Safety and efficacy of reoperative carotid endarterectomy: A 14-year experience

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.

Repeated carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting for patients with carotid restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Carotid restenosis (CRS) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an issue that cannot be ignored. This study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of repeated CEA (redo CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for CRS after CEA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic analysis using the search terms "CEA restenosis," "carotid restenosis," or "CEA recurrent stenosis" in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. After applying the inclusion criteria, all available data were summarized to evaluate the effects of redo CEA and CAS for patients with CRS after prior CEA.

RESULTS

Fifty articles (9 comparative studies and 41 noncomparative studies) involving 4,399 patients were included. No differences were observed in the 30-day perioperative mortality, stroke and transient ischemic attack rates in the comparative studies (P > .05) and the noncomparative studies (P > .05). Patients undergoing redo CEA suffered more cranial nerve injuries (CNIs) than those undergoing CAS (P < .05), but most of these cases recovered within 3 months. Patients treated with redo CEA exhibited similar myocardial infarction (MI) rates to those treated with CAS in the comparative studies (P = .53), but the rate was higher in the noncomparative studies (P < .01). However, a nonsignificant difference was noted in freedom from stroke at 36 months in the comparative studies (P = .47) and at 12 months in the noncomparative studies (P = .89). The risk of restenosis was greater in the CAS patients than in the redo CEA patients (P < .05 for comparative and noncomparative studies).

CONCLUSION

Both redo CEA and CAS are safe and feasible for CRS after CEA. Although the incidences of CNI and MI were increased in the redo CEA group, most of the CNI cases were reversible. Patients treated with CAS were more likely to develop restenosis than those treated with redo CEA over long-term follow-up.

Management of extracranial carotid artery disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in developed nations. Up to 88% of strokes are ischemic in nature. Extracranial carotid artery atherosclerotic disease is the third leading cause of ischemic stroke in the general population and the second most common nontraumatic cause among adults younger than 45 years. This article provides comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for the management of extracranial atherosclerotic disease, including imaging for screening and diagnosis, medical management, and interventional management.

Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in patients undergoing reintervention after prior carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the era of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) are unclear. We compared perioperative results and durability of CAS vs CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic restenosis after prior CEA and investigated the risk of reintervention compared with primary procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS and CEA for restenosis between January 2003 and March 2012 were identified within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database. End points included any stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days, cranial nerve injury at discharge, and restenosis ≥ 70% at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify whether prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for adverse outcome.

RESULTS

Out of 9305 CEA procedures, 212 patients (2.3%) underwent redo CEA (36% symptomatic). Of 663 CAS procedures, 220 patients (33%) underwent CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA (31% symptomatic). Demographics of patients undergoing redo CEA were comparable to patients undergoing CAS after prior CEA. Stroke/death/MI rates were statistically similar between redo CEA vs CAS after prior CEA in both asymptomatic (4.4% vs 3.3%; P = .8) and symptomatic patients (6.6% vs 5.8%; P = 1.0). No significant difference in restenosis ≥ 70% was identified between redo CEA and CAS after prior CEA (5.2% vs 3.0%; P = .5). Redo CEA vs primary CEA had increased stroke/death/MI rate in both symptomatic (6.6% vs 2.3%; P = .05) and asymptomatic patients 4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .03). Prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for stroke/death/MI among all patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5). No difference in cranial nerve injury was identified between redo CEA and primary CEA (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

In the VSGNE, CEA and CAS showed statistically equivalent outcomes in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients treated for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA. However, regardless of symptom status, the risk of reintervention was increased compared with patients undergoing primary CEA.

Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

Background

There is significant variation in the indications for intervention in patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to describe these indications in a contemporary cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the indications for carotid intervention in patients with recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) that were published between 1990 and 2012.

Results

There were 50 studies reporting on a total of 3524 patients undergoing a carotid procedure; of these, 3478 underwent CEA as the initial intervention. Reintervention was by CEA in 2403 patients and by CAS in 1121. Only 54·7 per cent of the patients were treated for any symptoms and, importantly, just 444 (23·1 per cent of 1926 symptomatic patients) underwent intervention for documented ipsilateral symptoms. None of the studies reported whether the patients were evaluated for other sources of emboli. The remaining 45·3 per cent of patients had asymptomatic restenosis and in the majority of the studies were treated when the degree of stenosis exceeded 80 per cent. The time to repeat intervention was significantly longer in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis, in asymptomatic patients and in patients undergoing CEA.

