Reoperation for carotid stenosis is as safe as primary carotid endarterectomy

Prosthetic bypass for restenosis after endarterectomy or stenting of the carotid artery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of prosthetic carotid bypass (PCB) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of restenosis after CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

From January 2000 to December 2014, 66 patients (57 men and 9 women; mean age, 71 years) presenting with recurrent carotid artery stenosis ≥70% (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [NASCET] criteria) were enrolled in a prospective study in three centers. The study was approved by an Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. During the same period, a total of 4321 CEAs were completed in the three centers. In these 66 patients, the primary treatment of the initial carotid artery stenosis was CEA in 57 patients (86%) and CAS in nine patients (14%). The median delay between primary and redo revascularization was 32 months. Carotid restenosis was symptomatic in 38 patients (58%) with transient ischemic attack (n = 20) or stroke (n = 18). In this series, all patients received statins; 28 patients (42%) received dual antiplatelet therapy, and 38 patients (58%) received single antiplatelet therapy. All PCBs were performed under general anesthesia. No shunt was used in this series. Nasal intubation to improve distal control of the internal carotid artery was performed in 33 patients (50%), including those with intrastent restenosis. A PTFE graft of 6 or 7 mm in diameter was used in 6 and 60 patients, respectively. Distal anastomosis was end to end in 22 patients and end to side with a clip distal to the atherosclerotic lesions in 44 patients. Completion angiography was performed in all cases. The patients were discharged under statin and antiplatelet treatment. After discharge, all of the patients underwent clinical and Doppler ultrasound follow-up every 6 months. Median length of follow-up was 5 years.

RESULTS

No patient died, sustained a stroke, or presented with a cervical hematoma during the postoperative period. One transient facial nerve palsy and two transient recurrent nerve palsies occurred. Two late strokes in relation to two PCB occlusions occurred at 2 years and 4 years; no other graft stenosis or infection was observed. At 5 years, overall actuarial survival was 81% ± 7%, and the actuarial stroke-free rate was 93% ± 2%. There were no fatal strokes.

CONCLUSIONS

PCB with PTFE grafts is a safe and durable alternative to CEA in patients with carotid restenosis after CEA or CAS in situations in which CEA is deemed either hazardous or inadvisable.

Carotid Surgery Following Previous Carotid Endarterectomy Is Safe and Effective

With the perceived high risk of repeat carotid surgery, carotid angioplasty and stenting have been advocated recently as the preferred treatment of recurrent carotid disease following carotid endarterectomy. An experience with the operative treatment of recurrent carotid disease to document the risks and benefits of this procedure is presented. A review of a prospectively acquired vascular registry over a 10-year period (Jan. 1990-Jan. 2000) was undertaken to identify patients undergoing repeat carotid surgery following previous carotid endarterectomy. All patients were treated with repeat carotid endarterectomy, carotid interposition graft, or subclavian-carotid bypass. The perioperative stroke and death rate, operative complications, life-table freedom from stroke, and rates of recurrent stenosis were documented. During the study period 56 patients underwent repeat carotid surgery, comprising 6% of all carotid operations during this period. The indication for operation was symptomatic disease recurrence in 41 cases (73%) and asymptomatic recurrent stenosis? 80% in 15 cases (27%). The average interval from the prior carotid endarterectomy to the repeat operation was 78 months (range 3 weeks-297 months). The operations performed included repeat carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in 31 cases (55%), interposition grafts in 19 cases (34%), and subclavian-carotid bypass in 6 cases (11%). There were three perioperative strokes with one resulting in death for a perioperative stroke and death rate of 5.4%. One minor transient cranial nerve (CN IX) injury occurred. Mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 1-1 16 months). Life-table freedom from stroke was 95% at 1 year and 90% at 5 years. Recurrent stenosis (? 80%) developed in three patients (5.4%) during follow-up, including one internal carotid artery occlusion. Two patients (3.6%) underwent repeat surgery. Repeat surgery for recurrent cerebrovascular disease following carotid endarterectomy is safe and provides durable freedom from stroke. Most patients are candidates for repeat endarterectomy with patching, but interposition grafting is often required. These results strongly support the continued role of repeat carotid surgery in the treatment of recurrent carotid disease.

Primary Stenting for Recurrent Stenosis Following Carotid Endarterectomy

Background:

Carotid angioplasty and stenting is an accepted alternative treatment for severe restenosis following carotid endarterectomy. Balloons may not be required to effectively treat these lesions, given their altered histopathology compared to primary atherosclerotic plaque and tendency to be less calcified. Primary stenting using self-expanding stents alone may, therefore, be a safe and effective treatment for restenosis post-carotid endarterectomy.

Methods:

We review our experience in the treatment of 12 patients with symptomatic severe restenosis following carotid endarterectomy with primary stent placement alone.

Results:

Self-expanding stent placement alone reduced the mean internal carotid artery stenosis from 85% to 29%. Average peak systolic velocity determined at the time of ultrasonography decreased from 480 cm/s at initial presentation to 154 cm/s post-stent deployment and further decreased to 104 cm/s at one year follow-up. The stented arteries remained widely patent with no evidence of restenosis. A single peri-procedural ipsilateral transient ischemic event occurred. There were no cerebral or cardiac ischemic events recorded at one year of follow-up.

