Stroke/Death Rates Following Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Contemporary Administrative Dataset Registries: A Systematic Review

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention

OBJECTIVES

The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS.

METHODS

We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate.

RESULTS

We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Diagnosis and management of acute conditions of the extracranial carotid artery

Symptomatic carotid stenosis and carotid dissection are acute conditions of extracranial cerebrovascular vessels determining transient ischemic attack or stroke. Medical, surgical, or endovascular management are different options to treat these pathologies. This narrative review focused on the management, from symptoms to treatment, of the acute conditions of extracranial cerebrovascular vessels, including post-carotid revascularization stroke. Symptomatic carotid stenosis (> 50% according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria) with transient ischemic attack or stroke benefits from carotid revascularization-primarily with carotid endarterectomy associated with medical therapy-within 2 weeks from symptom onset to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence. Different from acute extracranial carotid dissection, medical management with antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy can prevent new neurologic ischemic events, considering stenting only in case of symptom recurrence. Stroke after carotid revascularization can be associated with the following etiologies: carotid manipulation, plaque fragmentation, or clamping ischemia. Medical or surgical management is therefore influenced by the cause and timing of the neurologic events after carotid revascularization. Acute conditions of the extracranial cerebrovascular vessels include a heterogeneous group of pathologies and correct management can reduce symptom recurrence substantially.

Sex-Related Outcomes in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting

PURPOSE

Aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of sex in asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted from January 2006 to December 2020. A total of 438 consecutive patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis >70% underwent transfemoral CAS and were stratified in males (M) and females (F). Periprocedural 30-day outcomes were: stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI). Follow-up outcomes were: death and stroke rates (primary) and freedom from restenosis (FFR) and reintervention rates (secondary). Follow-up data were analyzed at 1, 5, and 10 years. Data were analyzed with χ² test and Fisher's exact test and follow-up outcomes with Kaplan-Meier curves. The log-rank test was used to determine differences between the groups and univariate analysis to identify the association between risk factors and intraoperative details with mortality and restenosis rates.

RESULTS

A total of 462 procedures were performed (M: n=321, 69.4%), in which 24 CAS were bilateral (5.5%). Mean age was 71.9±7.6 years (M: 72.1±7.8; F: 71.7±7.3). Periprocedural outcomes were: stroke rate 2.2% (n=10; M: n=5, 1.6%; F: n=5, 3.5%; p=0.176), mortality rate 0.6% (M: n=3, p=0.334), and stroke/death rate 2.8% (n=13; M: n=8, 2.5%; F: n=5, 3.5%; p=0.528); no cardiac events (MI) were recorded. A not-disabling (minor) stroke was detected in 3 males (0.9%), while a disabling (major) stroke was reported in 7 patients (1.7%) of whom 5 were ischemic events (M: n=2, 0.6%; F: n=3, 2.2%) and 2 were cerebral hemorrhages (F: 1.3%, p=0.046). Mean follow-up was 73.66±40.83 months (M: 72.66; F: 76.01; p=0.246). Overall survival rate was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93-98), 81.8% (95% CI: 77-86), and 45.5% (95% CI: 38-53) at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively (p=0.236). The overall stroke rate was 0.3% (freedom from stroke [FFS]: 99.7%; 95% CI: 98-100), 0.9% (FFS: 99%; 95% CI: 98-100), and 4.3% (FFS: 95.7%; 95% CI: 89-98; M: n=6; F: n=2; p=0.774). Stroke-related mortality rate was 0.7% (FFS: 99.3%; 95% CI: 97-100) and 2.9% (FFS: 97.1%; 95% CI: 91-99) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, without differences between the groups (M: n=4; F: n=2; p=0.763). Overall FFR rate was 97.4% (95% CI: 95-99), 93.4% (95% CI: 90-96), and 89.5% (95% CI: 84-93; p=0.322). Two severe symptomatic restenosis (>70%, M) required a new endovascular revascularization.

CONCLUSION

The sex variable does not influence outcomes of CAS in asymptomatic patients at short- and long-term follow-up, although females show a worst incidence of periprocedural major strokes. Carotid artery stenting may be safely proposed when a careful patient selection is applied.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The sex variable has been advocated as a considerable factor that could influence the outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS). Literature data are contrasting, even if different papers mainly reported that CAS is associated to worst outcomes in female patients. Our study shows that the sex-variable does not influence outcomes of CAS in asymptomatic patients at short and long-term follow-up, although females had a worst incidence of periprocedural major strokes. CAS may be safely proposed when a careful patient selection is applied.

In-hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy for stroke stratified by modified Rankin scale score and time of intervention

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke.

METHODS

We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death.

RESULTS

We identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (P_trend < .01). After risk adjustment, with CEA at 3 to 14 days as the comparator group, the mRS score 0 to 1 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (3.6% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7). The mRS score 2 group had had a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.3) but a lower incidence after CEA at 15 to 90 days (2.1% vs 3.9%; OR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96). The mRS score 3 to 4 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (8.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9) but a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA at 15 to 90 days (3.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For the mRS score 5 group, the stroke/death rates were ≥6.5% across all the time to CEA groups. However, the low sample size limited meaningful comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.

Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence

Background and Purpose

Carotid stenosis is arterial disease narrowing of the origin of the internal carotid artery (main brain artery). Knowing how to best manage this is imperative because it is common in older people and an important cause of stroke. Inappropriately high expectations have grown regarding the value of carotid artery procedures, such as surgery (endarterectomy) and stenting, for lowering the stroke risk associated with carotid stenosis. Meanwhile, the improving and predominant value of medical intervention (lifestyle coaching and medication) continues to be underappreciated.

