Carotid Artery Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Restenosis After Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brazilian Angiology and Vascular Surgery Society Guidelines for the treatment of extracranial cerebrovascular disease

Extracranial cerebrovascular disease has been the subject of intense research throughout the world, and is of paramount importance for vascular surgeons. This guideline, written by the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), supersedes the 2015 guideline. Non-atherosclerotic carotid artery diseases were not included in this document. The purpose of this guideline is to bring together the most robust evidence in this area in order to help specialists in the treatment decision-making process. The AGREE II methodology and the European Society of Cardiology system were used for recommendations and levels of evidence. The recommendations were graded from I to III, and levels of evidence were classified as A, B, or C. This guideline is divided into 11 chapters dealing with the various aspects of extracranial cerebrovascular disease: diagnosis, treatments and complications, based on up-to-date knowledge and the recommendations proposed by SBACV.

The Atherogenic Index of Plasma Predicts Carotid in-Stent Restenosis: Development and Validation of a Nomogram

Purpose

To explore the predictive value of atherogenic index of plasma(AIP) for carotid in-stent restenosis(ISR).

Methods

Patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) in hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. They were randomly divided into training and validation sets. Based on the results of carotid digital subtraction angiography (DSA) during the follow-up period, the patients were divided into ISR group and non-ISR group. The differences of AIP and lipid levels between the two groups were compared. The independent risk factors of ISR and the predictive value of AIP for ISR were analyzed. A nomogram was developed based on the independent risk factors, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the calibration curve and the decision curve analysis were conducted to assess the predictive ability and clinical practicability of the nomogram in both the training set and validation sets.

Results

A total of 361 patients were enrolled, including 98 in the ISR group and 263 in the non-ISR group. In the training set, AIP was significantly higher in the ISR group than in the non-ISR group (P < 0.05) and was independently associated with ISR (OR= 10.912, 95% CI: 2.520-47.248). When AIP was 0.10, it had the highest predictive value for ISR, with a sensitivity of 72. 1% and a specificity of 75.0%. Additionally, hypertension, residual stenosis, symptomatic stenosis and Hcy were also independent risk factors for ISR. The nomogram showed good discrimination performance and clinical practicability in both the training set (AUC = 0.827) and the validation set (AUC = 0.880).

Conclusion

AIP was an independent risk factor for ISR and was closely related to ISR. The nomogram developed by AIP and other variables had good predictive ability and clinical practicability for ISR.

Role of carotid duplex in the assessment of carotid artery restenosis after endarterectomy or stenting

Introduction

Redo carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are often performed when there is evidence of post-procedural restenosis. The incidence of restenosis after carotid reconstruction is not negligible, ranging from 5 to 33%. The diagnosis of significant internal carotid artery (ICA) restenosis is usually based on duplex ultrasound (US) criteria, mostly on peak-systolic flow velocity (PSV). However, there have been no generally accepted duplex US criteria for carotid restenosis after CAS or CEA.

Methods

In this systematic review, the PubMed/ Medline and Scopus databases were screened to find trials that reported duplex US criteria for significant restenosis after CEA and/or CAS. Only those reports were analyzed in which the restenoses were also assessed by CT/MR or digital subtraction angiography as comparators for duplex US.

Results

Fourteen studies met the predetermined search criteria and were included in this review. In most studies, PSV thresholds for significant in-stent ICA restenosis after CAS were higher than those for significant stenosis in non-procedurally treated (native) ICA. Many fewer studies investigated the US criteria for ICA restenosis after CEA. Despite the heterogeneous data, there is a consensus to use higher flow velocity thresholds for assessment of stenosis in stented ICA than in native ICA; however, there have been insufficient data about the flow velocity criteria for significant restenosis after CEA. Although the flow velocity thresholds for restenosis after CAS and CEA seem to be different, the large studies used the same duplex criteria to define restenosis after the two procedures. Moreover, different studies used different flow velocity thresholds to define ICA restenosis, leading to variable restenosis rates.

Discussion

We conclude that (1) further examinations are warranted to determine appropriate duplex US criteria for restenosis after CAS and CEA, (2) single duplex US parameter cannot be used to reliably determine the degree of ICA restenosis, (3) inappropriate US criteria used in large studies may have led to false restenosis rates, and (4) studies are required to determine if there is a benefit from redo carotid artery procedure, such as redo-CEA or redo-CAS, starting with prospective risk stratification studies using current best practice non-invasive care alone.