Conclusions:

In this series, primary stent placement without use of angioplasty balloons was a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic restenosis following carotid endarterectomy.

Carotid Endarterectomy: A Review

Background:

Since the validation of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as an effective means of stroke prevention, there has been renewed interest in its best indications and methods, as well as in how it compares to carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). This review examines these topics, as well as the investigation of carotid stenosis and the role of auditing and reporting CEAresults.

Investigation:

Brain imaging with CTor MRI should be obtained in patients considered for CEA, in order to document infarction and rule out mass lesions. Carotid investigation begins with ultrasound and, if results agree with subsequent, good-quality MRAor CTangiography, treatment can be planned and catheter angiography avoided. An equally acceptable approach is to proceed directly from ultrasound to catheter angiography, which is still the gold-standard in carotid artery assessment.

Indications:

Appropriate patients for CEA are those symptomatic with transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling stroke due to 70-99% carotid stenosis; the maximum allowable stroke and death rate being 6%. Uncertain candidates for CEA are those with 50 - 69% symptomatic stenosis, and those with asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 60% but, if selected carefully on the basis of additional risk factors (related to both the carotid plaque and certain patient characteristics), some will benefit from surgery. Asymptomatic patients will only benefit if surgery can be provided with exceptionally low major complication rates (3% or less). Inappropriate patients are those with less than 50% symptomatic or 60% asymptomatic stenosis, and those with unstable medical or neurological conditions.

Techniques:

Carotid endarterectomy can be performed with either regional or general anaesthesia and, for the latter, there are a number of monitoring techniques available to assess cerebral perfusion during carotid cross-clamping. While monitoring cannot be considered mandatory and no single monitoring technique has emerged as being clearly superior, EEG is most commonly used. “Eversion” endarterectomy is a variation in surgical technique, and there is some evidence that more widely practiced patch closure may reduce the acute risk of operative stroke and the longer-term risk of recurrent stenosis.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting:

Experience with this endovascular and less invasive procedure grows, and its technology continues to evolve. Some experienced therapists have reported excellent results in case series and a number of randomized trials are now underway comparing CAS to CEA. However, at this time it is premature to incorporate CAS into routine practice replacing CEA.

Auditing:

It has been shown that auditing of CEA indications and results with regular feed-back to the operating surgeons can significantly improve the performance of this operation. Carotid endarterectomy auditing is recommended on both local and regional levels.

Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in patients undergoing reintervention after prior carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the era of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) are unclear. We compared perioperative results and durability of CAS vs CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic restenosis after prior CEA and investigated the risk of reintervention compared with primary procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS and CEA for restenosis between January 2003 and March 2012 were identified within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database. End points included any stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days, cranial nerve injury at discharge, and restenosis ≥ 70% at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify whether prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for adverse outcome.

RESULTS

Out of 9305 CEA procedures, 212 patients (2.3%) underwent redo CEA (36% symptomatic). Of 663 CAS procedures, 220 patients (33%) underwent CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA (31% symptomatic). Demographics of patients undergoing redo CEA were comparable to patients undergoing CAS after prior CEA. Stroke/death/MI rates were statistically similar between redo CEA vs CAS after prior CEA in both asymptomatic (4.4% vs 3.3%; P = .8) and symptomatic patients (6.6% vs 5.8%; P = 1.0). No significant difference in restenosis ≥ 70% was identified between redo CEA and CAS after prior CEA (5.2% vs 3.0%; P = .5). Redo CEA vs primary CEA had increased stroke/death/MI rate in both symptomatic (6.6% vs 2.3%; P = .05) and asymptomatic patients 4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .03). Prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for stroke/death/MI among all patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5). No difference in cranial nerve injury was identified between redo CEA and primary CEA (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

In the VSGNE, CEA and CAS showed statistically equivalent outcomes in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients treated for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA. However, regardless of symptom status, the risk of reintervention was increased compared with patients undergoing primary CEA.

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.

Stroke and death after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting with and without high risk criteria

OBJECTIVE

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS) require that patients be high surgical risk or enrolled in a clinical trial. This may bias comparisons of CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We evaluate mortality and stroke following CAS and CEA stratified by medical high risk criteria.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2004-2007) was queried by ICD-9 code for CAS and CEA with diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. Medical high risk criteria were identified for each patient including patients undergoing a coronary artery bypass and/or valve repair (CABG/V) during the same admission. Symptom status was defined by history of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and/or amarosis fugax. The primary outcome was postoperative death, stroke (complication code 997.02), and combined stroke or death, stratified by high risk vs non-high risk status and symptom status.