Methods and Results

This article aims to be an objective presentation and discussion of the scientific literature critical for decision making when the primary goal is to optimize patient outcome. This compilation follows from many years of author scrutiny to separate fact from fiction. Common sense conclusions are drawn from factual statements backed by original citations. Detailed research methodology is given in cited papers. This article has been written in plain language given the importance of the general public understanding this topic. Issues covered include key terminology and the economic impact of carotid stenosis. There is a summary of the evidence-base regarding the efficacy and safety of procedural and medical (non-invasive) interventions for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusions are drawn with respect to current best management and research priorities. Several "furphies" (misconceptions) are exposed that are commonly used to make carotid stenting and endarterectomy outcomes appear similar. Ongoing randomized trials are mentioned and why they are unlikely to identify a routine practice indication for carotid artery procedures. There is a discussion of relevant worldwide guidelines regarding carotid artery procedures, including how they should be improved. There is an outline of systematic changes that are resulting in better application of the evidence-base.

Conclusion

The cornerstone of stroke prevention is medical intervention given it is non-invasive and protects against all arterial disease complications in all at risk. The "big" question is, does a carotid artery procedure add patient benefit in the modern era and, if so, for whom?

Short-term outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: data from a multicentric prospective registry in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are alternative strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atherosclerotic carotid disease. Since their main objective is to prevent future ischemic events, regular reassessment of the outcomes is mandatory for providing the best therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the practice and the outcomes of TF-CAS and CEA in symptomatic patients in public university hospitals in Brazil, using data from a prospective multicentric registry.

METHODS

Prospective 8-year observational study of patients with symptomatic carotid artery atherosclerotic disease that underwent TF-CAS and CEA in five public university hospitals affiliated with the RHEUNI (Registry Project of Vascular Disease in the Public University Hospitals of São Paulo). All consecutive procedures were included. The indications for the procedures were determined by each surgeon's individual discretion, in accordance with a preoperative risk evaluation. The outcome measures were any 30-day follow-up death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and their combined outcome (major adverse cardiovascular events - MACE). The registration of the study was made at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02538276.

RESULTS

From January 2012 through December 2019, 376 consecutive and symptomatic patients were included in the study records. There were 152 TF-CAS procedures (40.4%) and 224 CEA procedures (59.5%). All completed the 30-day follow-up period. Occurrence of death (TR-CAS: 0.66% x CEA: 0.66%, P=0.99), stroke (TF-CAS: 4.61% x CEA: 4.46%, P=0.99), and MI (TF-CAS: 0.66% x CEA: 0%, P=0.403) was similar in both groups, without statistically significant differences. MACE rate did not differ in both groups (TF-CAS: 5.92% x CEA: 4.46%, P=0.633).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from a prospective registry of five Brazilian university hospitals showed that transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients had similar 30-day perioperative rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction and their combination.

Early Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) represent options to treat many patients with carotid stenosis. Although randomized trial data are plentiful, estimated rates of morbidity and mortality for both CEA and CAS have varied substantially.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of adverse outcomes after CAS and CEA in a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed 84 191 adult patients undergoing elective, nonemergent CAS (n = 81 361) or CEA (n = 2830), from 2011 to 2018, in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Odds of adverse outcomes (30-d rates of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac arrest, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, reoperation, and mortality) were evaluated in propensity-matched (n = 2821) cohorts through logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched cohorts, CAS had increased odds of periprocedural stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.32-2.95) and decreased odds of cardiac arrest (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.84) and 30-d reoperation (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) compared to CEA. Relative odds of MI, prolonged LOS, discharge to destination other than home, 30-d readmission, or 30-d mortality were statistically similar. In the unmatched patient population, rates of adverse outcomes with CEA were constant over time; however, for CAS, rates of stroke increased over time. In both the matched and unmatched patient cohorts, patients 70 yr and older had lower rates of post-procedural stroke with CEA, but not with CAS, compared to younger patients.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity-matched analysis of a large, prospectively collected, national, surgical database, CAS was associated with increased odds of periprocedural stroke, which increased over time. Rates of MI and death were not significantly different between the 2 procedures.

Procedural Stroke after Carotid Revascularization - Critical Analysis of the Literature and Standards of Reporting

OBJECTIVE

Mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) are surprisingly underresearched. However, understanding the underlying mechanism could: (1) assist in balancing the choice for revascularization versus conservative therapy; (2) assist in choosing either open or endo techniques; and (3) assist in taking appropriate periprocedural measures to further reduce procedural stroke rate. The purpose of this study was to overview mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid revascularization and establish reporting standards to facilitate more granular investigation and individual patient data meta-analysis in the future.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

The limited evidence in literature was heterogeneous and of low quality and hence no formal data meta-analysis could be performed. Procedural stroke was classified as haemorrhagic or ischemic; the latter was subclassified as haemodynamic, embolic (carotid- or cardio-embolic) or carotid occlusion-derived, using a combination of clinical inference and imaging data. Most events occurred in the first 24h after the procedure and were related to hypoperfusion (pooled incidence 10.2% (95% c.i. 3.0-17.5) versus 13.9% (95% c.i. 0.0-60.9) post-CEA vs CAS events, respectively) or atheroembolism (28.9% (95% c.i. 10.9-47.0) versus 34.3 (95% c.i. 0.0-91.5)) After the first 24 hours, haemorrhagic stroke (11.6 (95% c.i. 5.7-17.4) versus 9.0 (95% c.i. 1.3-16.7)) or thrombotic occlusion (18.4 (95% c.i. 0.9-35.8) versus 14.8 (95% c.i. 0.0-30.5)) became more likely.

