Predictors of midterm high-grade restenosis after carotid revascularization in a multicenter national database

Carotid artery revascularization using second generation stents versus surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses and emerging randomized data indicate that second-generation ('mesh') carotid stents (SGS) may improve outcomes versus conventional (single-layer) stents but clinically-relevant differences in individual SGS-type performance have been identified. No comparisons exist for SGS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Thirty-day death (D), stroke (S), myocardial infarction (M), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke and restenosis in SGS studies were meta-analyzed (random effect model) against CEA outcomes. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed/EMBASE/COCHRANE. Forest plots were formed for absolute adverse evet risk in individual studies and for relative outcomes with each SGS deign versus contemporary CEA outcomes as reference. Meta-regression was performed to identify potential modifiers of treatment modality effect.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from 103,642 patients in 25 studies (14 SGS-treated, 41% symptomatic; nine randomized controlled trial (RCT)-CEA-treated, 37% symptomatic; and two Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-CEA-treated, 23% symptomatic). Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard significantly reduced DSM versus RCT-CEA (-2.70% and -2.95%, P<0.001 for both) and versus VQI-CEA (-1.11% and -1.36%, P<0.001 for both). Gore stent 30-day DSM was similar to RCT-CEA (P=0.581) but increased against VQI-CEA (+2.38%, P=0.033). At 12 months, Casper/Roadsaver ipsilateral stroke rate was lower than RCT-CEA (-0.75%, P=0.026) and similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.584). Restenosis with Casper/Roadsaver was +4.18% vs. RCT-CEA and +4.83% vs. VQI-CEA (P=0.005, P<0.001). CGuard 12-month ipsilateral stroke rate was similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.850) and reduced versus RCT-CEA (-0.63%, P=0.030); restenosis was reduced respectively by -0.26% and -0.63% (P=0.033, P<0.001). Twelve-month Gore stent outcomes were overall inferior to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analytic integration of available clinical data indicates: 1) reduction in stroke but increased restenosis rate with Casper/Roadsaver, and 2) reduction in both stroke and restenosis with CGuard MicroNET-covered stent against contemporary CEA outcomes at 30 days and 12 months used as a reference. This may inform clinical practice in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials powered for low clinical event rates (PROSPERO-CRD42022339789).

What Is the Role of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization?

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard method of carotid revascularization in symptomatic patients with ≥50% and in asymptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) has been associated with higher perioperative stroke rates compared to CEA in several studies. On the other hand, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in patients who are considered high risk for surgery. There is increasing data that supports TCAR as a safe and efficient technique with outcomes similar to those of CEA, but additional level-one studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term outcomes of TCAR in high- and standard-risk patients.

Effects of plaque characteristics and artery hemodynamics on the residual stenosis after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis. Residual stenosis was an independent risk factor for restenosis, with the latter affecting the long-term outcomes of CAS. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the echogenicity of plaques and hemodynamic alteration by color duplex ultrasound (CDU) examination and investigate their effects on the residual stenosis after CAS.

METHODS

From June 2018 to June 2020, 454 patients (386 males and 68 females) with a mean age of 67.2 ± 7.9 years, who underwent CAS from 11 advanced stroke centers in China were enrolled. One week before recanalization, CDU was used to evaluate the responsible plaques, including the morphology (regular or irregular), echogenicity of the plaques (iso-, hypo-, or hyperechoic) and calcification characteristics (without calcification, superficial calcification, inner calcification, and basal calcification). One week after CAS, the alteration of diameter and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated by CDU, and the occurrence and degree of residual stenosis were determined. In addition, magnetic resonance imaging was performed before and during the 30-day postprocedural period to identify new ischemic cerebral lesions.

RESULTS

The rate of composite complications, including cerebral hemorrhage, symptomatic new ischemic cerebral lesions, and death after CAS, was 1.54% (7/454 cases). The rate of residual stenosis after CAS was 16.3% (74/454 cases). After CAS, both the diameter and peak systolic velocity (PSV) improved in the preprocedural 50% to 69% and 70% to 99% stenosis groups (P < .05). Compared with the groups without residual stenosis and with <50% residual stenosis, the PSV of all three segments of stent in the 50% to 69% residual stenosis group were the highest, and the difference in the midsegment of stent PSV was the largest (P < .05). Logistic regression analysis showed that preprocedural severe (70% to 99%) stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 9.421; P = .032), hyperechoic plaques (OR, 3.060; P = .006) and plaques with basal calcification (OR, 1.885; P = .049) were independent risk factors for residual stenosis after CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with hyperechoic and calcified plaques of the carotid stenosis are at a high risk of residual stenosis after CAS. CDU is an optimal, simple and noninvasive imaging method to evaluate plaque echogenicity and hemodynamic alterations during the perioperative period of CAS, which can help surgeons to select the optimal strategies and prevent the occurrence of residual stenosis.