Society for Vascular Surgery duplex ultrasound surveillance guidelines are safe and cost effective for transcarotid artery revascularization

BACKGROUND

Carotid duplex ultrasound (CDUS) examination is used in the long-term surveillance after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and cost effectiveness of post-TCAR CDUS surveillance regimens in monitoring for in-stent restenosis (ISR) and associated stroke risk at a single-center community institution.

METHODS

CDUS data were collected retrospectively from patients who had undergone TCAR between January 2017 and January 2023. ISR >50% was defined as a peak systolic velocity (PSV) of >220 cm/s and an internal carotid artery (ICA) to common carotid velocity ratio of >2.7. ISR >80% was defined as a PSV of >340 cm/s and an ICA/common carotid artery ratio of >4.15. Study outcomes included incidences of ISR, reintervention, transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), strokes, and mortality. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was done to calculate the rates of freedom from ISR.

RESULTS

During the study period, 108 TCAR stents were deployed in 104 patients. Eight patients were excluded in analysis or lost to follow-up. Preoperatively, 62% of patients had >80% stenosis, and 39% were symptomatic. No intraprocedural complications were noted. One patient suffered an immediate postoperative dissection. Eight stents (8%) experienced ISR progression from <50% to >50%. Three of the eight had further ISR progression to >80%. One patient had high-grade ISR and a contralateral ICA occlusion that warranted reintervention. There were no occurrences of postoperative TIAs, strokes, or TCAR-related deaths. Rates of freedom from ISR progression from <50% to >50% were 97.4%, 95.9%, 90.9%, 88.2%, and 88.2% at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 42 months, respectively. Rates of freedom from ISR >80% were 100%, 100%, 98.5%, 95.5%, and 95.5% at the same time points. Patients with >50% ISR tended to be females with hyperlipidemia. In addition, they had higher average lesion lengths and lower rates of postdilation balloon angioplasty. The 5-year estimated surveillance cost in this cohort using the Society for Vascular Surgery 2022, and 2018 guidelines, as well as our current protocol would be $113,853, $221,382, and $193,207, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed a low incidence of ISR progression, as well as no TIA, stroke, or TCAR-related deaths, highlighting the safety and efficacy of TCAR. Post-TCAR CDUS examination using the updated Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines are safe and cost effective. Patients with contralateral occlusion or stenosis, or who have significant risk factors, should have more frequent surveillance regimens.

Risk Factors for Carotid Restenosis in Patients After Eversion Endarterectomy vs Stenting: A Single-Center Experience

The primary aim of the presented study is to analyze and compare the rate of carotid restenosis in patients after eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA), primary carotid angioplasty and stenting (CASp), and stenting for carotid artery restenosis after previous eCEA (CASr). The secondary aim is to compare clinical outcomes in patients with carotid restenosis. The total number of patients with evident carotid restenosis was 223 (24.8%). In patients with eCEA, significant carotid restenosis rate was 12.7%, in the CASp group 18.7%, and CASr 6.7%. Patients with carotid restenosis were asymptomatic in 95.1% of cases. Patients in the CASp group experienced transient ischemic attack more than patients with eCEA (P = .007), while no difference was observed regarding cerebrovascular insult (CVI). The incidence of carotid restenosis was higher in CASp patients, and increased during the follow-up. The majority of patients are asymptomatic post-procedural and the degree of carotid restenosis does not correlate with the occurrence of postoperative symptoms. High low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, smoking, and a history of vascular surgery correlate with higher degrees of carotid restenosis. The most important factor in the prevention of carotid restenosis is risk factor control as well as adequate pharmacological therapy.