RESULTS

Patient totals of 56,564 (10.5%) CAS and 482,394 (89.5%) CEA were identified. Half of the patients in each group were high risk. CABG/V was performed less commonly with CAS than CEA (2.8% vs 4.0%, P < .001). Patients undergoing CAS were more likely symptomatic than those undergoing CEA (13.1% vs 9.4%, P < .001). Mortality was higher after CAS than CEA for both high risk and non-high risk patients. Stroke was also higher after CAS for both high risk and non-high risk patients. Combined stroke or death was higher after CAS again for both high risk (asymptomatic 1.5% vs 1.2%, P < .05, symptomatic 14.4% vs 6.9%, P < .001) and non-high risk (asymptomatic 1.8% vs 0.6%, P < .001, symptomatic 11.8% vs 4.9%, P < .001). Combined stroke or death for patients undergoing CABG/V during the same admission was similar for CAS and CEA (4.8% vs 3.2%, P = .19). Multivariate predictors of combined stroke or death adjusted for age and gender included CAS vs CEA (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, P < .001), symptom status (OR 6.8, P < .001), high risk (OR 1.6, P < .001), and earlier year of procedure (OR 1.1, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States from 2004 to 2007, CAS has a higher risk of stroke and death than CEA after adjustment for medical high risk criteria. Further analysis with prospective assessment of risk factors is needed to guide appropriate patient selection for CEA and CAS in the general population.

Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.

The hostile neck does not increase the risk of carotid endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

Hostile neck anatomy is assumed to be associated with increased surgical risk for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and is often considered a reason to choose carotid stenting or medical management. This retrospective case-control study evaluated whether, and how much, anatomically hostile necks represent a condition of higher surgical risk of early and late mortality and major or minor morbidity.

METHODS

The data for 966 homogeneous CEA patients was prospectively entered in a computer database. Seventy-seven had a hostile neck anatomy due to previous oncologic surgery or neck irradiation, restenoses after CEA, high carotid bifurcation, or bull-like and inextensible neck. A case-control matched-pair cohort study considered sex, age (5-year intervals), and year of operation. Regional anesthesia was used for all operations for atherosclerotic stenosis >or=70%, conforming to the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, at a single center and by one surgeon or under his direct supervision.

RESULTS

The hostile neck patients and the control group were matched for age, sex, carotid-related symptoms, degree of stenoses, and main risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Intraoperative variables were substantially equivalent in the two groups; however, procedure length and clamping time were, respectively, about 22 minutes (P = .0001) and 7 minutes longer (P = .01) in the hostile neck group. Rates of postoperative mortality and neurologic events were equivalent. Peripheral nerve lesions were multiple and significantly more frequent in the hostile neck patients (21% with >or=1 cranial nerve lesion vs 7% of controls, P = .03), yet all were transient and limited to a few months. The subgroups of patients with hostile neck, restenoses, and bull-like inextensible necks required the longest operative and clamping time, and those with bull-like and high bifurcation had the most frequent cranial nerve dysfunctions. At the respective follow-up of 47 and 45 months, survival curves (P = .48) and the incidence of restenoses and fatal and nonfatal strokes were similar (5 and 4, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Hostile necks led to more complex CEA procedures but without substantial consequences in early and late morbidity and mortality. Most patients with hostile neck can undergo CEA at low risk, with the benefit of effective long-lasting stroke prevention similar to standard patients. In our opinion, the more frequent but temporary cranial nerve dysfunctions that occur are not sufficient to consider hostile neck patients noneligible for CEA.

Interposition grafts for difficult carotid artery reconstruction: a 17-year experience

Carotid interposition grafts (CIP) for carotid artery revascularization can be a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) for complex carotid disease. This is a retrospective review of the UCLA 17-year experience with CIP for carotid reconstruction. Carotid operations performed between 1988 and 2005 revealed 41 CIP procedures in 39 patients using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, n = 31) or reversed greater saphenous vein (Vein) (n = 10). Perioperative data and long-term follow-up for each conduit were statistically compared. There were no significant differences in demographics, risk factors, operative indications, complications, or 30-day perioperative deaths. There was one postoperative stroke in each group, for an overall stroke rate of 4.9% (PTFE 3.2%, Vein 10%). There was one asymptomatic occlusion and there were two high-grade restenoses in the PTFE group compared with one asymptomatic occlusion and one high-grade restenosis in the Vein group. Overall primary patency was 90% and the assisted primary patency was 97% for the PTFE group (mean follow-up 50 months), whereas primary patency was 80% (mean follow-up 30 months) in the Vein group. CIP is a safe and effective technique with excellent long-term follow-up for complex carotid reconstruction when CEA or CAS may be contraindicated.

A critical look at "high-risk" in choosing the proper intervention for patients with carotid bifurcation disease

Refinements in the technique of carotid endarterectomy have been accompanied by a growing literature calling into question the notion that a broad class of patients is at high-risk for surgery due to clinical comorbidities. Moreover, progress in the percutaneous revascularization of carotid bifurcation disease has highlighted the need for direct comparisons between endarterectomy and stenting across the entire spectrum of perioperative risk. The improved safety of carotid stenting, to some extent due to the advent of cerebral protection devices, has further altered the risk-to-benefit analysis. Lastly, dramatic improvements in medical therapy for the systemic manifestations of atherosclerosis have prompted a reevaluation of carotid revascularization as the standard of care for patients with severe carotid bifurcation stenosis. Endarterectomy and stenting each have unique procedure-specific factors that determine whether a patient is at increased risk for perioperative complications. Determining which patients are at high-risk for these modalities will impact the individualized treatment algorithm. This article examines the anatomical and physiologic conditions that can affect the anticipated outcome of each treatment modality. Ultimately, a tailored approach to each patient's clinical situation is likely to result in the best outcome following treatment.