CONCLUSIONS

Although procedural stroke incidence and aetiology may have changed over the last decades due to technical improvements and improvement in perioperative monitoring and quality control, the lack of literature data limits further statements. To simplify and enhance future reporting, procedural stroke analysis and classification should be documented pre-emptively in research settings. We propose a standardized form enclosing reporting standards for procedural stroke with a systematic approach to inference of the most likely aetiology, for prospective use in registries and RCTs on carotid revascularization.

Carotid artery stenting has similar outcomes in men and women

Background

The aim of carotid interventions is to prevent cerebrovascular events. Endovascular treatment (carotid-artery-stenting/CAS) has become established as an alternative to open surgery in some cases. Historically, female sex has been considered as a perioperative risk factor, however, there are few studies regarding this hypothesis when it comes to CAS.

Objectives

To analyze the CAS results in our center adjusted by sex.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was designed, including patients with carotid atheromatosis operated at a single center from January 2016 to June 2019. Our objective was to compare cardiovascular risk, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality, by sex. Follow-up rates of stent patency, restenosis, stroke, myocardial infarction, and death were reported.

Results

71 interventions were performed in 50 men (70.42%) and 21 women (29.57%). Mean age was 70.50 ± 10.72 years for men and 73.62 ± 11.78 years for women. Cardiovascular risk factors did not differ significantly between sexes. Mean follow-up was 11.28 ± 11.28 months. There were no significant differences in neurological events during follow-up. No adverse cardiological events were detected at any time. Regarding the mortality rate, during medium-term follow up there were 2 neurological related deaths with no significant differences between sexes (p=0.8432). Neither sex had higher rated of restenosis during long term follow-up (5.63% vs. 1.41%, p = 0.9693) or reoperation (1.41% vs. 1.41%, p = 0.4971). All procedures remained patent (<50% restenosis).

Conclusions

Despite the limitations of our study, CAS is a therapeutic option that is as effective and safe in women as in men. No sex differences were observed.

Stroke in Surgical Patients

Stroke is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review is to provide an evidence-based synthesis of the literature related to perioperative stroke, including its etiology, common risk factors, and potential risk reduction strategies. In addition, the authors will discuss screening methods for the detection of postoperative cerebral ischemia and how multidisciplinary collaborations, including endovascular interventions, should be considered to improve patient outcomes. Lastly, the authors will discuss the clinical and scientific knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to reduce the incidence and improve outcomes after perioperative stroke.

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.

Carotid Endarterectomy: A Single Institutional Experience of 28 Years From Pakistan

BACKGROUND

Cerebrovascular event is the most common reason of acute neurological injury in the western world. There is an extensive literature and data available on its prognosis, outcomes and complications rates from the west, yet still, data regarding its safety and efficacy is scarce from the South Asian belt.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the role of carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid stenosis regarding prevention of stroke and safety of the procedure.

METHODS

A descriptive case series of 335 consecutive patients from January 1990 till July 2018. All patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy were included. Patient having asymptomatic carotid disease (≥90%), history of a transient ischemic attack or patients with a recent or previous episode of ischemic stroke (≥60%) were selected for the procedure. All procedures were performed under GA. Post operatively patients were kept on antiplatelet therapy and followed on outpatient basis for any complications using carotid duplex scans. Data regarding 30-day postoperative parameters of the procedure were collected and evaluated. P< 0.05 is considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 335 carotid endarterectomies were performed. The majority of patients in our series were males 68.90% (n = 230) compared to 31.10% (n = 105) females (P< 0.05). There were no intraoperative mortalities in our patients. The 15-day perioperative mortality was 1.5% (n = 5), out of which 3 patients had concomitant CABG and died of cardiac complications. The mortality rate of CEA alone was 0.6% (n = 2). Six patients (1.8%) developed focal neurological deficits in the postoperative period during the hospital stay. Three patients developed wound infection after surgery. Neck hematoma formation occurred in 11.7% (n = 39) patients and 7 required immediate decompression. A total of 321 patients remained stroke free at 6 months follow up. There was no increased risk of stroke secondary to bilateral carotid disease (OR 1.9 CI 0.35-10.7 P= 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Carotid Endarterectomy is a relatively safe and effective procedure in our large series from Pakistan. It remains the standard for management of carotid stenosis in symptomatic as well as asymptomatic patients with critical stenosis.

Impact of Frailty on Clinical Outcomes after Carotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Frailty has been increasingly recognized as an important risk factor for vascular procedures. To assess the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and resource utilization in patients undergoing carotid revascularization using a national cohort.

METHODS

The 2005-2017 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS). Patients were classified as frail using diagnosis codes defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty indicator. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate associations between frailty and in-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization costs, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Of 1,426,343 patients undergoing carotid revascularization, 59,158 (4.2%) were identified as frail. Among frail patients, 79.4% underwent CEA and 20.6% underwent CAS. Compared to CEA, a greater proportion of patients undergoing CAS were frail (6.0% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001). Compared to the nonfrail cohort, frail patients had higher rates of mortality (2.2% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), postoperative stroke (2.6% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001), MI (2.2% vs. 0.8%, P < 0.001), and stroke/death (4.4% vs. 1.4%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, frailty was associated with increased odds of mortality (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.80, P < 0.001), stroke (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.38-1.83 P < 0.001), MI (AOR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.29-1.72, P < 0.001), and stroke/death (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.45-1.81, P < 0.001). Furthermore, frailty was associated with increased hospitalization costs (β = +$5,980, 95% CI: $5,490-$6,470, P < 0.001) and LOS (β = +2.6 days, 95% CI: 2.4-2.8, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes and greater resource use for those undergoing carotid revascularization. Risk models should include an assessment of frailty to guide management and improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

The predictive value of CHADS2 score for subclinical cerebral ischemia after carotid artery stenting (from the PREVENT-CAS trial)

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is being increasingly used as an alternative revascularization procedure to carotid endarterectomy; however, subclinical ischemic cerebral lesions after CAS remain as a matter of concern. Hence, we aimed to assess the clinical utility of the CHADS₂ score in predicting subclinical ischemic events after CAS.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 107 patients (mean age: 70.4 ± 6.6 years, male:77) who underwent CAS for carotid artery revascularization. The patients having symptomatic transient ischemic attack or stroke after CAS were excluded. The presence of new hyperintense lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) without any neurological findings was considered as silent ischemia. Patients were classified into two groups as DWI-positive and DWI-negative patients.