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting for the Treatment of Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical procedure that treats the narrowed carotid arteries, which may be narrowed by atherosclerosis. Stenting is the insertion of a wire mesh scaffold into the narrowed portion of the carotid artery to keep it open by preventing blood from clotting. Using the study done over 10 years back as a point of reference, this study will seek an update on an assessment comparing CEA and stenting in studies carried out between 2015 and to date. The PICOS (population, intervention, control, outcome, and study designs) criteria were used to construct a set of inclusion and exclusion guidelines. This meta-analysis and systematic review used two forms of investigative analysis; both quantitative and qualitative assessments. From the studies, stroke (95% CI: 0.51-0.71, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (95% CI: 1.49-3.42, P = 0.001), and stroke or death analysis (95% CI: 0.53-0.77, P < 0.001) were noted to be significant. From the analysis, CEA was observed as having better treatment results in terms of stroke events and stroke or death incidences when compared to stenting. Carotid stenting was observed as having lower cases of myocardial infarctions when compared to endarterectomy.

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.

Guideline on carotid surgery for stroke prevention: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. A trend towards personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

This guideline (GL) on carotid surgery as updating of "Stroke: Italian guidelines for Prevention and Treatment" of the ISO-SPREAD Italian Stroke Organization-Group, has recently been published in the National Guideline System and shared with the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and other Scientific Societies and Patient's Association.

METHODS

GRADE-SIGN version, AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions formulated according to the PICO model. Recommendations developed based on clinical questions by a multidisciplinary experts' panel and patients' representatives. Systematic reviews performed for each PICO question. Considered judgements filled by assessing the evidence level, direction, and strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel provided indications and recommendations for appropriate, comprehensive, and individualized management of patients with carotid stenosis. Diagnostic and therapeutic processes of the best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) according to the evidences and the judged opinions were included. Symptomatic carotid stenosis in elective and emergency, asymptomatic carotid stenosis, association with ischemic heart disease, preoperative diagnostics, types of anesthesia, monitoring in case of CEA, CEA techniques, comparison between CEA and CAS, post-surgical carotid restenosis, and medical therapy are the main topics, even with analysis of uncertainty areas for risk-benefit assessments in the individual patient (personalized medicine [PM]).

CONCLUSIONS

This GL updates on the main recommendations for the most appropriate diagnostic and medical-surgical management of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. This GL also provides useful elements for the application of PM in good clinical practice.

Efficacy and mechanism of stellate ganglion block in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective technique for carotid artery stenosis and has been widely used. Stellate ganglion block (SGB) has good effect on the treatment of both painful and non-painful diseases. To investigate the efficacy of SGB in terms of cerebral protection in patients undergoing CEA and to analyze its mechanism.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 120 patients who underwent CEA were enrolled and divided into study group (SG) (60 cases, general anesthesia and SGB) and control group (CG) (60 cases, general anesthesia). The differences in hemodynamic indexes, middle cerebral artery (MCA) hemodynamic indexes, and endocrine-related indexes between the two groups at the baseline, after induction of anesthesia (induction), and skin incision (incision) were compared. The differences in neurological function and pain level between two groups 1 day pre-operatively (pre-op 1), 1 day postoperatively (POD 1), 2 day postoperatively (POD 2), and 7 day postoperatively (POD 7) were also evaluated. Perioperative adverse events and intraoperative anesthetics dosage were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean pulse pressure difference, and heart rate of SG at incision were lower than those of the CG (p < 0.05); Vs, Vd, and Vm of MCA were significantly higher in the SG than in CG at induction and incision (p < 0.05). Cortisol and aldosterone levels were lower and potassium and insulin levels were higher in the SG than in CG at induction and incision (p < 0.05); At pre-op 1, POD 1, POD 2, and POD 7, the VAS scores of patients in the SG were significantly lower than those in CG at POD 1, POD 2, and POD 7 (p < 0.05). The patients in SG showed decreased incidence of perioperative adverse events compared with the CG (p < 0.05); The consumption of anesthetics in the SG was lower than that in CG (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SGB in patients undergoing CEA treatment can improve perioperative cerebral blood supply and reduce the consumption of anesthetics and the incidence of perioperative adverse events, which is safe and feasible as a cerebral protection measure. Meanwhile, SGB may also help stabilize patients' perioperative hemodynamic indexes, but the result still needs to be supported by further large sample data.

Remodeling effects of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in terms of morphology and hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the first-line treatment option of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, while stenting (CAS) is reserved for selected patients at high surgical risk. Here, we compare the vascular remodeling process in CEA- and CAS-treated patients with respect to morphological and hemodynamic features, because of their possible engagement in carotid atherosclerosis.