Recurrent carotid stenosis after CEA and CAS: diagnosis and management

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the preferred method for cerebral revascularization in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has recently emerged as a less invasive alternative to endarterectomy. Carotid stenting has been demonstrated to be technically feasible and safe in high-risk patients. It has been approved as an acceptable method for revascularization in circumstances where CEA yields suboptimal results. While the final role of CAS in carotid revascularization will be determined on the basis of ongoing randomized trials, it is clear that stenting will continue to be performed in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be a corresponding increase in the number of in-stent restenosis cases. Considerable controversy exists regarding the clinical significance, natural history, threshold for management, and appropriate intervention of recurrent carotid stenosis after endarterectomy and after stenting. This review analyzes current information on this important clinical problem and presents evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of recurrent carotid stenosis.

Operative Intervention for Carotid Restenosis is Safe and Effective

Carotid stenting has been proposed as an alternative to reoperative carotid endarterectomy (rCEA) for recurrent carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to prove the safety, effectiveness and durability of reoperation in long term follow up of 18 years in a community hospital setting. From March 1988 to April 2005 80 patients, 46 men and 34 women (mean age: 64.1 years) underwent a total of 83 operations. Symptomatic recurrent stenosis (>70%) was the indication in 32, asymptomatic high-grade stenosis (>80%) in 49, intimal flap in one and fibromuscular dysplasia (F.M.D), in one. The initial operation was carotid endarterectomy with primary closure in 60 and prosthetic patch in 23. The mean recurrences were at 23.3 months in 33 with myointimal hyperplasia, 105.4 months in 29 with recurrent atherosclerosis, 61.4 months in 19 with both hyperplasia and atherosclerosis, 2 months in one with intimal flap and 8 months in one with F.M.D bands. Reoperation utilized primary closure (3), vein patch (14), prosthetic patch (55), Gore-Tex interposition grafts (7), vein interposition grafts (3) and intraoperative dilation (1). No perioperative strokes or deaths occurred. One patient died from cardiac complications following combined rCEA and coronary artery bypass grafting. Operative morbidity consisted of reversible nerve injury (5), irreversible recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (1) and hematoma requiring evacuation (3). During follow up (3-153 months; mean: 50.9) carotid occlusion resulted in mild ipsilateral stroke in one patient, and one non-hemispheric stroke. There were 26 late deaths due to all causes, one due to CVA. Eight patients required reoperation (mean 53.4 months). Seven of these were hypertensive. Kaplan-Meier analysis of long-term follow up shows relatively high stroke free rates; at 153 months (12.75 years) the hemispheric stroke free rate was 98.67% and the all-stroke free rate was 95.85%. The survival estimate following redo surgery was 69.97% at 5 years and 40.23% at 10 years. We found that individuals on statin therapy (p-value=0.0042), and those on combination of statin and aspirin (p-value=0.0320), had significantly increased interval between primary and secondary operation. Increased age was correlated to a decreased time to redo surgery (p-value=<0.0001). We conclude that reoperation for recurrent carotid stenosis using standard vascular techniques is safe, effective, durable and cost effective. It should continue to be the mainstay of treatment when secondary intervention is required. Statins have a salutary effect on durability of the procedure and should be used when indicated.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus redo endarterectomy for recurrent stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS) is an alternative to redo carotid endarterectomy (RCEA) for recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of CAS in the treatment of RCS.

METHODS

In an 8-year period, all patients presenting for treatment of RCS were followed-up prospectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with unfavorable outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 45 CAS and 46 RCEA procedures performed in 75 patients. One patient in each group suffered a stroke. There were no deaths. The hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for CAS. Secondary recurrence was higher after RCEA (14% vs 6.1%) and failure to take beta-blockers was an independent predictor for multiple recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

CAS is a safe and effective method to treat patients with RCS and may become the procedure of choice for this disease.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for postendarterectomy stenosis: Long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been proposed as an alternative to redo CEA. Although early results are encouraging, the extended durability remains unknown. We present the long-term surveillance results of CAS for post-CEA restenosis.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2004, 57 CAS procedures were performed in 55 patients (36 men) with a mean age of 70 years. The mean interval between CEA and CAS was 83 months (range, 6 to 245). Nine patients (16%) were symptomatic.

RESULTS

CAS was performed successfully in all patients. No deaths or strokes occurred. A periprocedural transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in two patients. During a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 12 to 72 months), two patients exhibited ipsilateral cerebral symptoms (1 TIA, 1 minor stroke). In 11 patients (19%), in-stent restenosis (> or =50%) was detected post-CAS at month 3 (n = 3), 12 (n = 3), 24 (n = 2), 36 (n = 1), 48 (n = 1), and 60 (n = 1). The cumulative rates of in-stent restenosis-free survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 93%, 85%, 82%, and 76%, respectively. Redo procedures were performed in six patients, three each received repeat angioplasty and repeat CEA with stent removal. The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 96%, 94%, 90%, and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Carotid angioplasty and stenting for recurrent stenosis after CEA can be performed with a low incidence of periprocedural complications with durable protection from stroke. The rate of in-stent recurrent stenosis is high, however, and does not only occur early after CAS but is an ongoing process.