RESULTS

Among study population, 28 patients (26.2%) had subclinical embolism. The DWI-positive group had a significantly higher CHADS2 scores, older age, more frequent history of stroke, higher proportion of type III aortic arch, and longer fluoroscopy time than the DWI-negative group. Increased CHADS₂ score was identified as one of the independent predictors of silent embolism (OR = 5.584; 95%CI: 1.516-20.566; p = .010), and CHADS₂ score higher than 2.5 predicted subclinical cerebral ischemia with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 71% (AUC: 0.793; 95% CI: 0.696 - 0.890; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CHADS₂ score was able to predict the risk of periprocedural subclinical ischemic events in CAS and might be of clinical value in the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis.

The conundrum of asymptomatic carotid stenosis-determinants of decision and evidence

Management of asymptomatic carotid disease continues to challenge medical practice and present evidence is often conflicting. Stroke is a significant burden in Public Health and 11% to 15% appear as first neurologic event associated with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Randomized trials provided support for Guidelines and Recommendations to intervene on asymptomatic stenosis, but at a known cost of a high number of unnecessary operations. Conflicting evidence from natural history studies and the widespread use of proper medical management including risk factors control, lowering-lipid drugs and strict control of arterial hypertension have reduced the incidence of strokes associated to asymptomatic carotid disease challenging established practice. Need to identify vulnerable lesions prone to develop thromboembolic brain events and also vulnerable patients at a higher risk of stroke is necessary and essential to further improve effectiveness of our interventions. After review of published literature on natural history of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, diagnostic methods to identify plaque vulnerability and present-day results of both endarterectomy and stenting, a strategy for management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is suggested aiming to reduce unnecessary interventions and effectively contribute to stroke prevention.

Carotid Endarterectomy with Modified Eversion Technique: Results of a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a wide range of approaches based on personal expertise and preference. We evaluated our outcome with CEA with modified eversion technique (meCEA) under local anesthesia and whether the surgeon's experience could influence it.

METHODS

at our Institution, 837 patients underwent CEA across 8 years. Although the surgical technique was standardized, 2 groups were considered further: meCEA performed by a single Senior Operator (Group A) and meCEA performed by 4 young Consultants (Group B).

RESULTS

A selective shunting policy was needed in 5.1%, together with general anesthesia. Overall operative time was 63.9 ± 15.1 minutes (61.4 ± 12.5 and 66 ± 16.9 minutes in Group A and Group B respectively; P < 0.001) and cross-clamp time 19.3 ± 2.9 minutes (19.0 ± 3.2 vs. 19.5 ± 2.8, P = 0.009). At 30 days, 0.7% TIA and 0.8% strokes were recorded. No differences (p = N.S.) between the 2 study groups in terms of postoperative neurological complications, with postoperative ipsilateral strokes always < 1%. At a median imaging follow-up of 22.5 months, the overall percentage of restenosis was 3.7%, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.954). Twenty-two patients (2.6%) underwent reintervention for significant restenosis, and none of them had an ipsilateral stroke or TIA. Freedom from reintervention for restenosis at 24 months was 97.9% in Group A and 95.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.14). At the median survival follow-up of 37 months, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 97.9%in Group A, and 97.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, CEA with a modified technique is safe and achieves comparable outcomes to those of other established techniques. The reported short cross-clamp time, also in less experienced hands, is an additional strength.

Evolution of surgical treatment of carotid artery stenosis: a single center observational study

Background: In 2009 and 2011 respectively ESVS and AHA/ASA guidelines recommended to operate patients with a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis within 14 days. This study aimed primarily to determine if an academic hospital has implemented these international guidelines about indication and timing of surgical treatment of carotid stenosis. Second, the influence of referral from another hospital on time from symptoms to surgery and the influence of time between neurological event and surgery on 30-day complication rate was studied. Third, the number of asymptomatic carotid artery lesions treated surgically was also evaluated in both periods.Methods: Retrospective study to compare patients with significant atherosclerotic carotid stenosis who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in 2005-2006 versus patients treated in 2014-2016. Demographic data, treatment characteristics, interval between symptom and surgery and 30-day outcomes were collected.Results: In 2005-2006 38.1% (59/155) of the patients were treated for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, in 2014-2016 this increased to 66.5% (121/182) (p < .001, 95% CI: 0.179-0.383). Median time from neurological symptom to surgery in symptomatic patients decreased from 30 to 13 d (p <.001, 95% CI: 1.476-2.763). Early surgery did not increase the 30-day postoperative complications (p = .19, 95% CI: 0.987-1.003). Referral from another hospital almost doubled the time interval between symptoms and surgery in 2014-2016 (p <.001, 95% CI: 1.386-2.827).Conclusions: Since the publication of the international guidelines, patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were preferably surgically treated within 2 weeks at an academic institution. The number of treated asymptomatic carotid stenoses was drastically reduced.