METHODS

Twelve (12) patients were included, half with patched CEA and half with CAS. Pre- and post-operative 3D image-based models of the carotid bifurcation were anatomically characterized in terms of flare, tortuosity, and curvature. Individual computational fluid dynamics simulations allowed to quantify the postoperative hemodynamic milieu in terms of (1) wall shear stress and (2) helical flow.

RESULTS

Carotid flare increased in all cases, but a more marked increase emerged after CEA compared to CAS. Tortuosity and curvature increased after CEA but decreased after CAS. CEA patients presented with significantly higher postoperative tortuosity than CAS patients. CEA was associated with a worse (non-statistically significant) score in all flow disturbance indicators vs. CAS.

CONCLUSION

The increased flare and tortuosity of the carotid bifurcation after CEA vs. CAS is a marked difference in the vascular remodeling process between the two modalities. CAS seems to induce a less pro-restenosis hemodynamic environment compared to CEA. The emerged differences stimulate further analysis on a larger cohort with long-term outcomes, to shed light on the clinical impact of the observations.

Nonfasting Triglyceride as an Independent Predictor of Carotid Restenosis After Carotid Endarterectomy or Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVE

Nonfasting serum triglyceride (TG) level is attracting more and more attention as an atherosclerosis-promoting factor. However, no study has investigated the relationships between nonfasting TG levels and carotid restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study was conducted to investigate if nonfasting TG levels can be used to assess a risk for carotid restenosis after CEA or CAS.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study. We reviewed 201 consecutive primary carotid artery revascularization procedures (39 CEAs and 162 CASs), which were performed from 2008 to 2018 for 179 patients (163 men and 16 women) with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis, and were followed up for at least 1 year. Clinical variables including nonfasting lipid profiles and findings of magnetic resonance plaque imaging were compared between groups with and without postprocedural carotid restenosis (≥50% stenosis on ultrasonography).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 1413 days, 24 of 201 carotid stenosis procedures (11.9%) suffered restenosis after successful revascularization procedures. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that nonfasting TG level was the only independent risk factor of postprocedural restenosis. The receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that a cutoff value of nonfasting TG to discriminate postprocedural carotid restenosis was 127.5 mg/dL, which was much lower than the upper limit of normal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that nonfasting TG level may be a useful marker to predict carotid restenosis after CEA or CAS, and could be a new therapeutic target to prevent carotid restenosis after revascularization procedures.

Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts.

RESULTS

Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P < .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P < .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P < .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.

[Redo surgery of carotid arteries in patients with contraindications to carotid angioplasty and stenting]

AIM

The study was aimed at analysing the in-hospital results of carotid re-endarterectomy and plasty of the zone of reconstruction with a biological patch in patients with haemodynamically significant restenosis and contraindications to carotid angioplasty with stenting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During the period from 2008 to 2019, we operated on a total of 22 patients presenting with carotid restenosis and found to have contraindications to carotid angioplasty with stenting (an extended lesion, unstable neointima, calcification, pronounced tortuosity). Carotid re-endarterectomy was performed according to the classical technique. The time period after the first intervention to regression of pathology amounted to 48.5±21.3 months. All patients with clinical manifestations of angina pectoris were at the preoperative stage subjected to coronarography, as a result of which in one case a hybrid intervention was performed in the scope of percutaneous coronary intervention and carotid endarterectomy. The endpoints included death, myocardial infarction, acute impairment of cerebral circulation, and lesions of craniocerebral nerves.

RESULTS

Carotid re-endarterectomy was most often carried out according to the classical technique with plasty of the zone of reconstruction using a xenopericardial patch. Only in 1 case it was required to perform eversion carotid re-endarterectomy due to tortuosity of the internal carotid artery. During the in-hospital postoperative period no lethal outcomes, myocardial infarctions, nor haemorrhagic complications were registered. One patient was found to develop acute impairment of cerebral circulation. The most frequent complication was unilateral laryngeal paresis caused by lesions of craniocerebral nerves (n=3; 13.6%), with reversible neurological deficit. No cases of either thrombosis/restenosis or elevated pressure gradient in the area of implantation of the xenopericardial patch were revealed. The composite endpoint amounted to 18.2% (n=4).

