Carotid endarterectomy for treatment of in-stent restenosis

Carotid endarterectomy with stent removal for recurring in-stent restenosis: A case report and literature review

Background:

Percutaneous transcatheter angioplasty (PTA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are often performed repeatedly for in-stent restenosis (ISR) after CAS. Only a few reports describe the treatment for repeated ISR. Furthermore, only a few reports describe carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after CAS; thus, the evidence for this procedure is insufficient.

Case Description:

Herein, we describe a case in which CEA with stent removal was performed in a patient with repeated ISR after CAS. A 78-year-old man presented with dysarthria and slight left limb weakness. CAS was performed for the right internal carotid artery stenosis. ISR occurred again and PTA and stenting were performed. After the second CAS, ISR occurred again. CEA with stent removal was performed. After the CEA with stent removal, the patient experienced no restenosis or other complications.

Conclusion:

CEA with stent removal can be a good option for treating repeated ISR after CAS.

Treatment of the Carotid In-stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: In-stent restenosis (ISR) after carotid artery stent (CAS) is not uncommon. We aimed to evaluate therapeutic options for ISR after CAS. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE until November 2, 2020 for studies including the treatment for ISR after CAS. Results: In total, 35 studies, covering 1,374 procedures in 1,359 patients, were included in this review. Most cases (66.3%) were treated with repeat CAS (rCAS), followed by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) (17.5%), carotid endarterectomy (CEA) (14.3%), carotid artery bypass (1.5%), and external beam radiotherapy (0.4%). The rates of stroke & TIA within the postoperative period were similar in three groups (PTA 1.1%, rCAS 1.1%, CEA 1.5%). CEA (2.5%) was associated with a slightly higher rate of postoperative death than rCAS (0.7%, P = 0.046). Furthermore, the rate of long-term stroke & TIA in PTA was 5.7%, significantly higher than rCAS (1.8%, P = 0.036). PTA (27.8%) was also associated with a significantly higher recurrent restenosis rate than rCAS (8.2%, P = 0.002) and CEA (1.6%, P < 0.001). The long-term stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis rates showed no significant difference between rCAS and CEA. Conclusions: rCAS is the most common treatment for ISR, with low postoperative risk and low long-term risk. CEA is an important alternative for rCAS. PTA may be less recommended due to the relatively high long-term risks of stroke & TIA and recurrent restenosis.

Carotid Endarterectomy for Intractable Repetitive Stenosis Following Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting has raised concerns regarding the long-term durability of carotid stenting. Recurrent restenosis after multiple endovascular interventions may pose a challenge for clinicians.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We encountered 2 cases of intractable restenosis after redo-carotid artery stenting and performed carotid endarterectomy. We removed the embedded stent and plaque simultaneously, used the internal shunting system, and performed patch angioplasty with no further recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Carotid endarterectomy could be considered as a first-line treatment for recurrent stenosis that proves refractory to multiple endovascular interventions.

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.

Outcome of endovascular recanalization for intracranial in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is one of the long-term adverse outcomes of endovascular angioplasty and stenting for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. In this study, we try to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for intracranial ISR.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected patients with intracranial ISR who underwent endovascular treatment from June 2012 to August 2019 at a high-volume stroke center. Successful recanalization was defined as ≤30% residual stenosis. Stroke, myocardial infarction, and death after stenting within 30 days were used to evaluate periprocedural safety. Recurrent stroke in the territory of the culprit vessel and re-ISR in patients with clinical and vascular imaging follow-up data were used to evaluate the long-term outcome.

RESULTS

32 patients (59.6±7.2 years old) with ISR were recruited, including 22 patients (68.8%) treated with balloon dilatation, 8 patients (25%) with stenting, and 2 patients (6.3%) with failed procedures. Successful recanalization was achieved in 71.9% (23/32) of patients. There was no stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 30 days after the procedure. Recurrent stroke was found in 10.7% (3/28) of the patients, and re-ISR was found in 42.1% (8/19) of the patients. The re-ISR rate was lower in patients with stenting than in those with balloon dilatation (0% vs 57.1%, p=0.090), and in patients with successful recanalization than in those with unsuccessful recanalization (33.3% vs 75.0%, p=0.352), but with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The periprocedural safety of endovascular treatment for intracranial ISR may be acceptable, but the long-term rates of recurrent stroke and re-ISR remain at high levels.

Carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis: long-term follow-up results and surgery experiences from one single centre

Objective

Few studies have reported the surgical treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis (ISR), more data and longer follow-up are needed. We describe the surgical treatment of ISR by standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with stent removal, including long-term follow-up in 10 patients from our centre.

Methods

Ten patients from our centre who underwent CEA with stent removal for ISR were retrospectively analysed, including nine symptomatic and one asymptomatic ISR of at least 70% with mean age 67.3, the median time between carotid artery stenting and CEA was 17 months (range, 2–54 months).