Poor concordance between definitions of type III arch and implications for risk prediction and assessment for carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The type III arch configuration has been inconsistently reported as a stroke risk factor during carotid artery stenting. However, at least three different methods for the definition of type III arch can be identified in the literature, related to the level of the origin of the innominate artery (IA). According to Casserly's definition, a type III arch presents with an origin of the IA below the horizontal plane of the inner curvature. According to Madhwal's definition, a type III arch has a distance greater than twice the diameter of the left common carotid artery between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. According to MacDonald's definition, a type III arch presents with a distance of ≥2 cm between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. Our aim was to assess the level of concordance between these different methods.

METHODS

Anonymized thoracic computed tomography scans of 100 healthy patients were reviewed. Two of us independently stratified the selected cases as a type I to III arch, according to the three considered definitions. The interobserver level of concordance for each type III arch classification and level of concordance among the three definitions were assessed.

RESULTS

The 100 selected patients (64% male) were 76 ± 7 years old. For each definition, the interobserver repeatability was almost perfect for all three (Madhwal, κ = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.99; MacDonald, κ = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; Casserly, κ = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). The level of concordance among the different definitions was very low (Madhwal vs MacDonald, 85% [P = .002]; 33% for type III arch; Madhwal vs Casserly, 60% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch; MacDonald vs Casserly, 75% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch).

CONCLUSIONS

The three definitions of the type III arch have a very low level of concordance, which might account for the varying clinical relevance of this configuration. Our findings have relevant implications for risk prediction for carotid artery stenting based on the presence of a type III arch, for comparisons of the results from different studies, and for comparisons of different datasets from multicenter trials.

Procedural Risks of Carotid Intervention in 19,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. Historical RCTs may not represent contemporary practice and administrative datasets may estimate procedural risks more reliably. We studied procedural risks after carotid intervention in a novel, international administrative data set of 18,997 patients admitted to 28 hospitals across 7 countries.

METHODS

Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (n = 16,220) and CAS (n = 2,777) between 2011 and 2015 were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital death within seven days. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients whose length of hospital stay (LOS) exceeded 2 days. We also describe the rate of computerized tomography brain imaging within 2 days of CEA and CAS (proxy for stroke) as procedural strokes were not reliably recorded.

RESULTS

In symptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.2% [5/2,118] (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5), and 57.0% [628/1,101] (54.1-60.0) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.1% [21/14,102] (0.1-0.2), and 28.5% [2,864/10,039] (27.7-29.4) had prolonged LOS. In symptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 3.3% [10/307] (1.3-5.2), and 64.3% [144/224] (58.0-70.5) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 0.7% [18/2,470] (0.4-1.1), and 27.5% [601/2,187] (25.6-29.4) had prolonged LOS. After CEA, 8.1% [89/1,101] (6.5-9.7) symptomatic patients and 2.1% [207/10,039] (1.8-2.3) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. After CAS, 7.1% [16/224] (4.0-10.7) symptomatic patients and 3.2% [71/2,187] (2.5-4.0) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Death and LOS after CEA and CAS were higher in symptomatic than asymptomatic patients. Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had particularly increased risk of death. This may be partly explained by case selection, with more comorbid patients preferentially undergoing CAS. While RCTs effectively compare long-term efficacy of CEA versus CAS, administrative datasets can provide reliable estimates of contemporary procedural risks.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of results of transcervical carotid artery stenting with flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

Transcervical carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to transfemoral CAS. An earlier systematic review from our group (n = 12 studies; 739 transcervical CAS procedures [489/739 with flow reversal]) demonstrated that transcervical CAS is a safe procedure associated with a low incidence of stroke and complications. Since then, new studies have been published adding nearly 1600 patients to the literature. We aimed to update our early systematic review and also to perform a meta-analysis to investigate outcomes specifically after transcervical CAS with flow reversal.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes after transcervical CAS with flow reversal. Crude event rates for outcomes of interest were estimated by simple pooling of data. A proportion meta-analysis was also performed to estimate pooled outcome rates.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (n = 2110 transcervical CAS procedures with flow reversal) were identified. A high technical success (98.25%) and a low mortality rate (0.48%) were recorded. The crude rates of major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction (MI) were 0.71%, 0.90%, 0.57%, and 0.57%, respectively; a cranial nerve injury occurred in 0.28% of the procedures. A neck hematoma was reported in 1.04% of the procedures, and a carotid artery dissection occurred in 0.76% of the interventions; in 1.09% of the cases, conversion to carotid endarterectomy was required. After a meta-analysis was undertaken, the pooled technical success rate was 98.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.19-99.70). A pooled mortality rate of 0.04% (95% CI, 0.00-0.29) was recorded. The pooled rate of any type of neurologic complications was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61), whereas the pooled rates of major stroke, minor stroke, and transient ischemic attack were 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.46), 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00-0.50), and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00-0.22), respectively. The pooled rate of bradycardia/hypotension was 10.21% (95% CI, 3.99-18.51), whereas the pooled rate of MI was 0.08% (95% CI, 0.00-0.39). A neck hematoma after transcervical CAS was recorded in 1.51% (95% CI, 0.22-3.54) of the procedures; in 0.74% (95% CI, 0.05-1.95) of the interventions, conversion to CEA was required. Finally, a carotid artery dissection during transcervical CAS occurred in 0.47% (95% CI, 0.00-1.38) of the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that transcervical CAS with flow reversal is associated with high technical success, almost zero mortality, and low rates of major stroke, minor stroke, MI, and complications.

Type III Arch Configuration as a Risk Factor for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Guidelines on Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Type III arch configuration is frequently reported as a stroke risk factor for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). We reviewed contemporary guidelines on management of carotid artery stenosis to assess the clinical relevance attributed to this anatomic feature in current clinical practice.