CONCLUSION

The classical carotid re-endarterectomy was not accompanied by cases of thrombosis and restenosis during either the in-hospital or remote period of follow up, however turned out to be associated with a high frequency of the development of complications such as acute impairment of cerebral circulation and lesions of craniocerebral nerves.

[Transposition of internal carotid artery over hypoglossal nerve in eversion carotid endarterectomy]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze in-hospital and long-term results of eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEE) with transposition of internal carotid artery (ICA) over hypoglossal nerve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cohort prospective open-label study included 919 patients with severe ICA stenosis for the period from January 2017 to April 2020. The 1st group (n=172) included patients who underwent eversion CEE with ICA transposition over hypoglossal nerve; the 2nd group (n=747) - who underwent conventional eversion CEE. ICA transposition technique included standard mobilization of the carotid arteries, cross-clamping, arterial wall incision, removal of atherosclerotic plaque and ICA translocation above the hypoglossal nerve for subsequent anastomosis. All patients were examined every 6 months. Mean follow-up period was 17.5±6.9 months.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in cardiovascular morbidity. However, all complications occurred in the 2nd group (traditional eversion CEE). Nevertheless, incidence of adverse events was minimal and combined endpoint did not exceed 0.6% (n=5). Both groups were also comparable by overall incidence of cardiovascular events in long-term period. All ICA restenoses (over 70%) were symptomatic with similar incidence (4 (2.3%) vs. 18 (2.4%), respectively, p=0.83; OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.32-2.88). Mean restenosis-free period was 7.2±2.6 months. In case of significant restenosis, redo CEE with patch repair was performed. There were no cardiovascular complications. All cases of hypoglossal nerve injury occurred in the 2nd group (0 vs. 18 (100%), respectively; p=0.0001; OR 0.003; 95% CI=5.21-0.17) without ICA transposition over the hypoglossal nerve.

CONCLUSION

Eversion CEE with ICA transposition over the hypoglossal nerve ensures optimal conditions for successful redo CEE in case of restenosis. This technique facilitates ICA mobilization without hypoglossal nerve injury. This aspect is valuable for successful postoperative outcome and adequate quality of life. ICA transposition is not difficult and does not require additional experience. Transposition per se is not a risk factor of ICA restenosis. Thus, ICA transposition may be routinely recommended in patients eligible for eversion CEE.

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.

Incidence, risk, and treatment of binary restenosis after vertebral artery stenting

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the major concern of vertebral artery stenting (VAS). We aimed to investigate the feasibility and outcome of redo angioplasty for ISR of vertebral artery.

METHOD

The patients were retrospectively reviewed for the significant ISR (>50%). Redo angioplasty including balloon angioplasty and stenting was performed for symptomatic ISR (>50%) or asymptomatic ISR (≥70%). The clinical follow-up was performed on the 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and then yearly in the clinic or by telephone. The angiographic follow-up was performed at 6-12 months after redo angioplasty.

RESULT

A total of 72 patients had significant ISR and 48 redo angioplasty (92.3%, 48/52) were successfully achieved with 13 located in the V4 and 35 in the ostium of vertebral artery. Twenty-six lesions were implanted by the second stent and the others received balloon angioplasty. No stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in the perioperative time. One patient died 2 months after redo angioplasty due to nonstroke cause. Redo angioplasty nonsignificantly decreased the stroke or TIA compared with medical treatment. Sixteen patients developed the binary restenosis, which was lower in the patients receiving stent implantation than balloon angioplasty.

CONCLUSION

Redo angioplasty was a feasible method for the ISR of VAS and redo stenting might be the first choice.