Results

Standard CEA with stent removal was performed in all 10 patients without much technical difficulty (9 male and 1 female, mean age 67.3). Two cases were performed in hybrid operation room. There were a total of three complications that happened in three patients (30%) respectively. An asymptomatic dissecting aneurysm was formed on the petrous internal carotid artery in one patient who was followed up without intervention. In the second case, dissection occurred in the arterial wall distal to the site of the stent after stent removal revealed by intraoperative angiography, and another stent was implanted. The patient sustained temporary hypoglossal nerve dysfunction postoperatively. The third patient suffered cerebral hyperperfusion with complete recovery when discharged. No neurological complications occurred in other seven patients. After follow-up of 25 months (range, 11–54 months), one patient died of rectal cancer without ischaemic attack and restenosis 4 years postoperation; in one patient occurred recurrent symptomatic restenosis (90%) 1 year later; all other patients remained asymptomatic and without recurrent restenosis (>50%) by follow-up carotid ultrasound or CT angiography.

Conclusion

It seems that CEA with stent removal is a reasonable choice, by experienced hand, for symptomatic ISR with higher but acceptable complications. The indication of stent removal for asymptomatic ISR needs further observation.

Carotid endarterectomy for in-stent restenosis: a case report and literature review

It is relatively difficult to treat restenosis when restenosis occurs following carotid artery stenting. Endarterectomy with simultaneous stent removal is an effective approach when restenosis occurs. The treatment method is still not well known. The present paper reports a case of restenosis after stenting that was treated with endarterectomy with a satisfactory treatment outcome. The patient, a 74-year-old male, underwent stenting 10 months before he was re-hospitalized. He seemed to recover well after stenting until one month before he was re-hospitalized, when he presented symptoms of cerebral ischemia. Imaging examination revealed that in-stent stenosis had reoccurred, with the stenosis degree ranging from 70-99%. He was given endarterectomy treatment, and intra-operative findings showed that the stent grew into a carotid artery plaque and protruded below the adventitia and that the stent lumen was not covered by carotid artery intima. The surgery completely and successfully removed the plaque and the stent, while the adventitia was completely preserved. Follow-up indicated that there was no stenosis in the carotid artery, and the prognosis was good. Relevant literature was also reviewed in this paper, and the authors suggested that carotid artery plaque and stent endarterectomy is beneficial. However, surgical treatment for in-stent stenosis remains a challenging option.

Modified drug-eluting balloon angioplasty to treat high-risk carotid in-stent restenosis

Carotid artery stenting is commonly used to treat carotid artery stenosis. However, carotid in-stent restenosis remains a challenging problem. Herein, we report a difficult case of recurrent severe carotid in-stent restenosis with total contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion treated with repeat drug-eluting balloon inflations. The outcome after one year of follow-up showed a good result.

Carotid Endarterectomy to Remove Retained Solitaire Stent Retriever inside Carotid Stent after Mechanical Thrombectomy

BACKGROUND

Tandem occlusions of the internal carotid artery (ICA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) occur in up to a third of patients with acute ischemic strokes undergoing endovascular mechanical thrombectomy. Understanding open neurosurgical management of associated complications with this procedure is important.

CASE REPORT

A 67-year-old man with acute onset of left hemiparesis and a tandem right ICA and MCA occlusion. He underwent carotid stent angioplasty of a stenotic ICA, followed by attempted Solitaire stent retrieval of an MCA clot. On withdrawal, the tines of the Solitaire stent lodged inside the Precise carotid stent. The patient was started on aspirin, Plavix, and heparin infusion, and underwent a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with safe removal of the stents and primary vessel repair.

CONCLUSION

This is the first case reported to date of a Solitaire stent becoming lodged inside a Precise carotid stent, salvaged by CEA with safe removal of the stents and primary vessel repair. We discuss the timing, indication, alternatives, and technical nuances of a CEA in this setting.

Multicenter Experience of Surgical Explantation of Carotid Stents for Recurrent Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

A significant cohort of patients who have undergone carotid artery stenting (CAS) will have in-stent restenosis (ISR). The optimal management of symptomatic or severe ISR remains poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to describe the indications, treatment, and mid- to long-term outcomes of patients undergoing CAS explantation for ISR.

METHODS

All patients undergoing internal carotid artery stent explantation with carotid artery reconstruction at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 2003 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Isolated common carotid artery stents were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, indications for explantation, operative details, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Over the study interval, a total of 971 patients underwent carotid stenting across the 3 centers. Of these, 8 patients ultimately underwent CAS explantation with carotid artery reconstruction. Mean age was 69 years and 5 patients were male. Index stent placement was for symptomatic stenosis in 4 patients, asymptomatic restenosis after endarterectomy in 2 patients, asymptomatic high lesion in 1 patient, and asymptomatic critical stenosis in 1 patient. Indications for explantation were symptomatic ISR in 4 patients and asymptomatic severe ISR in 4 patients. Method of repair was stent explantation and patch angioplasty in 5 and en bloc carotid resection with bypass in 3 patients. There were no perioperative neurologic events or cranial nerve injuries. At a mean follow-up of 38.7 months, there were 2 late disabling ipsilateral strokes (14.4 months and 19.1 months).