Carotid Stenting: Should it Replace Endarterectomy in Higher-Risk Patients?

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a useful and potentially less-invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of extracranial carotid stenoses. It has been suggested that specific patient subgroups, including those with significant medical comorbidities, recurrent stenosis, anatomically inaccessible lesions, and a hostile neck, might benefit from CAS. The purpose of this report is to evaluate whether or not CAS should replace CEA in the treatment of the high-risk patient. Results from a recently published randomized clinical trial and several individual center and multicenter case analyses will be used in this review.

Safety and Efficacy of Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Stenosis: 20-Year Experience

Current options for treating recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS) include standard longitudinal arteriotomy and patch angioplasty with or without carotid endarterectomy (s-PCEA), carotid-carotid bypass, or carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS). Eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) is an effective procedure for treating primary carotid stenosis, yet it has not been reported for treating RCS. We evaluated the feasibility and outcome of e-CEA for treating of RCS in comparison to s-PCEA. The records of all patients undergoing elective CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade RCS from January 1981 to July 2002 were reviewed. Although during the earlier period s-PCEA was performed preferentially, this paradigm changed to e-CEA being the preferred technique for treatment of RCS. During the course of postoperative follow-up when duplex sonography suggested high-grade RCS, the diagnosis was confirmed via arteriography. Data on cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death were prospectively collected into a vascular registry database and analyzed retrospectively, Students' t-test and chi-square analysis were used to compare the group's baseline characteristics and outcomes. Over a 21-year period, 7001 patients underwent primary CEA for symptomatic (n = 2405, 34%) or asymptomatic (n = 4596, 66%) high-grade stenosis via standard (n = 1501, 21%) or eversion (n = 5500, 79%) techniques. Fifteen (25%) patients had 70 to 80% stenosis, 30 (51%) had 81 to 90% stenosis, and 14 (24%) had 91 to 99% stenosis. During this time period, 59 patients presented with symptomatic (n = 18, 31%) or asymptomatic (n = 41, 69%) high-grade RCS and underwent operative repair via s-PCEA (n = 22, 37%) or eversion (n = 37, 63%) techniques. The mean time interval for repeat carotid surgery for RCS was 49 months in the s-PCEA group and 48 months in the e-CEA group. Permanent cranial nerve injuries, stroke, and recurrent restenosis occurred in one (4.5%), one (4.5%), and one (4.5%) of the patients undergoing s-PCEA, respectively. In the e-CEA group, these events occurred in one (27%), none (0%), and one (2.7%) patients, respectively, There were no deaths during the 30-day postoperative period. Eversion CEA is a feasible option for the treatment of many RCSs and can be performed safely with a low rate of cranial nerve injury, recurrent stenosis, stroke, and death.

Safety and efficacy of reoperative carotid endarterectomy: A 14-year experience

BACKGROUND

Reoperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an accepted treatment for recurrent carotid stenosis. With reports of a higher operative morbidity than primary CEA and the advent of carotid stenting, catheter-based therapy has been advocated as the primary treatment for this reportedly "high-risk" subgroup. This study reviews a contemporary experience with reoperative CEA to validate the high-risk categorization of these patients.

METHODS

From 1989 to 2002, 153 consecutive, isolated (excluding CEA/coronary artery bypass graft and carotid bypass operations) reoperative CEA procedures were reviewed. Clinical and demographic variables potentially associated with the end points of perioperative morbidity, long-term durability, and late survival were assessed with multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

There were 153 reoperative CEA procedures in 145 patients (56% men, 36% symptomatic) with an average age of 69 +/- 1.3 years. The average time from primary CEA (68% primary closure, 23% prosthetic, 9% vein patch) to reoperative CEA was 6.1 +/- 0.4 years (range, 0.3 to 20.4 years). At reoperation, patch reconstruction was undertaken in 93% of cases. The perioperative stroke rate was 1.9%, with no deaths or cardiac complications. Other complications included cranial nerve injury (1.3%) and hematoma (3.2%). Average follow-up after reoperative CEA was 4.4 +/- 0.3 years (range, 0.1 to 12.7 years), with an overall total stroke-free rate of 96% and a restenosis rate (>50%) by carotid duplex of 9.2%. Among variables assessed for association with restenosis after reoperative CEA, only younger age was found to be significant (66 +/- 2.5 years vs 70 +/- 0.7 years, P < .05). The all-cause long-term mortality rate was 29%. Multivariate analysis of long-term survival identified diabetes mellitus as having a negative impact (hazard ratio, 3.4 +/- 0.3, P < .05) and lipid-lowering agents as having a protective effect (hazard ratio, 0.42 +/- 0.4, P < .05) on survival.

CONCLUSION

Reoperative CEA is a safe and durable procedure, comparable to reported standards for primary CEA, for long-term protection from stroke. These data do not support the contention that patients who require reoperative CEA constitute a "high-risk" subgroup in whom reoperative therapy should be avoided.

