichotomous outcome measures using the odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for very urgent (< 48 h since neurological event) versus urgent (≥ 48 h) intervention. The combined overall effect size was calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies and one RCT representing 5751 interventions, 5385 carotid endarterectomies (CEAs) and 366 carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures, were included in quantitative synthesis. Very urgent carotid intervention was associated with increased risk of stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with urgent carotid intervention (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, p < .001). No significant difference was found in mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.81-2.96, p = .19), TIA (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.55-3.19, p = .52) or MI (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-4.33, p = .64).

CONCLUSIONS

Very urgent carotid intervention was found to be associated with increased risk of stroke.

Risk of Stroke or Death Is Associated With the Timing of Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Secondary Data Analysis of the German Statutory Quality Assurance Database

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses from randomized trials indicate that the time interval between the neurologic index event and carotid artery stenting is associated with periprocedural stroke and death rates in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article is to analyze whether this observation holds true under routine conditions in Germany.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Secondary data analysis was done on 4717 elective carotid artery stenting procedures that were performed for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The patient cohort was divided into 4 groups according to the time interval between the index event and intervention (group I 0-2, II 3-7, III 8-14, and IV 15-180 days). Primary outcome was any in-hospital stroke or death. For risk-adjusted analyses, a multilevel multivariable regression model was used. The in-hospital stroke or death rate was 3.7% in total and 6.0%, 4.4%, 2.4%, and 3.0% in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Adjusted analysis showed a decreased risk for any stroke or death in group III, a decreased risk for any major stroke or death in groups III and IV, and a decreased risk for any death in groups II and III compared to the reference group I.

CONCLUSIONS

A short time interval between the neurologic index event and carotid artery stenting of up to 7 days is associated with an increased risk for stroke or death under routine conditions in Germany. Although results cannot prove causal relationships, carotid artery stenting may be accompanied by an increased risk of stroke or death during the early period after the index event.

Treatment Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting Underwent within 14 Days of Stroke Onset - Consideration of Safety and Efficacy of Urgent Carotid Artery Stenting for Neurologically Progressing Patients

As the safety and effectiveness of urgent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for neurologically progressing patients remain controversial, we retrospectively analyzed the outcome of urgent CAS based on the patients’ pathophysiological condition and neuroimaging findings. We divided 71 patients who underwent CAS within 14 days of stroke onset into two groups. Group 1 (n = 35) was comprised of patients with progressing neurologic signs and a reversible ischemic penumbra on magnetic resonance images (MRI). They were treated by urgent CAS. Group 2 (n = 36) was neurologically stable and underwent prophylactic CAS. In all patients we recorded the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Urgent CAS resulted in significant improvement in the NIHSS score, when compared before and after CAS in group 1 (5.3 ± 4.3, P < 0.01). The rate of good outcomes (mRS 0–2 at 3 months post-CAS) was 48.6% in group 1, and 75% in group 2. The cumulative incidence of ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year was 5.9% in group 1, and 0% in group 2. The procedural complication rate was similar in both groups (group 1: 5.7%, n = 2; group 2: 5.6%, n = 2). No patient suffered a symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. When the pathophysiological status and neuroimaging findings are used to determine patient eligibility for urgent CAS, this treatment improve neurologic outcome and can be performed as safely as prophylactic CAS in our cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Time is brain: an update

The '6-month' threshold for treating symptomatic patients is obsolete. There is compelling evidence that the highest-risk period for stroke (after suffering a transient ischemic attack) is the first 2 weeks, especially the first few days, and that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) confers maximal benefit when performed early. Despite well-documented anxieties, there is increasing evidence that CEA can be performed safely within the first 7 days after onset of symptoms, although risks may be higher when performed within 48 h. The role for carotid artery stenting in the hyperacute period remains uncertain. Centers performing carotid artery stenting within 14 days of symptom onset with risks equivalent to CEA should be encouraged to continue and help others to achieve similar outcomes. For the majority, however, CEA will probably remain the safer option. 'Best medical therapy' and risk factor modification should be started as soon as a transient ischemic attack is suspected, while the early introduction of dual antiplatelet therapy may reduce recurrent events prior to CEA, without increasing perioperative bleeding complications.

Long-Term Outcome After Carotid Artery Stenting

Background and Purpose—

Long-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (CAS), a less invasive technique than carotid endarterectomy (CEA), for prevention of stroke, is unclear. The aim was to assess long-term outcomes after CAS, compared with CEA, in a nationwide cohort study.

Methods—

All patients registered in the national Swedish Vascular Registry (Swedvasc) treated with primary CAS between 2005 and 2012 were identified. For every CAS, 2 CEA controls, matched for sex, age, procedure year, and indication (symtomatic/asymtomatic), were chosen. Postoperative stroke was identified by cross-matching the cohort with the InPatient Registry and charts review. Primary end point was ipsilateral stroke or death >30 days postoperatively.

Results—

A total of 1157 patients were included, 409 CAS and 748 CEA; 73% men with mean age 70 years and 69% were symptomatic. Risk factor profile was similar between the 2 groups. Median follow-up time was 4.1 years. Ipsilateral stroke or death of >30 days postoperatively occurred in 95 of 394 in the CAS group versus 120 of 724 in the CEA group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–2.18). The corresponding adjusted rates for death, ipsilateral stroke of >30 days, and any stroke or death of >30 days were 25.7% versus 18.6% (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.72), 9.4% versus 2.9% (hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.53–7.53), 34.2% versus 23.6% (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.10–2.00) for the CAS group versus CEA group, respectively.

Conclusions—

In this nationwide cohort study, CAS was associated with an increased long-term risk of ipsilateral stroke and death during after the perioperative phase when compared with CEA.

Summary of Evidence on Early Carotid Intervention for Recently Symptomatic Stenosis Based on Meta-Analysis of Current Risks

Background and Purpose—

This study aimed to assess the evidence on the periprocedural (<30 days) risks of carotid intervention in relation to timing of procedure in patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Methods—

A systematic literature review of studies published in the past 8 years reporting periprocedural stroke/death after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) related to the time between qualifying neurological symptoms and intervention was performed. Pooled estimates of periprocedural risk for patients treated within 0 to 48 hours, 0 to 7 days, and 0 to 15 days were derived with proportional meta-analyses and reported separately for patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack as index events.

Results—

Of 47 studies included, 35 were on CEA, 7 on CAS, and 5 included both procedures. The pooled risk of periprocedural stroke was 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–4.3) after CEA and 4.8% (95% CI, 2.5–7.8) after CAS performed <15 days; stroke/death rates were 3.8% and 6.9% after CEA and CAS, respectively. Pooled periprocedural stroke risk was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.1–4.6) after CEA and 4.8% (95% CI, 2.5–7.8) after CAS when performed within 0 to 7 days. In hyperacute surgery (<48 hours), periprocedural stroke risk after CEA was 5.3% (95% CI, 2.8–8.4) but with relevant risk differences among patients treated after transient ischemic attack (2.7%; 95% CI, 0.5–6.9) or stroke (8.0%; 95% CI, 4.6–12.2) as index.

Conclusions—

CEA within 15 days from stroke/transient ischemic attack can be performed with periprocedural stroke risk <3.5%. CAS within the same period may carry a stroke risk of 4.8%. Similar periprocedural risks occur after CEA and CAS performed earlier, within 0 to 7 days. Carotid revascularization can be safely performed within the first week (0–7 days) after symptom onset.