CONCLUSION

A significant cohort of patients who have undergone CAS will have ISR. Although excellent perioperative results after surgical explantation can be obtained, this patient subgroup remains at risk for late neurologic events. Appropriate patient selection and diligent long-term follow-up are mandated to obtain optimal outcomes.

Restenosis After Carotid Endarterectomy: Insight Into Risk Factors and Modification of Postoperative Management

BACKGROUND

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a potential complication after surgery for carotid stenosis. Stroke after CEA is a debilitating complication secondary to restenosis, and modification of postoperative care may be necessary to decrease the incidence of postoperative stroke after CEA. We sought to identify the clinical and patient factors that are associated with this complication.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all neurosurgical patients who underwent CEA for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis was performed. Factors were compared against the outcome variable in a univariate analysis. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictive variables. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the effect of the variables on long-term event-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 273 CEA procedures and their outcomes were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 50.7 months. Twenty-one patients had restenosis (7.6%). Rates of restenosis and restenosis-free survival were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves (log-rank test). In the multivariate model, a family history of stroke was the only variable that was significantly associated with restenosis after CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a family history of stroke is an important factor that predisposes patients to restenosis after CEA. Restenosis-free survival is influenced by the presence of hyperlipidemia, age, and family history of stroke. Closer surveillance with more frequent follow-up and multidisciplinary management may be beneficial in patients who have these risk factors to prevent restenosis and prolong restenosis-free survival.

Carotid restenosis after endarterectomy and stenting: a critical issue?

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is currently considered a valid alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the prevention of stroke in high-risk patients. One of the most important issues for both of these techniques is carotid restenosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate the incidence of post-CEA and post-CAS restenosis in a large cohort of patients in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

Between December 2000 and December 2010, 2453 CEA and 2628 CAS procedures were performed in the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Unit at our institution. The mean age of patients was 73.8 years (range 55‒89 years), 78% of whom were men. Indications for carotid revascularization were: presence of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >70%, or asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80%, especially in patients with vulnerable plaques.

RESULTS

Mild and long-term results after CEA and CAS were similar. The overall perioperative neurologic complication rate (minor and major stroke) was similar in the 2 groups. At 1-year follow-up the restenosis rate after CEA was 1.58%. In-stent restenosis after CAS occurred in 1.67% of the procedures. All but 3 arteries had been treated for postsurgical restenosis. All lesions were approached secondarily with endovascular procedures. Statistical analysis demonstrated that post-CEA restenosis was the most important predictive factor for the development of in-stent restenosis after CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of our 10-year experience confirms that patients who develop restenosis after CEA are also prone to developing in-stent restenosis after CAS.

Zotarolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of recurrent, severe carotid artery in-stent stenosis in the TARGET-CAS population

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a balloon-mounted drug-eluting stent (DES) for recurrent carotid in-stent stenosis (ISS).

METHODS

As part of our targeted carotid artery stenting (TARGET-CAS) protocol, neurological and ultrasound evaluations have been performed at 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually since 2001 in all carotid stent patients. For angiographically-confirmed >70% ISS, balloon angioplasty was performed as a first-line treatment. Recurrent ISS was treated with a 4.0-mm zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent (ZES) that was postdilated according to intravascular ultrasound imaging. Among the 1350 neuroprotected CAS procedures performed between January 2001 and March 2011, there were 7 (0.52%) patients (5 men; ages 51-72 years), all neurologically asymptomatic, with >70% recurrent ISS that occurred at 5 to 11 months after the initial balloon angioplasty treatment for ISS.

RESULTS

ZES implantation under distal embolic protection was technically successful and uncomplicated. Angiographic stenosis was reduced from 84.6%±7.5% to 10.7%±3.6% (p<0.01). In 5 patients with ZES implanted fully within the self-expanding carotid stent, duplex ultrasound follow-up (mean 17 months, range 6-36) revealed no evidence of restenosis or stent fracture/deformation. In the 2 other patients, the ZES had been implanted for distal edge ISS such that the ZES protruded beyond the original carotid stent. This protruding segment of the ZES demonstrated deformation/kinking in both; in one, this led to symptomatic stent occlusion.

CONCLUSION

The use of coronary ZES in the treatment of recurrent carotid ISS is feasible and appears effective provided the ZES is placed entirely within the original stent. Placement of a coronary ZES outside the carotid stent scaffold should be avoided.