Conclusion

The reported criteria for retreatment of carotid stenosis were not rigorous and there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the indications for intervention.

Multicentric retrospective study of endovascular treatment for restenosis after open carotid surgery

OBJECTIVES

To analyse perioperative and midterm outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for symptomatic >50% and asymptomatic >70% restenosis after open carotid surgery (OCS).

DESIGN

A multicentric retrospective study.

METHODS

Outcome measures 30-day death, neurologic and anatomic (thrombosis, restenosis) events. Univariant and multivariant logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for neurologic and anatomic events.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients with a mean age of 69 years (range, 45-88) were treated for asymptomatic (86%) or symptomatic (14%) restenosis. The 30-day combined operative mortality and stroke morbidity was 2.8% in asymptomatic patients and 2.9% in symptomatic patients. Events during follow-up (mean duration, 29 months) included stroke in four cases, TIA in two, stent thrombosis in four and restenosis in 21. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival, neurologic-event-free survival, anatomic-event-free survival and reintervention-free survival were 95.4%, 94.7%, 96.7% and 99.5%, respectively, at 1 year and 80.3%, 93.8%, 85.1% and 96%, respectively, at 4 years. Multivariant analysis showed that statin use was correlated with a lower risk of anatomic events (odds ratio (OR) = 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.68), p = 0.01) and that bypass was associated with a higher risk of anatomic events than endarterectomy (OR = 5.0 (95% CI 1.6-16.6), p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

CAS is a feasible therapeutic alternative to OCS for carotid restenosis with acceptable risks in the perioperative period. Restenosis rate may be higher in patients treated after bypass.

Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.

Prospective Randomized Trials of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: An Appraisal of the Current Literature

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as a treatment alternative in patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Recent technological advances in catheter-based intervention have both facilitated the procedure and possibly improved the clinical outcome of this percutaneous intervention. The reduction in device profile of introducer sheaths and stents, as well as the ubiquitous use of neuroprotection devices, has resulted in a greater application of this treatment modality in patients with carotid bifurcation disease. The efficacy of carotid artery stenting must be carefully evaluated against carotid endarterectomy in a prospective randomized manner, as the latter treatment has long been considered the standard treatment of carotid occlusive disease. Several recent clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy have yielded mixed results with regard to the efficacy of this percutaneous intervention. This article analyzed the results of these prospective randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy. Critical appraisal of these trials, as well as relevant methodological issues of these investigations, is discussed in this article.

Operative Intervention for Carotid Restenosis is Safe and Effective

Carotid stenting has been proposed as an alternative to reoperative carotid endarterectomy (rCEA) for recurrent carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to prove the safety, effectiveness and durability of reoperation in long term follow up of 18 years in a community hospital setting. From March 1988 to April 2005 80 patients, 46 men and 34 women (mean age: 64.1 years) underwent a total of 83 operations. Symptomatic recurrent stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 32, asymptomatic high-grade stenosis (>80%) in 49, intimal flap in one and fibromuscular dysplasia (F.M.D), in one. The initial operation was carotid endarterectomy with primary closure in 60 and prosthetic patch in 23. The mean recurrences were at 23.3 months in 33 with myointimal hyperplasia, 105.4 months in 29 with recurrent atherosclerosis, 61.4 months in 19 with both hyperplasia and atherosclerosis, 2 months in one with intimal flap and 8 months in one with F.M.D bands. Reoperation utilized primary closure (3), vein patch (14), prosthetic patch (55), Gore-Tex interposition grafts (7), vein interposition grafts (3) and intraoperative dilation (1). No perioperative strokes or deaths occurred. One patient died from cardiac complications following combined rCEA and coronary artery bypass grafting. Operative morbidity consisted of reversible nerve injury (5), irreversible recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (1) and hematoma requiring evacuation (3). During follow up (3-153 months; mean: 50.9) carotid occlusion resulted in mild ipsilateral stroke in one patient, and one non-hemispheric stroke. There were 26 late deaths due to all causes, one due to CVA. Eight patients required reoperation (mean 53.4 months). Seven of these were hypertensive. Kaplan-Meier analysis of long-term follow up shows relatively high stroke free rates; at 153 months (12.75 years) the hemispheric stroke free rate was 98.67% and the all-stroke free rate was 95.85%. The survival estimate following redo surgery was 69.97% at 5 years and 40.23% at 10 years. We found that individuals on statin therapy (p-value=0.0042), and those on combination of statin and aspirin (p-value=0.0320), had significantly increased interval between primary and secondary operation. Increased age was correlated to a decreased time to redo surgery (p-value=<0.0001). We conclude that reoperation for recurrent carotid stenosis using standard vascular techniques is safe, effective, durable and cost effective. It should continue to be the mainstay of treatment when secondary intervention is required. Statins have a salutary effect on durability of the procedure and should be used when indicated.