High-Risk Carotid Endarterectomy

"High-risk" carotid endarterectomy (CEA): fact or fiction? To answer this question we reviewed the available evidence starting from controlled randomized trials, through retrospective population- and large institution-based studies to case-series. CEA can be performed in most "high-risk" patients with low mortality and morbidity. A broad concept of high-risk CEA, based merely on exclusion from previous controlled randomized CEA trials, cannot be justified. The vast majority of evidence suggests that age (> or =80 years) per se should not be considered a high-risk criterion for CEA. However, it appears that there are certain individual risk factors, which may influence outcome adversely. It appears that CEA in the setting of contralateral carotid occlusion may be associated with very slightly increased risk of adverse perioperative events. Local risk factors, namely carotid reoperation and CEA following prior cervical radiation therapy, are associated with slightly increased stroke, death and probably cranial nerve injury rates. If these risk factors are frequent in a particular series the overall outcome of CEA will be worse. In the absence of level-one evidence on the long-term efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in stroke prophylaxis, selection for CAS should be restricted to well-defined high-risk categories, such as severe medical comorbidities or local-anatomic risk factors.

Recurrent Carotid Artery Stenosis Following Endarterectomy: Natural History and Risk Factors

OBJECTIVES

To establish the incidence of restenosis (RES) following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and evaluate clinical and technical factors related to its development.

DESIGN

Prospective non-randomised cohort study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-four patients with 243 CEA between May 1998 and December 2002, were subjected to clinical and haemodynamic follow-up, median follow-up 23 months (1-56). There was selective use of a shunt (17.3%) and patch (61.7%). RES (> or =50%) and severe restenosis, > or =70%, (sRES) were defined as peak systolic velocities of > or =150 and > or =300cm/s (or > or =250cm/s with diastolic velocity >100cm/s), respectively. Rates of RES, symptom development and mortality were analysed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox's regression model (hazards ratio/95% CI) was used to evaluate prognostic factors.

RESULTS

We detected 13 sRES (5.3%) (median time 6.1 months) and 30 (12.3%) moderate stenosis (mRES) (median time 3.7 months). Cumulative freedom from sRES at 23 months was 94.2%. Five sRES detected in the first 45 days after the procedure were deemed to be residual restenosis (rRES). Five (38.4%) sRES were symptomatic, 15.3% progressed to occlusion. Patient survival was 98.0 and 96.4% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Independent risk factors for sRES: female sex (HR: 3.3, 95% CI 1.1-10 p=0.04) and diabetes (HR: 4.5, 95% CI 1.4-13.9 p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid restenosis appears early, is usually low-grade and mostly asymptomatic. Although few stenoses progress to occlusion, women and diabetic patients were at highest risk.

Carotid endarterectomy remains the standard of care, even in high-risk surgical patients

OBJECTIVE

This study tested the hypothesis that high-risk patients can undergo carotid endarterectomy without associated increased risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has clearly been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of stroke in selected symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with extracranial carotid stenosis. However, recently, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has been suggested as an alternative treatment in high-risk surgical patients.

METHODS

Medical records for consecutive patients who underwent CEA from 1996 to 2001 were reviewed for demographics, medical history, and hospital course. High-risk patients were defined as those experiencing a myocardial infarction (MI) or an exacerbation of congestive heart failure (CHF) within 4 weeks before CEA; unstable angina; steroid-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); prior ipsilateral CEA, neck dissection or irradiation; high carotid bifurcation; and those with combined cardiac-carotid procedures. Poor postoperative outcome was defined as stroke, TIA, or death within 30 days. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used as appropriate.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-nine patients underwent 499 CEAs, of which 84 (17%) were considered high risk. The overall stroke-death rate among all patients was 2.8%. A total of 11 postoperative strokes (2.2%), 7 TIAs (1.4%), and 3 deaths (0.6%) occurred within 30 days after surgery. There was no difference in 30-day poor outcome between high- and low-risk patients (4.8% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.77). When these risk factors were assessed independently, those with recent MI were at higher risk for poor outcome (odds ratio [OR], 13.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-82.0; P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis also revealed that a history of contralateral stroke or TIA conferred an increased risk of poor outcome (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.4; P = 0.02), whereas use of preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with reduced risk (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.11-1.0; P = 0.05), as was a history of hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87; P = 0.03). By log-rank analysis, 12-month survival was significantly worse in the high-risk group as compared with the low-risk (96% vs. 91%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considered a surgical high risk can undergo CEA without any worse outcome compared with those patients deemed low risk. The benefit of CAS will likely be marginal, and only controlled clinical trials will be able to determine if certain subgroups demonstrate improved outcome with CAS. Carotid endarterectomy remains the standard of care, even in high-risk surgical patients.