METHODS

The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all guidelines on extracranial carotid disease published between January 2008 and March 2020. A total of 435 articles were screened. For multiple guidelines from the same writing group, only the most recent updated version was considered. Eighteen documents were identified for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Four guidelines specifically reported type III arch as a predictive factor of periprocedural complications after CAS. Two of them also provided a low level of evidence of their recommendation. None of the documents indicated the exact criteria for aortic arch classification. Three different methods to describe type III arch configuration were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Type III arch configuration is inconsistently included among stroke risk factors for CAS in contemporary guidelines, and variably defined. Further studies on the level of concordance between the 3 existing definition criteria are warranted.

Nationwide Trends in Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the Post-CREST Era

Background and Purpose—

The CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) demonstrated equivalent composite outcomes between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for treating carotid stenosis. We investigated nationwide trends in these procedures and associated periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cost, and readmission rates since CREST outcomes were published.

Methods—

We queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients undergoing CEA and CAS for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis from 2010 to 2015. Patients were matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness.

Results—

In total, 378 354 CEA and 57 273 CAS patients were treated during this 6-year period. CEA volume decreased by an average of 2669 procedures annually ( P =0.001) with stable CAS volume ( P =0.225). After matching, CEA patients had a higher rate of periprocedural stroke than CAS patients, driven by increased stroke risk in symptomatic CEA patients (8.1% versus 5.6%; odds ratio, 1.47 [CI, 1.29–1.68]; P <0.001) but a lower rate of overall inpatient mortality (0.8% versus 1.4%; odds ratio, 0.57 [CI, 0.48–0.68]; P <0.001). CEA patients were less likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.2% versus 8.0%; odds ratio, 0.90 [CI, 0.84–0.96]; P =0.018) and 90 days (12.3% versus 14.1%; odds ratio, 0.86 [CI, 0.81–0.90]; P <0.001), and mean hospital costs were lower for CEA compared with CAS ($14 433 versus $19 172; P <0.001).

Conclusions—

The procedural treatment of carotid stenosis has changed dramatically in the post-CREST era. When matched for characteristics and illness severity, patients undergoing CEA had a higher rate of perioperative stroke than patients undergoing CAS, primarily among symptomatic patients. These findings are in contrast to the findings of CREST, which showed nearly twice the risk of stroke in CAS patients compared with CEA patients. CEA was associated with lower procedure cost and readmission rate.

Misconceptions regarding the adequacy of best medical intervention alone for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Medical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal.

METHODS

We reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017.

RESULTS

Randomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure.

The impact of post-dilatation on periprocedural outcomes during carotid artery stenting: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an accepted treatment modality for carotid artery disease. However, CAS is associated with periprocedural embolic events, and the effect of balloon post-dilatation has not been sufficiently investigated in large studies. We assessed the effect of post-dilatation on periprocedural outcomes during CAS.

METHODS

The study included 128 patients who underwent CAS. The patients were divided into groups according to whether post-dilatation was (post-dilatation [+], group 1) or was not (post dilatation [-], group 2) performed after stent deployment. Major adverse events were defined as death, minor or major stroke, and transient ischemic attack at 30 days. Silent ischemia was assessed using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

No significant between-group differences were found in baseline characteristics, comorbid diseases, or lesion characteristics. The degree of stenosis and procedure duration was greater in group 1 than in group 2. The rate of major adverse events at 30 days was similar between the two groups (5.1% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.844). The silent ischemia rate and number of high-intensity signals were higher in group 1 than in group 2 (45.8% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.020 and 1.01 [1.2] vs. 0.42 [0.79], p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed that post-dilatation was associated with a 2.4-fold increase in silent ischemia (95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.20, p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Although post-dilatation was not associated with an increase in major adverse events, it significantly increased the incidence of periprocedural silent ischemia. Therefore, post-dilation should be performed only in cases with severe residual stenosis after CAS.

Long-term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in a Multicenter Population-based Canadian Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes of patients treated with carotid endarterectomy and carotid-artery stenting.

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the long-term safety and efficacy of carotid-artery stenting compared with endarterectomy is accumulating from randomized trials. However, comparative data on the long-term outcomes of carotid revascularization strategies in real world practice are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, multicenter, observational cohort study using validated linked databases from Ontario, Canada. We identified all individuals treated with carotid endarterectomy and stenting (2002-2014), and followed them up to 2015. We compared long-term (up to 13 years) and 30-day outcomes of each strategy using multilevel multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models, and conducted confirmatory analyses using propensity-score matching methods.

RESULTS

In all, 15,525 patients received carotid-artery revascularization. Rate of the primary composite outcome of 30-day death, stroke, or myocardial infarction plus any stroke during 13-year follow-up was higher with stenting (16.3%) compared with endarterectomy (9.7%) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43-1.73, P < 0.001). The increased risk with stenting was observed regardless of age, sex, intervention year, carotid-artery symptoms, or diabetes. The primary outcome was driven by higher rates of 30-day stroke (adjusted HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29-1.95), 30-day death (adjusted HR 2.62, 95% CI 2.20-3.13), and long-term stroke >30 days after the procedure (adjusted HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.36-1.59) with stenting; 30-day myocardial infarction was lower with stenting (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86). These results were confirmed with 1:2 propensity-score matching (HR for primary composite outcome with stenting 1.55, 95% CI 1.31-1.83, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with carotid endarterectomy, stenting was associated with an early and sustained approximately 55% increased hazard for major adverse events over long-term follow-up. Although nonrandomized, these results raise potential concerns about the interchangeability of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in the context of actual clinical practice.

Comorbidities and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Revascularization for Asymptomatic Critical Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Treated with Carotid Endarterectomy or Angioplasty with Stenting

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between existing comorbidities and the effectiveness of revascularization of asymptomatic critical internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) and short-term and long-term outcome in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Material/Methods

Patients with asymptomatic critical ICA stenosis (n=62) included a group treated with CEA (n=31) and a group treated with CAS (n=31). A Health Assessment Questionnaire designed for this study was used to assess ten comorbidities, and the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) was used to evaluate HRQoL following CEA and CAS.