Patient selection for carotid stenting versus endarterectomy: A systematic review

Carotid artery stenting has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of severe extracranial carotid stenosis in patients with anatomic or clinical factors that increase their risk of complications with surgery, yet there remains a substantial amount of variability and uncertainty in clinical practice in the referral of patients for stenting vs endarterectomy. By undertaking a thorough review of the literature, we sought to better define which subsets of patients with "high-risk" features would be likely to preferentially benefit from carotid stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Although only a single randomized trial comparing the outcomes of carotid stenting with distal protection and endarterectomy has been completed, a wealth of observational data was reviewed. Relative to endarterectomy, the results of carotid stenting seem favorable in the setting of several anatomic conditions that render surgery technically difficult, such as restenosis after prior endarterectomy, prior radical neck surgery, and previous radiation therapy involving the neck. The results of stenting are also favorable among patients with severe concomitant cardiac disease. Carotid endarterectomy, alternatively, seems to represent the procedure of choice among patients 80 years of age or older in the absence of other high-risk features. Overall, existing data support the concept that carotid stenting and endarterectomy represent complementary rather than competing modes of therapy. Pending the availability of randomized trial data to help guide procedural selection, which is likely many years away, an objective understanding of existing data is valuable to help select the optimal mode of revascularization therapy for patients with severe carotid artery disease who are at heightened surgical risk.

Carotid Stenting: Should it Replace Endarterectomy in Higher-Risk Patients?

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a useful and potentially less-invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of extracranial carotid stenoses. It has been suggested that specific patient subgroups, including those with significant medical comorbidities, recurrent stenosis, anatomically inaccessible lesions, and a hostile neck, might benefit from CAS. The purpose of this report is to evaluate whether or not CAS should replace CEA in the treatment of the high-risk patient. Results from a recently published randomized clinical trial and several individual center and multicenter case analyses will be used in this review.

Carotid Endarterectomy: Is It Still a Gold Standard?

Extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis accounts for 15-20% of ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy has high efficacy in stroke prevention in selected patients with symptomatic (age <80 years) and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (age <75 years). Randomized clinical trials demonstrated that carotid endarterectomy reduces the stroke risk, compared to medical therapy alone, for patients with 70-99% symptomatic stenosis with 16% absolute risk reduction at 5 years. The benefit for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis is lower i.e. absolute risk reduction 4.6% at 5 years. Endarterectomy is not indicated for symptomatic patients with <50% stenosis. There is no need for time-delay for surgery in patients after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Patients with more extensive strokes or hemorrhage should undergo surgery after 4-6 weeks following initial symptoms. Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis reduces the risk of ipsilateral stroke, and any stroke, by approximately 30% over 3 years. However, the absolute risk reduction is small over the first few years and decision should be based on individual institutional experience. In all situations, the best medical therapy should accompany surgery. In the recent years, appearance of angioplasty, stenting, and distal protection procedures provides competitive alternatives to classical endarterectomy. However, long-term benefits of carotid angioplasty should be confirmed by bigger, randomized, comparative clinical trials.