Carotid endarterectomy at the millennium: what interventional therapy must match

OBJECTIVES

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is supported by level 1 evidence as the standard treatment of severe carotid stenosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. As interventional techniques are emerging for treatment of this disease, this study was undertaken to provide a contemporary surgical standard for comparison to carotid stenting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During the interval 1989 to 1999, 2236 isolated CEAs were performed on 1897 patients (62% male, 36% symptomatic, 4.6% reoperative procedures). Study endpoints included perioperative events, patient survival, late incidence of stroke, anatomic durability of CEA, and resource utilization changes during the study. Variables associated with complications, long-term and stroke free survival, restenosis, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Perioperative complications occurred in 5.5% of CEA procedures, including any stroke/death (1.4%), neck hematoma (1.7%), cardiac complications (0.5%), and cranial nerve injury (0.4%). Actuarial survival at 5 and 10 years was 72.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.3-73.5) and 44.7% (95% CI 41.7-47.9) respectively, with coronary artery disease (P < 0.0018), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < 0.00018) and diabetes mellitus (P < 0.0011) correlating with decreased longevity. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of any stroke during follow-up was reduced by 22% (upper 0.35, lower 0.08) of predicted with the patient classification of hyperlipidemia (P < 0.0045) as the only protective factor. Analysis of CEA anatomic durability during a median follow-up period of 5.9 years identified a 7.7% failure rate (severe restenosis/occlusion, 4.5%; or reoperative CEA, 3.2%) with elevated serum cholesterol (P < 0.017) correlating with early restenosis. Resource utilization diminished (first versus last 2-year interval periods) for average hospital length of stay from 10.3 +/- 1.5 days to 4.3 +/- 0.7 days (P < 0.01) and preoperative contrast angiography from 87% +/- 1.4% to 10.3% +/- 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data delineate the safety, durability, and effectiveness in long-term stroke prevention of CEA. They provide a standard to which emerging catheter-based therapies for carotid stenosis should be compared.

Carotid stenting versus carotid surgery: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To compare the results of carotid stenting and carotid surgery in a consecutive group of 455 patients (482 lesions).

METHODS

Between January 1995 and July 2002, 107 patients (114 lesions) were treated with carotid stenting and 348 patients (368 lesions) with carotid surgery. A cerebral protection device was routinely used in the last 46 stent cases. All patients were followed with duplex examination at 1 and 6 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter.

RESULTS

The stent and surgery groups were similar in terms of mean age (70.5 and 71.1 years, respectively), sex distribution (men 72% versus 75%), and symptoms (transient ischemic attack [TIA] or minor stroke 32.7% versus 42.2%). Median follow-up was 15 months in stent patients and 14 months in the surgical group. At 1 month postoperatively, there were 7 minor strokes (5 temporary lasting <21 days and 2 persistent) and 1 major stroke in the stent group versus 1 persistent minor stroke in the surgical patients. The overall neurological event rate (including TIA) was 10.5% versus 1.9% (p=0.0002) in the surgical patients; cardiac morbidity was 3.5% versus 1.6% (p=NS), and the death rate was 0% versus 0.8% (p=NS). The combined permanent stroke/death rate was 2.6% in stent patients and 1.1% in surgery patients (p=NS). During follow-up, the cumulative all stroke rate was 8.8% versus 1.9% (p=0.001), but the 3-year cumulative survival rate free from ipsilateral major neurological events was 95.2% in stent patients and 96.9% in the surgery cohort (p=NS). There was a 7.5% rate of restenosis in stented arteries versus 1.4% in surgery patients (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This series showed encouraging and comparable major stroke and deaths rate of carotid stenting and carotid surgery. However, there was more restenosis in the stented group on midterm follow-up.

Impact of Carotid Artery Angioplasty and Stenting on Management of Recurrent Carotid Artery Stenosis

Citing the higher perioperative risk of redo carotid surgery, balloon angioplasty and stenting of the carotid artery (CAS) has been advocated for recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). To examine the impact of CAS on the management and outcome of recurrent stenosis, a retrospective review of a prospectively compiled database was performed. From a registry of patients treated for carotid disease, 105 procedures were performed from 1992 to 2002 for RCS. For comparison, two study groups were examined. Time I consisted of 77 reoperations performed through 1998, before CAS was introduced at our institution. Time II included 12 reoperations and 16 CAS procedures performed for RCS from 1999 through 2002. Using perioperative stroke as a measure of outcome, the results for time II were poorer than for time I (7.2% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). Overall, the risk of perioperative stroke was the same for reoperation (5/89) and CAS (1/16) (5.6% vs. 6.3%, p = NS). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward a higher risk of perioperative stroke for patients treated with reoperation during the latter time period (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). This probably relates to the finding that during time II, CAS was most likely to be used in asymptomatic patients (68.6% vs. 41.7%, p = NS) with early (<3 years) RCS (87.5% vs. 41.7%, p= 0.01). No patient with asymptomatic, early RCS had a perioperative stroke with either surgery or CAS (0/35 cases, 0%). The presence of preoperative neurologic symptoms was significantly predictive of a perioperative stroke among all procedures performed for RCS (13.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.004). Contrary to suggestions that CAS might improve the management of RCS, a review of our data shows the overall risk of periprocedural stroke to be no better since CAS has become available. The bias for using CAS for asymptomatic myointimal hyperplastic lesions, and reoperation for frequently symptomatic late recurrent atherosclerotic disease, makes direct comparisons of the two techniques for treating RCS difficult. It is expected that the overall risk for redo carotid surgery will increase, as fewer low-risk patients will be receiving open procedures. However, the increased risk among symptomatic patients undergoing reoperation suggests that endovascular techniques should be investigated among this group of cases as well.