Loss of follow-up after carotid revascularization is associated with worse long-term stroke and death

OBJECTIVES

Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines recommend surveillance with duplex ultrasound scanning at baseline (within 3 months from discharge), every 6 months for 2 years, and annually afterward following carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. There is a growing concern regarding the significance of postoperative follow-up after several vascular procedures. We sought to determine whether 1-year loss to follow-up (LTF) after carotid revascularization was associated with worse outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) linked to Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent carotid revascularization in the VQI VISION database between 2003 and 2016 were included. LTF was defined as failure to complete 1-year follow-up in the VQI long-term follow-up dataset. Data about stroke and mortality were captured in the VISION dataset using a list of Current Procedural Terminology, International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision), and International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) codes linked to index procedures in VQI. Kaplan-Meier life-table methods and Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to compare 5- and 10-year outcomes between patients with no LTF and those who were LTF.

RESULTS

A total of 58,840 patients were available for analysis. The 1-year LTF rate was 43.8%. Patients who were LTF were older and more frequently symptomatic, with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, chronic kidney diseases, and congestive heart failure. Also, patients who underwent carotid artery stenting were more likely to be LTF compared with carotid endarterectomy patients (54.5% vs 42.3%; P < .001). The incidence of postoperative (30 days) stroke was higher in the LTF group (2.9% vs 1.7%; P < .001). Cox regression analysis revealed that LTF was associated with an increased risk of long-term stroke at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.6; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.5; P < .001). It was also associated with significantly higher mortality at 5 years (HR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8; P < .001) and 10 years (HR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.9-2.5; P < .001). Stroke or death was significantly worse in the LTF group at 5 years (HR: 2.3, 95% CI: 2.1-2.5; P < .001) and up to 10 years (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.8-2.3; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year follow-up after carotid revascularization procedures was found to be associated with better stroke- and mortality-free survival. Surgeons should emphasize the importance of follow-up to all patients who undergo carotid revascularization, especially those with multiple comorbidities and postoperative neurological complications.

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

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.

Carotid Restenosis Rate After Stenting for Primary Lesions Versus Restenosis After Endarterectomy With Creation of Risk Index

PURPOSE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an option for carotid restenosis (CR) treatment with favorable outcomes. However, CAS has also emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of patients with primary carotid stenosis. This study aimed to report CR rates after CAS was performed in patients with primary lesions versus restenosis after CEA, to identify predictors of CR, and to report both neurological and overall outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2000 to September 2018, a total of 782 patients were divided into 2 groups: The CAS (prim) group consisted of 440 patients in whom CAS was performed for primary lesions, and the CAS (res) group consisted of 342 patients with CAS due to restenosis after CEA. Indications for CAS were symptomatic stenosis/restenosis >70% and asymptomatic stenosis/restenosis >85%. A color duplex scan (CDS) of carotid arteries was performed 6 months after CAS, after 1 year, and annually afterward. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 88 months, with a mean follow-up of 34.6±18.0 months.

RESULTS

There were no differences in terms of CR rate between the patients in the CAS (prim) and CAS (res) groups (8.7% vs 7.2%, χ²=0.691, p=0.406). The overall CR rate was 7.9%, whereas significant CR (>70%) rate needing re-intervention was 5.6%, but there was no difference between patients in the CAS (prim) and CAS (res) groups (6.4% vs 4.7%, p=0.351). Six independent predictors for CR were smoking, associated previous myocardial infarction and angina pectoris, plaque morphology, spasm after CAS, the use of FilterWire or Spider Fx cerebral protection devices, and time after stenting. A carotid restenosis risk index (CRRI) was created based on these predictors and ranged from -7 (minimal risk) to +10 (maximum risk); patients with a score >-4 were at increased risk for CR. There were no differences in terms of neurological and overall morbidity and mortality between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in CR rate after CAS between the patients with primary stenosis and restenosis after CEA. A CRRI score >-4 is a criterion for identifying high-risk patients for post-CAS CR that should be tested in future randomized trials.