Treatment Strategy for Bilateral Severe Carotid Artery Stenosis: One Center's Experience

Simultaneous bilateral angioplasty and stenting for carotid stenosis - a single center experience

Carotid artery stenosis is responsible for up to 12% of all ischemic strokes. The prevalence of bilateral carotid artery stenosis is nearly 8–39% among patients with stroke, and its management is still controversial. This study aimed to report the treatment results of bilateral carotid artery stenosis with simultaneous bilateral angioplasty and stenting (sbCAS) in a single institution during the last 10 years. 315 patients underwent carotid stenting in the Scientific-Practical Center of Endovascular Neuroradiology, NAMS of Ukraine during 2010–2020. 39 (12.4%) patients (mean age 57.9±2.1 – 28 men) underwent sbCAS. Primary clinical endpoints (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) and secondary endpoints (hemodynamic depression (HD) – hypotension (<90 mmHg) or bradycardia (<60 bpm) and hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS) were evaluated. All sbCAS were technically successful, and a reduction of stenosis was noted in each case. There were two periprocedural neurological complications, one transient ischemic attack (TIA), and one minor stroke with the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) – 3 at discharge. No myocardial infarction (MI) or death during hospitalization was noted. 28 patients (71.8%) had HD, and 2 (5.1%) had HPS. All patients except those with periprocedural stroke were discharged or transferred to another hospital without neurological deterioration. sbCAS is an effective and relatively safe procedure for carefully selected patients with bilateral carotid stenosis. Patients with bilateral carotid stenosis should be carefully examined, and the best treatment strategy should be assessed using a multidisciplinary approach taking into account the possibility of sbCAS.

Study on the correlation between the circle of Willis structure and collateral circulation in bilateral carotid artery occlusion

Background and purpose

Bilateral carotid artery occlusion (CAO) is a rare condition and the collateral circulation is more complicated than in unilateral CAO. The circle of Willis (CoW) is the most important collateral circulation compensation pathway in CAO. However, the specific role of CoW in the collateral circulation compensation pathway of CAO has not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of CoW in the collateral circulation compensation pathway of CAO.

Materials and methods

Clinical, imaging, and hemodynamic data of 30 patients with bilateral CAO were collected to analyze the collateral blood flow compensation pathway and its characteristics, and to examine the correlation between the structure of the CoW and the collateral circulation of bilateral CAO.

Results

This paper summarized 30 patients with bilateral CAO. There were 0 cases of the CoW complete type, 18 cases of the partially complete type (60%), and 12 cases of the incomplete type (40%). For the partially complete type cases, there were 14 complete anterior circulation cases (46.7%). The collateral circulation collateral circulation pathway included 14 cases with anterior communicating artery(ACoA), 7 cases with posterior cerebral artery (PCA)-middle cerebral artery (MCA) leptomeningeal anastomosis (LMA), 5 cases with ophthalmic artery(OA), 3 cases with lateral posterior communicating artery(PCoA), 1 case with internal carotid artery (ICA) stealing, 1 case with new Moyamoya vessels, and 4 cases of other types. There were four cases (13.3%) with complete posterior circulation, including four cases with bilateral PCoA, three cases with PCA-MCA LMA, and two cases with OA. There were 12 cases (40%) with incomplete CoW, including 8 cases with PCA-MCA LMA, 3 cases with lateral PCoA, 1 case with anterior cerebral artery (ACA)-MCA LMA, 4 cases with OA, and 1 other case.

Conclusion

The collateral circulation pathway differs among patients with different CoW structure types. When the CoW is partially complete, it mainly provides blood flow compensation to the ischemic area through primary collateral circulation. When the CoW is incomplete, it mainly provides blood flow compensation to the ischemic area through secondary collateral circulation.

Safety of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting for bilateral carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Bilateral carotid artery stenting (BCAS) is often performed in two stages (staged BCAS) but it is also an option to be performed in one stage (simultaneous BCAS). To confirm the safety of simultaneous BCAS, we retrospectively analyzed perioperative and postoperative course of simultaneous BCAS compared with staged BCAS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with symptomatic stenosis of ≥50% or asymptomatic stenosis of ≥80% of bilateral carotid arteries underwent BCAS. Procedure time, symptomatic ischemic complications, presence/absence of high-intensity spots on postoperative diffusion-weighted image, duration of postoperative hospital stays and 30 days outcome of patients performed with simultaneous BCAS (group A, 8 patients with 16 stenotic lesions (8 procedures)) were compared with those of staged BCAS (group B, 4 patients with 8 stenotic lesions (8 procedures)).

RESULTS

In groups A and B, procedure time was 146.0 ± 53.8 and 103.5 ± 39.4 min; intraoperative hypotension was observed in 62.5% and 50.0%; postoperative hypotension occurred in 37.5% and 50.0%; diffusion-weighted image showed high-intensity spots in 37.5% and 12.5%; and duration of postoperative hospital stays was 5.1 ± 1.8 and 5.3 ± 2.3 days. No patients suffered symptomatic ischemic complications. In simultaneous BCAS, there was a tendency that procedure time was longer and high-intensity spots on postoperative diffusion-weighted image was more frequent, but there was no increase in symptomatic ischemic complications and duration of hospital stays compared to staged BCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety of simultaneous BCAS may not be inferior to staged BCAS. In terms of duration of hospital stays, simultaneous BCAS can be superior to staged BCAS for patients with bilateral carotid artery stenosis.

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of results of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Although staged procedures to treat bilateral carotid artery stenosis are mainstream, a growing number of articles on simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (SBCAS) have been published. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBCAS.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify all studies reporting SBCAS from January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2017. Patients' characteristics, comorbidities, technical success, deaths, and complications were collected and analyzed. Forest plots were drawn with either a random-effects model or fixed-effects model according to their heterogeneities. Publication biases were tested by funnel plots and linear regression test.

RESULTS

Overall, 333 patients with bilateral carotid stenosis in 10 retrospective studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The mean age was 67.4 years; 75% of the patients were male, and 85.6% of them were symptomatic. The mean severity of stenosis was 82.1%. The overall technical success rate reached 99.38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.58%-100.00%). The pooled incidences of periprocedural complications were as follows: hemodynamic depression, 46.12% (95% CI, 33.16%-59.35%); hyperperfusion syndrome, 3.33% (95% CI, 1.66%-5.55%); stroke, 3.20% (95% CI, 1.59%-5.36%); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI, 0.00%-1.43%); and death, 1.20% (95% CI, 0.03%-2.38%). The occurrence of a periprocedural primary end point, defined as a combination of any stroke, MI, and death, affected 4.28% (95% CI, 2.37%-6.71%) of patients. For long-term patency, there were too few follow-up results available to evaluate.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for hyperperfusion syndrome, all other periprocedural complications including hemodynamic depression, stroke, and MI were comparable with the literature reporting unilateral carotid artery stenting. However, the analysis was based on retrospective studies. Further studies, including prospective and randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm these results.