Experience and Outcomes With Carotid Artery Stenting

Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study)

BACKGROUND

In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature.

METHODS

Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

Carotid artery interventions - endarterectomy versus stenting

Current management of patients with carotid artery stenosis is based on well-established guidelines, including surgical procedures - carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) - and optimal medical treatment alone. Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA are similar, suggesting strong clinical durability for both treatments. Recent advances, which include the emergence of novel endovascular treatment tools and techniques, combined with more recent randomised trial data shed new light on optimal patient selection and treatment in contemporary practice. Improved, modern technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered micromesh stents yield better outcomes and should result in further improvements in CAS. In centres of excellence, nowadays, the majority of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis can be successfully treated with either CEA or CAS.

The effect of operator's experience on mechanical thrombectomy outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has become the standard of care for stroke patients. The majority of the clinical trials and publications analyzing the outcomes related to the procedures report interventional performance by experienced practitioners. However, few of them individualize their preliminary metrics according to the operator's experience.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the literature and report safety and efficacy outcomes following MT procedures and correlate them with the operator's experience. Primary outcomes were successful recanalization, defined as modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction greater or equal to 2b or 3, duration of the procedure measured in minutes, and serious adverse event.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were utilized.

RESULTS

There were six studies comprising 9348 patients (mean age 69.8 years; 51.2% males), and 9361 MT procedures were included. Each publication used for this review used a different experience definition to report their data. Higher interventionists' experience demonstrated a positive relationship with the possibility of successful recanalization and an inverse relationship with the duration needed for the operation in almost all of the included studies. As for the complications, none of the authors reported a statistically significant risk reduction of an adverse event, except Olthuis et al. correlating increasing training with lower odds of stroke progression.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher experience level is associated with better recanalization rates and shorter procedural duration in MT operations. Further studies are warranted to define the minimum required level of experience for operational autonomy.

Learning curve and proficiency metrics for transcarotid artery revascularization

BACKGROUND

When introduced to a new procedure, physicians improve their performance and reduce their procedural adverse event rates rapidly during the initial cases and then improvement slows, signaling that proficiency has been achieved. Determining when they have acquired proficiency has important implications for procedural innovation, education, credentialing, and patient safety. We analyzed the worldwide experience with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), a hybrid approach to carotid revascularization, to identify the (1) procedural performance measures associated with clinical and technical adverse events; (2) target levels of performance measures that minimize adverse event rates; and (3) number of TCAR cases needed to achieve the target levels for the performance measures.

METHODS

The patient, lesion, and physician characteristics were collected for each TCAR procedure performed by each physician worldwide in an international quality assurance database. Four procedural performance measures were recorded for each procedure: flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and total skin-to-skin time. Composite clinical adverse events (ie, transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, death) and composite technical adverse events (ie, aborted procedure, conversion to surgery, bleeding, dissection, cranial nerve injury, device failure), occurring within 24 hours were also recorded. Correlations between each performance measure and the clinical and technical adverse event rates were computed. The inflection points in the performance measures were identified at which no further improvements occurred in the adverse event rates. Finally, the minimum number of TCAR cases required to achieve the target performance measure levels was computed.

RESULTS

A total of 18,240 procedures performed by 1273 physicians were analyzed. Of the 18,240 patients, 34.9% were women and 62.5% were asymptomatic. The flow-reversal time correlated with clinical adverse events adjusted for age, sex, and symptomatic status (R2 = 0.91; P < .0001) and adjusted technical adverse events (R2 = 0.86; P < .0001). The skin-to-skin time correlated with adjusted technical adverse events (R2 = 0.92; P < .0001). A reduction in flow-reversal times to <13.1 minutes and the skin-to-skin time to <81 minutes did not translate into further improvements in the adverse event rates. A minimum of 26 TCAR cases was required to achieve the target flow-reversal time, and a minimum of 15 cases was required to achieve the target skin-to-skin time.

CONCLUSIONS

The flow-reversal time and skin-to-skin time are appropriate performance measures for establishing the level of expertise of physicians as they acquire skills to perform TCAR. A target time of ≤13.1 minutes for flow-reversal and 81 minutes for skin-to-skin time minimized the adverse event rates. Familiarity with the steps involved in performing TCAR was achieved after ≥15 cases, and minimizing clinical adverse events occurred after ≥26 cases.

