Does the type of carotid artery closure influence the management of recurrent carotid artery stenosis? Results of a 6-year prospective comparative study

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Stenting in Patients with Isolated Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis or Post-Surgical Restenosis

The aim was to evaluate the outcome of stenting in patients with isolated distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or post-surgical restenosis, as no data are currently available in the literature. Sixty-six patients (men, N = 53; median age: 66 [IQR, 61–73] years) with ≥50% distal ICA (re)stenosis were included in this single-center retrospective study. The narrowest part of the (re)stenosis was at least 20 mm from the bifurcation in all patients. Patients were divided into two etiological groups, atherosclerotic (AS, N = 40) and post-surgical restenotic (RES, N = 26). Postprocedural neurological events were observed in two patients (5%) in the AS group and in two patients (7.7%) in the RES group. The median follow-up time was 40 (IQR, 18–86) months. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group had an in-stent restenosis (ISR) ≥ 50%, but none in the RES group. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group and seven patients (26.9%) in the RES group died. None of the deaths in the RES group were directly related to stenting itself. The early neurological complication rate of stenting due to distal ICA (re)stenoses is acceptable. However, the mid-term mortality rate of stenting for distal ICA post-surgical restenoses is high, indicating the vulnerability of this subgroup.

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.

Long-term outcomes of open and endovascular treatment of recurrent carotid artery stenosis - a 16-year retrospective single centre case series

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate perioperative as well as long-term outcomes in patients operated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) due to symptomatic or asymptomatic high-grade restenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA). Patients and methods: In a retrospective analysis of our electronic database including 2980 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy or stenting due to a symptomatic or asymptomatic high-grade stenosis of the ICA, between 2000 and 2016, we enrolled 111 patients with recurrent ICA stenosis. Results: An ipsilateral 2nd time restenosis (> 80 % in the asymptomatic and > 50 % in the symptomatic patients according to NASCET criteria) of ICA was detected in 13 patients (12 %); 3 of them were symptomatic. These patients were managed with either CEA (n = 5/38 %) or CAS (n = 8/62 %) with no perioperative stroke or death. The stroke-free survival rates at 2 and 8 years for CEA were 98 % and 98 % versus 100 % and 100 % for CAS respectively (P = .271). The type of the initial procedure (patch, CAS or interposition) did not play any significant role for the development of a 2nd time restenosis (P = .841). Conclusions: Redo-CEA/CAS seem to have similar results as primary procedures (as reported in the literature) with favorable periprocedural and long-term 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.

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.

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.