Results

Three comorbidities significantly influenced the effectiveness of revascularization in all patients studied who underwent CEA and CAS, which included symptomatic atherosclerosis in other vascular areas (p=0.048), coronary artery disease (CAD) (p=0.004), and previous myocardial infarction (MI) (p=0.004). In the CEA group, CAD and previous MI were significant comorbidities (p=0.002), when compared with the CAS group (p=0.635). In the CAS group, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a significant comorbidity in terms of outcome (p=0.025).

Conclusions

The comorbidities of atherosclerotic vascular disease, CAD, and previous MI had a significant influence of the effectiveness of the revascularization and postoperative HRQoL in all patients studied with asymptomatic critical ICA stenosis who were treated with CEA and CAS. When the two groups were compared, CAD and previous MI were significant comorbidities in the CEA group, and COPD was a significant comorbidity in the CAS group.

Female Gender as a Risk Factor for Adverse Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

We aim to identify gender differences in complications after carotid surgery. Our primary endpoint is the incidence of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary endpoints include restenosis and reintervention rates.

METHODS

All patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy from July 2003 to May 2016 were reviewed. The Society for Vascular Surgery carotid reporting standards were used as a guideline for data collection.

RESULTS

Over 13 years, 9,585 patients with carotid disease were referred to our institution. A total of 690 procedures were performed (633 carotid endarterectomies, 54 carotid angioplasties and stenting, and 3 bypasses). Of these 633 carotid endarterectomy procedures, 31.8% (201) were in women and 68.2% (432) were in men. In the perioperative period, female gender was found to be an independent predictor of stroke (odds ratio [OR]: 8.597, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.967-76.429, P = 0.041), restenosis (OR: 2.103, 95% CI: 1.445-3.060, P < 0.001), and reintervention (OR: 6.448, 95% CI: 1.313-31.667, P = 0.019). Mortality and cardiac morbidity did not significantly differ between genders. Ten-year stroke-free survival was 98.0% in women and 99.1% in men (logrank P = 0.259). Ten-year restenosis-free survival was 77.6% (45 of 201) in women and 89.4% (45 of 425) in men (logrank P < 0.001). Ten-year reintervention-free survival was 97.0% in women and 99.5% in men (logrank P = 0.008). Female gender was not an independent predictor of myocardial infarction (P = 0.713) and mortality (P = 0.856), respectively. The mean follow-up time was 47.06 ± 37.48 months with a median follow-up time of 43 months (interquartile range: 14.0-72.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender was an independent predictor of postoperative stroke, restenosis, and reintervention. Symptom status at the time of surgery and type of closure of the arteriotomy did not influence development of stroke in female patients.

[Some comments on the 2017 European Guidelines on treatment of atherosclerotic lesions of brachiocephalic arteries]

Analysed herein are the indications for primary interventions in patients with atherosclerotic lesions of internal carotid arteries according to the recommendations laid down in the 2017 Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

Early results of carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting: Outcomes from a Mediterranean country

Introduction and objectives

Which is the best carotid stenosis treatment remains a controversial issue. To present day, no study has compared the results of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy in Portugal. We aim to provide real life numbers regarding the outcomes of both procedures in Portuguese public hospitals.

Methods

Every patient registered between 2005 and 2015 with the main diagnosis of carotid stenosis and submitted to carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting was included. The information was obtained through the Central National Healthcare Administrative database, a mandatory registry for hospital refunding. Primary outcomes were hospital mortality and stroke. Patient demographics, comorbidities and hospital length of stay were also evaluated.

Results

The study included 6094 patients: 1399 were symptomatic (mention of prior stroke) and 4695 asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting was performed on 22% of the symptomatic and 18% of the asymptomatic patients. In the symptomatic patients, the in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in those submitted to stenting (3.6% vs. 1.6% in carotid endarterectomy, p = 0.025). No significant differences in outcomes were observed in the asymptomatic group (mortality 0.9% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.852; stroke rate of 2.6% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.652 – carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy). In both groups, there was an important increase in the proportion of stenting between 2005 and 2012, followed by a gradual decline until 2015.

Conclusion

Despite its increasing frequency, a higher early mortality was documented for CAS in symptomatic patients. No worse outcome was observed in asymptomatic patients.

Angioplasty in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis vs. endarterectomy compared to best medical treatment: One-year interim results of SPACE-2

BACKGROUND

Treatment of individuals with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is still handled controversially. Recommendations for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are based on trials having recruited patients more than 15 years ago. Registry data indicate that advances in best medical treatment (BMT) may lead to a markedly decreasing risk of stroke in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of the SPACE-2 trial (ISRCTN78592017) was to compare the stroke preventive effects of BMT alone with that of BMT in combination with CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS), respectively, in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of ≥70% European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) criteria.

METHODS

SPACE-2 is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, open study. A major secondary endpoint was the cumulative rate of any stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or death from any cause within 30 days plus an ipsilateral ischemic stroke within one year of follow-up. Safety was assessed as the rate of any stroke and death from any cause within 30 days after CEA or CAS. Protocol changes had to be implemented. The results on the one-year period after treatment are reported.

FINDINGS

It was planned to enroll 3550 patients. Due to low recruitment, the enrollment of patients was stopped prematurely after randomization of 513 patients in 36 centers to CEA (n = 203), CAS (n = 197), or BMT (n = 113). The one-year rate of the major secondary endpoint did not significantly differ between groups (CEA 2.5%, CAS 3.0%, BMT 0.9%; p = 0.530) as well as rates of any stroke (CEA 3.9%, CAS 4.1%, BMT 0.9%; p = 0.256) and all-cause mortality (CEA 2.5%, CAS 1.0%, BMT 3.5%; p = 0.304). About half of all strokes occurred in the peri-interventional period. Higher albeit statistically non-significant rates of restenosis occurred in the stenting group (CEA 2.0% vs. CAS 5.6%; p = 0.068) without evidence of increased stroke rates.