Effect of Operator's Experience on Proficiency in Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate among trained interventional neuroradiologist, whether increasing individual experience was associated with an improvement in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedural performance metrics.

METHODS

Individual MT procedural data from 5 centers of the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke registry and 2 additional high-volume stroke centers were pooled. Operator experience was defined for each operator as a continuous variable, cumulating the number of MT procedures performed since January 2015, as MT became standard of care or, if later than this date, since the operator started performing mechanical thrombectomies in autonomy. We tested the associations between operator's experience and procedural metrics.

RESULTS

A total of 4516 procedures were included, performed by 36 operators at 7 distinct centers, with a median of 97.5 endovascular treatment procedures per operator (interquartile range, 57-170.2) over the study period. Higher operator's experience, analyzed as a continuous variable, was associated with a significantly shorter procedural duration (β estimate, -3.98 [95% CI, -5.1 to -2.8]; P<0.001), along with local anesthesia and M1 occlusion location in multivariable models. Increasing experience was associated with better Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scores (estimate, 1.02 [1-1.04]; P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

In trained interventional neuroradiologists, increasing experience in MT is associated with significantly shorter procedural duration and better reperfusion rates, with a theoretical ceiling effect observed after around 100 procedures. These results may inform future training and practice guidelines to set minimal experience standards before autonomization, and to set-up operators' recertification processes tailored to individual case volume and prior experience.

Comparable Outcomes for Transcarotid and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement at a High Volume US Center

With continued growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), safe alternative access remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral (TF) access. Registry-based outcomes with transcarotid (TC) TAVR are favorable compared to transapical or transaxillary/subclavian, but TC vs TF comparisons have not been made. Our objective was to compare outcomes between TF and TC access routes for TAVR at a high-volume United States center. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all TF and TC TAVR procedures from June 11, 2014 (first TC case) through December 31, 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day stroke and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 1-year stroke, 1-year survival, and 30-day and 1-year life-threatening/major bleeding, vascular complications, and myocardial infarction. Propensity score weighted (PSW) models were used to compare risk-adjusted TF and TC outcomes. Of 1,465 TAVR procedures, 1319 (90%) were TF and 146 (10%) were TC. Procedure time and length of stay did not differ between groups. Unadjusted 30-day stroke (TF = 2.0%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.536) and mortality (TF = 2.1%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.629) were similar between groups. PSW 30-day stroke (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.8 (0.2-2.8)) and mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.8 (0.2-3.0)) were similar between groups. Unadjusted and PSW 30-day major/life threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. Survival at one year was 90% (88%-92%) for TF patients and 87% (81%-93%) for TC patients (unadjusted P = 0.28, PSW hazard ratio = 1.0 (0.6-1.7)). Transcarotid TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared to transfemoral TAVR at an experienced, high-volume center.

The Relationship Between Carotid Revascularization Procedural Volume and Perioperative Outcomes in Australia and New Zealand

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) prevent stroke in selected patients. However, each intervention carries a risk of perioperative complications including stroke or death (S/D). We aimed to determine the relationship between operator volume, hospital volume, and the perioperative risk of S/D in carotid revascularization in Australia and New Zealand. Retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected data extracted from the Australasian Vascular Audit between 2010 and 2017. Annual caseload volume was analyzed in quintiles (Q) using multivariate regression to assess its impact on perioperative S/D. Carotid endarterectomy procedures (n = 16 765) demonstrated higher S/D rates for lower-volume operators (2.21% for Q1-Q3 [1-17 annual cases] vs 1.76% for Q4-Q5 [18-61 annual cases]; odds ratio [OR]: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.001-1.64; P = .049). Carotid artery stenting procedures (n = 1350) also demonstrated higher S/D rates for lower-volume operators (2.63% for Q1-Q3 [1-11 annual cases] vs 0.37% for Q4-Q5 [12-31 annual cases]; OR: 6.11; 95% CI: 1.27-29.33; P = .024). No significant hospital volume-outcome effect was observed for either procedure. An inverse relationship was demonstrated between operator volume and perioperative S/D rates following CEA and CAS. Consideration of minimum operator thresholds, restructuring of services and networked referral pathways of care in Australia and New Zealand, would likely result in improved patient outcomes.