Synchronous versus Staged Carotid Endarterectomy and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft for Patients with Concomitant Severe Coronary and Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the systemic nature of atherosclerosis, arteries at different sites are commonly simultaneously affected. As a result, severe coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) frequently coexists with significant carotid stenosis that warrants revascularization. To compare simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CABG versus staged CEA and CABG for patients with concomitant CAD and carotid artery stenosis in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of a random effects model. The I² statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 44,895 patients were included in this meta-analysis (21,710 in the synchronous group and 23,185 patients in the staged group). The synchronous CEA and CABG group had a statistically significant lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI) (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, I² = 0%) and higher risk for stroke (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.34-1.71, I² = 0%) and death (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01-1.75, I² = 47.8%). Transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.61, I² = 0.0%), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.22-3.05, I² = 0.0%), and pulmonary complications (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.24-9.60, I² = 67.5%) were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the simultaneous CEA and CABG group had a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality and stroke and lower risk for MI as compared to staged CEA and CABG group. The rates of TIA, postoperative bleeding, and pulmonary complications were similar between the 2 groups. Future randomized trials or prospective cohorts are needed to validate our results.

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.

Clinical and surrogate endpoints in future studies on outcome of carotid revascularization

This paper will provide a comparison of classical endpoints like stroke and mortality versus biochemical (non-STEMI) myocardial infarction and DW-MRI new brain lesions and will discuss the importance of cranial nerve lesion in CEA. An overview of possible endpoints of future randomized clinical trials will be given.

Risk Factors for Restenosis After Carotid Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis of Hazard Ratios

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) will occur in 3%-30% of cases. Restenosis can lead to more frequent clinical and imaging monitoring and the potential for reoperation. We sought to define the demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics that influence the restenosis risk after carotid revascularization.

METHODS

The present study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. A random effects model meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HRs) was conducted.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 17,106 patients were included. Diabetes (HR, 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-2.83; I², 76.7%), dyslipidemia (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.08-2.91; I², 22.5%), female gender (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.14-1.98, I², 0%), chronic kidney disease (HR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.69-10.19; I², 44.5%), hypertension (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.07-3.72; I², 68%), smoking (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.15-2.37; I², 54.3%), and pretreatment stenosis >70% (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.0-1.08; I², 0%) showed a statistically significant increase in restenosis risk after carotid revascularization. Subgroup analyses of CEA and CAS showed that female gender and smoking status were significantly associated with recurrent stenosis after CEA but not after CAS. In contrast, hypertension was associated with restenosis after CAS but not after CEA. Patch endarterectomy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22-0.50; I², 0%) and symptomatic status at presentation in the CAS group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.90; I², 0%) were associated with a decreased risk of restenosis. Antiplatelet use and coronary artery disease were not associated with restenosis risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes, dyslipidemia, female gender, renal failure, hypertension, and smoking were associated with an increased risk of restenosis, and patch endarterectomy and symptomatic status at presentation were associated with a decreased risk of carotid restenosis. Both female gender and current smoking status were only associated with recurrent stenosis after CEA, and hypertension was only associated with restenosis after CAS.

Management of De Novo Carotid Stenosis and Postintervention Restenosis-Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting-a Review of Literature

The current literature indicates carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the preferred treatment for symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis. However, recommendations for the management of acute tandem stenosis and complete occlusion, as well as postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery, remain controversial. Here, we review the literature evaluating these conditions and provide suggestions for clinical decision-making. Acute tandem stenosis or occlusion of the common and internal carotid arteries may be treated with angioplasty alone, reserving carotid artery stenting (CAS) or CEA for severe and complex cases. Patients who underwent CEA and developed ipsilateral restenosis may be subjected to angioplasty followed by CAS, which carries a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and subsequent restenosis of the artery. For post-CAS restenosis, current evidence recommends angioplasty and CAS for the management of moderate stenosis and CEA for severe stenosis of the carotid artery. Given the lack of level 1 evidence for the management of these conditions, the abovementioned recommendations may assist clinical decision-making; however, each case and its unique risks and benefits need to be assessed individually. Future studies evaluating and defining the risks and benefits of specific treatment strategies, such as CEA and CAS, in patients with acute tandem stenosis, occlusion, and postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery need to be conducted.

Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients with Contralateral Carotid Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from studies investigating the effect of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are variable in the literature. We sought to determine whether CEA or CAS is the optimal revascularization approach for patients with CCO.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I² statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed as needed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective observational cohort studies comprising 6346 patients were included. Patients in the CEA group had a significantly lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.71; I² = 0%). However, no significant differences were identified in terms of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients did not yield significant differences for stroke, MI, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CCO can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of stroke, MI, and MACE. However, patients treated with CEA have a lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality. Future studies can help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.