INTERPRETATION

The low sample size of this prematurely stopped trial of 513 patients implies that its power is not sufficient to show that CEA or CAS is superior to a modern medical therapy (BMT) in the primary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with an asymptomatic carotid stenosis up to one year after treatment. Also, no evidence for differences in safety between CAS and CEA during the first year after treatment could be derived. Follow-up will be performed up to five years. Data may be used for pooled analysis with ongoing trials.

Influence of stenting with open-cell stents vs close-cell stents on the outcomes of patients with bilateral carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an effective way to prevent stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. However, several studies comparing the outcomes of stenting with open-cell stents (OCS) vs closed-cell stents (CCS) have yielded inconclusive results. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CAS with OCS vs CCS in the same patients.

METHODS

From year 2000 to 2016, we included 52 patients with severe bilateral carotid stenosis who underwent OCS deployment in one artery and CCS deployment in the contralateral artery. Stents were selected according to arterial anatomy and lesion morphology, and the peri-procedural and long-term outcomes of treatment with OCS vs CCS, were compared in terms of rates of ischemic spot development on early post-procedural diffusion-weighted imaging (ISDWI), in-stent restenosis (ISR), and recurrent stroke.

RESULTS

After stenting with OCS vs CCS, the number (rate) of arteries with no lesion, < 5 lesions, and ≥ 5 lesions on DWI was 9 (32%) vs 8 (27%), 8 (29%) vs 17 (57%), and 11 (39%) vs 5 (17%) (p = .10); number (rate) of arteries with 0%, < 50%, and >50% ISR was 34 (65%) vs 34 (65%), 9 (17%) vs 11 (21%), and 9 (17%) vs 7 (13%) (p = .71); number (rate) of recurrent strokes after CAS was 2 (4%) vs 0 (0%).

CONCLUSION

The rates of peri-procedural cerebral ischemic insult, long-term stent patency, and stroke recurrence indicate that no one carotid stent cell design is superior to the other. We suggest both OCS and CCS are reasonable options for the treatment of severe carotid stenosis.

Risk-Benefit Assessment of Carotid Revascularization

Severe carotid atherosclerotic disease is responsible for 14% of all strokes, which result in a high rate of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, advances in clinical treatment of cardiovascular diseases have resulted in a significant decrease in mortality due to these causes. To review the main studies on carotid revascularization, evaluating the relationship between risks and benefits of this procedure. The data reviewed show that, for a net benefit, carotid intervention should only be performed in cases of a periprocedural risk of less than 6% in symptomatic patients. The medical therapy significantly reduced the revascularization net benefit ratio for stroke prevention in asymptomatic patients. Real life registries indicate that carotid stenting is associated with a greater periprocedural risk. The operator annual procedure volume and patient age has an important influence in the rate of stroke and death after carotid stenting. Symptomatic patients have a higher incidence of death and stroke after the procedure. Revascularization has the greatest benefit in the first weeks of the event. There is a discrepancy in the scientific literature about carotid revascularization and/or clinical treatment, both in primary and secondary prevention of patients with carotid artery injury. The identification of patients who will really benefit is a dynamic process subject to constant review.

Comparing Long-term Mortality After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Stenting Using a Novel Instrumental Variable Method for Risk Adjustment in Observational Time-to-Event Data

IMPORTANCE

Choosing between competing treatment options is difficult for patients and clinicians when results from randomized and observational studies are discordant. Observational real-world studies yield more generalizable evidence for decision making than randomized clinical trials, but unmeasured confounding, especially in time-to-event analyses, can limit validity.

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in real-world practice using a novel instrumental variable method designed for time-to-event outcomes, and to compare the results with traditional risk-adjustment models used in observational research for survival analyses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter cohort study was performed. The Vascular Quality Initiative, an observational quality improvement registry, was used to compare long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS. The study included 86 017 patients who underwent CEA (n = 73 312) or CAS (n = 12 705) between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016. Patients were followed up for long-term mortality assessment by linking the registry data to Medicare claims. Medicare claims data were available through September 31, 2015.

EXPOSURE

Procedure type (CEA vs CAS).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality using unadjusted, adjusted, propensity-matched, and instrumental variable methods were examined. The instrumental variable was the proportion of CEA among the total carotid procedures (endarterectomy and stenting) performed at each hospital in the 12 months before each patient's index operation and therefore varies over the study period.

RESULTS

Participants who underwent CEA had a mean (SD) age of 70.3 (9.4) years compared with 69.1 (10.4) years for CAS, and most were men (44 191 [60.4%] for CEA and 8117 [63.9%] for CAS). The observed 5-year mortality was 12.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-13.2%) for CEA and 17.0% (95% CI, 16.0%-18.1%) for CAS. The unadjusted HR of mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71), and Cox-adjusted and propensity-matched HRs were similar (0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74 and 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77, respectively). These findings are comparable with published observational studies of CEA vs CAS. However, the association between CEA and mortality was more modest when estimated by instrumental variable analysis (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98), a finding similar to data reported in randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study found a survival advantage associated with CEA over CAS in unadjusted and Cox-adjusted analyses. However, this finding was more modest when using an instrumental variable method designed for time-to-event outcomes for risk adjustment. The instrumental variable-based results were more similar to findings from randomized clinical trials, suggesting this method may provide less biased estimates of time-dependent outcomes in observational analyses.