Quality Assurance for Carotid Stenting in the CREST-2 Registry

BACKGROUND

The CREST-2 Registry (C2R) was approved by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-National Institutes of Health in September 2014 with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry collaboration to enroll patients undergoing CAS. The registry credentials interventionists and promotes optimal patient selection, procedural-technique, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports periprocedural outcomes in a cohort of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Asymptomatic patients with ≥70% and symptomatic patients with ≥50% carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age, and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy are eligible for enrollment. Interventionists are credentialed by a multispecialty committee that reviews experience, lesion selection, technique, and outcomes. The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke and death (S/D) in the 30-day periprocedural period. Myocardial infarction and access-site complications were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

As of December 2018, 187 interventionists from 98 sites in the United States performed 2,219 CAS procedures in 2,141 patients with primary atherosclerosis (78 were bilateral). The mean age of the cohort was 68 years, 65% were male, and 92% were white; 1,180 (55%) were for asymptomatic disease, and 961 (45%) were for symptomatic disease. All U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved stents and embolic protection devices were represented. The 30-day rate of S/D was 1.4% for asymptomatic, 2.8% for symptomatic, and 2.0% for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

C2R is the first national registry for CAS cosponsored by federal and industry partners. CAS was performed by experienced operators using appropriate patient selection and optimal technique. In that setting, a broad group of interventionists achieved very low periprocedural S/D rates for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates after carotid procedures performed by different specialties

OBJECTIVE

Different competencies and skills are required and obtained during medical specialization. However, whether these have an impact on procedural outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear. We assessed the reported association between operator specialization and procedural outcomes after CEA or CAS to determine whether CEA and CAS should be performed by specific specialties.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Embase up to August 21, 2017, for randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more specialties performing CEA or CAS for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The composite primary outcome was procedural stroke or death (ie, occurring within 30 days of the procedure or before discharge). Risk estimates were pooled with a generic inverse variance random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies (26 providing data on CEA, 8 providing data on CAS, and 1 providing data on both CEA and CAS) were included, describing 256,033 CEA and 38,605 CAS procedures. For CEA, decreased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by vascular surgeons was found with pooled unadjusted relative risk (RR) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.86; seven studies) compared with neurosurgeons and RR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.99; six studies) compared with general surgeons. An increased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by neurosurgeons compared with cardiothoracic surgeons was found with a pooled unadjusted RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.46). No studies adjusted for potential confounding, and no significant unadjusted associations were found in other comparisons of operator specialty for the primary outcome. For CAS, no differences in procedural stroke or death were found by operator specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies were at high risk of bias mainly because of potential confounding by patient selection for CEA and CAS. Current evidence is insufficient to restrict CEA or CAS to specific specialties.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The advance of therapies to reduce the stroke impact of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis has proved difficult over the last decade. Disagreement concerning the underlying randomized control trials has limited entry into the care arena of endovascular therapies. Recently, advances in percutaneous therapies for carotid artery disease have been reported and provide a substantial database supporting the further incorporation of endovascular-based therapies in patients who need revascularization and meet selection criteria. With a second randomized control trial now published, it is time for a re-evaluation of endovascular therapy as a component of carotid artery care. This review describes the advances in the field in the last 5 years, clarifying the current position of these therapies in the care of the patient with asymptomatic carotid artery disease.

Influence of multiple stents on periprocedural stroke after carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST)

BACKGROUND

In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST), carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion length and nature of the lesions were important factors that predicted the observed difference in stroke rates between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Additional patient-related factors influencing CAS outcomes in CREST included age and symptomatic status. The importance of the operator's proficiency and its influence on periprocedural complications have not been well defined. We evaluated data from CREST to determine the impact of use of multiple stents, which we speculate may be related to technical proficiency.

METHODS

CREST includes CAS performed for symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis and asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were enrolled in the trial and in the lead-in registry. Data from patients enrolled in the CREST registry and randomized trial from 2000 to 2008 were reviewed for patient- and lesion-related characteristics along with number of stents deployed. The occurrence of 30-day stroke and demographic and clinical features were recorded. Odds ratios for 30-day stroke associated with the use of multiple stents were calculated in univariate analysis and on multivariable analysis after adjustment for demographics (age, sex, symptomatic status), lesion characteristics (length, ulceration, eccentric, percentage stenosis), and risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking).

RESULTS

The registry (n = 1531) and trial (n = 1121) enrolled 2652 patients undergoing CAS. The mean age was 69 years; 36% were women, and 38% were symptomatic. The mean diameter stenosis was 78%, and the mean lesion length was 18 mm (±standard deviation, 8 mm). Risk factors included hypertension (85%), diabetes (32%), dyslipidemia (84%), and smoking (23%). All patients received Acculink stents (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Ill) that were 20, 30, or 40 mm in length (straight or tapered) and Accunet (Abbot Vascular) embolic protection when possible. Most patients received one stent (n = 2545), whereas 98 patients received two stents and 9 patients received three stents (P < .001) to treat the lesion. Patients receiving more than one stent were older (P = .01) but did not differ in other demographic or risk factors. Strokes occurred in 118 (4.5%) of all CAS procedures, in 102 (4%) with the use of one stent, and in 16 (15%) with the use of two or three stents. After adjustment for demographics, lesion characteristics, and risk factors, the use of more than one stent resulted in 2.90 odds (95% confidence interval, 1.49-5.64) for a stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we know that lesion characteristics (length, ulceration) play an important role in CAS outcomes, in this early experience with carotid stenting, a significant and independent relationship existed between the number of stents used and procedural risk of CAS. We postulate that this was an indicator of the operator's inexperience with the procedure.

Evaluation and Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

Medical therapies for the prevention of stroke have advanced considerably in the past several years. There can also be a role for mechanical restoration of the lumen by endarterectomy or stenting in selected patients with high-grade atherosclerotic stenosis of the extracranial carotid artery. Endarterectomy is generally recommended for patients with high-grade symptomatic carotid stenosis. Stenting is considered an option for patients at high risk of complications with endarterectomy. Whether revascularization is better than contemporary medical therapy for asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis is a subject of several ongoing randomized clinical trials in the United States and internationally.

Clinical Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting According to Provider Specialty and Volume

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated better outcomes for carotid endarterectomy with high-volume hospitals and providers. However, only a few studies have reported on the impact of operator specialty/volume on the perioperative outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study will analyze the correlation of CAS outcomes and provider specialty and volume.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of CAS procedures done at our institution during a 10-year period were analyzed. Major adverse events (MAEs; 30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, and death) were compared according to provider specialty (vascular surgeons [VSs], interventional cardiologists [ICs], interventional radiologists [IRs], interventional vascular medicine [IVM]), and volume (≥5 CAS/year vs. <5 CAS/year).

RESULTS

Four hundred fourteen CAS procedures (44% for symptomatic indications) were analyzed. Demographics/clinical characteristics were somewhat similar between specialties. MAE rates were not significantly different between various specialties: 3.1% for IC, 6.3% for VS, 7.1% for IR, 6.7% for IVM (P = 0.3121; 6.3% for VS and 3.8% for others combined, P = 0.2469). When physicians with <5 CAS/year were excluded: the MAE rates were 3.1% for IC, 4.7% for VS, and 6.7% for IVM (P = 0.5633). When VS alone were compared with others, and physicians with <5 CAS/year were excluded, the MAE rates were 4.7% for VS vs. 3.6% for non-VS (P = 0.5958). The MAE rates for low-volume providers, regardless of their specialty, were 9.5% vs. 4% for high-volume providers (P = 0.1002). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio of MAE was 0.4 (0.15-1.1, P = 0.0674) for high-volume providers, while the odds ratio for VS was 1.3 (0.45-3.954, P = 0.5969).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative MAE rates for CAS were similar between various providers, regardless of specialties, particularly for vascular surgeons with similar volume to nonvascular surgeons. Low-volume providers had higher MAE rates.

Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: Revascularization

In patients with carotid stenosis, the most common cause of stroke is atheroembolization, and the risk is strongly related to stenosis severity and symptomatic status (stroke or transient ischemic attack within 6months). Carotid revascularization by carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) results in plaque "passivation" by lumen enlargement, plaque removal, or plaque coverage with subsequent endothelialization. While there is considerable circumstantial evidence linking a decrease in the risk of stroke to the use of "optimal medical therapy (OMT)", the components of OMT have not been defined, and such therapy has not been rigorously evaluated in any randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared with revascularization. Studies of other vascular patients suggest that statins decrease the risk of stroke by anti-inflammatory effects, rather than cholesterol reduction. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST-2) is currently randomizing standard-risk patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis to OMT alone versus OMT plus CEA or CAS, but results are not expected until 2020. In the meantime, data from several "landmark" trials of CEA versus aspirin demonstrated 45-65% reduction in the 5-year risk of stroke after CEA. Several RCTs demonstrate superiority of CAS over CEA in high-risk patients (those at high-risk for CEA), and equivalence of CAS and CEA in standard-risk patients (those at acceptable risk for CEA). Compared with CEA, CAS is associated with significantly less periprocedural myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and neurological injury (cranial nerve injury plus stroke); higher risk of minor stroke; and similar risk of long-term stroke. Features that increase the risk of CAS include complex aortic arch and carotid anatomy, and features that increase the risk of CEA include severe underlying cardiopulmonary disease and hostile neck anatomy; age>80years, especially those with baseline cognitive impairment, are at higher risk for stroke after CEA and CAS.

Patient- and lesion-tailored algorithm of endovascular treatment for arterial occlusive disease of extracranial arteries supplying the brain: safety of the treatment at 30-day follow-up

Introduction

Although surgical endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid artery stenosis, stenting plays an important role as an alternative treatment modality, especially in high-risk patients. The actual safety profile associated with stenting procedures is probably better than that reported by randomized controlled trials.

Aim

To assess the safety of stent implantations in extracranial arteries supplying the brain, and also to identify risk factors associated with this procedure.

Material and methods

This was a post hoc analysis, with 30-day follow-up. We analyzed the results of treatment of 372 patients who underwent 408 procedures, 197 such procedures in asymptomatic, and 211 in symptomatic individuals. Stenting procedures were performed using a technique and armamentarium which were tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions.

Results

There were 6 (1.5%) strokes, including 2 (0.5%) major strokes, 1 ipsi- and 1 contralateral, and 4 (1.0%) minor strokes. In asymptomatic patients there was 1 (0.3%) minor stroke. Transient ischemic attacks occurred in 5 (1.2%) patients. There were 2 (0.5%) non-STEMI myocardial infarctions and 2 (0.5%) non-stroke related fatalities. Risk factors of these adverse events were diabetes mellitus, lesions localized in a tortuous segment of the artery, embolic material in the filter and bilateral stenoses of carotid arteries. Additional risk factors in asymptomatic patients were renal impairment and advanced coronary artery disease; and in symptomatic patients, grade 3 arterial hypertension, dislipidemia, cigarette smoking and lesions requiring predilatation.

Conclusions

Stenting procedures of extracranial arteries supplying the brain, which are tailored to the type and anatomy of lesions, seem to be relatively safe.

Effect of Carotid Artery Stenting on Cognitive Function in Patients with Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis and Cerebral Lacunar Infarction: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an important therapeutic strategy for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, the potential influence of CAS on cognitive function in patients with carotid artery stenosis and cerebral lacunar infarction has not been determined. This study investigated changes in cognitive function associated with CAS and the factors related to these changes.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study comprised 579 Chinese patients with cerebral lacunar infarction and carotid artery stenosis for whom CAS was indicated, and a matched control group of 552 healthy individuals. Cognitive function before CAS and at scheduled intervals from 6 months to 3 years was assessed with instruments that included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale. Potential factors that might affect cognitive function were analyzed via logistic regression.

RESULTS

The MMSE and MoCA scores of the patients before CAS were significantly lower than that of the control subjects. These scores were significantly higher 6 months after CAS and sustained or increased throughout the 3-year follow-up. Also significantly improved after CAS from baseline were scores for an alternating trail test, cube copying, clock-drawing, attention, and delayed recall in an auditory-verbal learning test. Logistic regression analyses showed that age greater than 65 y, little education, diabetes, and hypertension were independent risk factors for deteriorated MoCA scores 3 years after CAS.

CONCLUSION

CAS was associated with significantly improved cognitive function in cerebral lacunar infarction patients with severe stenosis.