Safety and durability of redo carotid operation: an 11-year experience

PURPOSE

With the recent emergence of carotid stenting in the management of carotid disease, the role of surgery has been challenged, particularly for recurrent carotid stenosis. This study was undertaken to determine the safety and durability of redo carotid operation (RCO) for recurrent stenosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified 64 consecutive patients who underwent 66 RCOs between 1990 and 2000. There were 33 males (52%) and 31 females, with a mean age of 68.2 years (range, 38-84 years). The mean interval from the primary carotid surgery to RCO was 77.5 months (range, 1-292 months). Operative indications were severe asymptomatic stenosis in 33 cases (50%), transient ischemic attacks (TIA) or amaurosis fugax in 25 (38%), recent stroke in 6 (9%), and nonhemispheric symptoms in 1. Two operations were tertiary carotid reconstructions. A total of 56 (85%) patch angioplasties were performed, 49 with vein and 6 with synthetic material. Primary closure was performed in three cases (5%), whereas interposition grafts were required in eight (12%). Complete follow-up was available in 59 patients (92%) and averaged 4.3 years (range, 0.2-12.9 years); 97% of patients underwent follow-up duplex scanning.

RESULTS

There were no operative deaths and only two operative strokes (3.1%). Permanent cranial nerve deficit occurred in one patient (1.5%). Late stroke occurred in five patients: four ipsilateral and one contralateral. Kaplan-Meier estimates for 5- and 10-year stroke-free survival were 92% and 74%, and for overall survival were 72% and 50%. Duplex scanning detected significant recurrent carotid stenosis (>80%) or occlusion in six cases (9%) at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from recurrent stenosis of >80% were 94% and 86% at 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

RCO for recurrent carotid stenosis can be performed safely with excellent protection from stroke and long-term durability. These data provide a standard against which the results of carotid stenting can be compared.

Carotid redo surgery: both safe and durable

AIM

To examine the outcomes and complications of surgery for recurrent carotid stenosis.

METHODS

From 1974 to 2000, 1922 carotid endarterectomies were performed in our unit. A retrospective cohort analysis of these records identified 24 patients (1.2%) who underwent surgery for recurrent stenosis.

RESULTS

There were 13 men and 11 women in the group. Median follow up was 7.2 years (interquartile range 4.4-12.4 years). The indication for redo surgery was either symptomatic severe (80-99%) or moderate (50-79%) restenosis, or severe asymptomatic (80-99%) restenosis. Repair was performed by patch angioplasty (88%), endarterectomy alone (8%) or interposition grafting (4%). Within the 30 day perioperative period there were no deaths, no strokes (major or minor), or significant cardiac morbidity. One patient (4%) developed a permanent spinal accessory nerve deficit. Another patient (4%) required further re-intervention for recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Very low surgical morbidity and mortality was achieved in our unit by implementing a policy of selective re-intervention for carotid restenosis. Redo carotid endarterectomy can therefore be recommended as having no greater morbidity than primary carotid endarterectomy. Carotid angioplasty and stenting are not recommended as a routine alternative treatment.

Recurrent Stenosis and Contralateral Occlusion: High-risk Situations in Carotid Endarterectomy?

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as a treatment option for carotid occlusive disease in high-risk patients including those with recurrent stenosis (RS) and contralateral occlusion (CO). This study reviews the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with RS and CO. We conducted a retrospective review from our vascular registry of 1670 patients who underwent CEAs ( n = 1950) from January 1990 through December 2001. Procedures included RS 86 (4.4%), CO 112 (5.7%), and control 1752 (89.9%). There were 37 strokes in the entire group (1.9%). Among the high-risk group with RS and CO, there were 6 strokes, (RS n = 2, CO n = 4) 3%. There were 31 strokes in the control group 1.8% ( p = NS). Postoperative TIAs were observed more frequently in patients with CO ( n = 2) or RS ( n = 2), 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively ( p < 0.05). Neck hematomas, intracerebral hemorrhages, and myocardial infarctions did not differ between groups. Three deaths occurred within 30 days (0.15%); one was a patient with CO. Renal failure and symptomatic disease were each associated with a higher risk of perioperative stroke; among patients with renal failure there were 6 strokes (4.6%) p < 0.05, in symptomatic patients there were 26 strokes (2.7%) p < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that preoperative renal disease and surgery for symptomatic disease were both significant predictors of perioperative stroke ( p < 0.05; odds ratio 2.177 and 2.943 respectively) while neither RS nor CO was from these results we concluded that the presence of RS and CO do not increase the risk of perioperative stroke in CEA.

Outcome of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty versus open surgical repair of recurrent carotid stenosis

PURPOSE

We compared outcome and durability of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty (CAS) with open surgical repair (ie, repeat carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) to treat recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS).

METHODS

A retrospective review of anatomic and neurologic outcomes was carried out after 27 repeat CEA procedures (1993-2002) and 52 CAS procedures (1997-2002) performed to treat high-grade internal carotid artery (ICA) RCS after CEA. The incidence of intervention because of symptomatic RCS was similar (repeat CEA, 63%; CAS, 60%), but the interval from primary CEA to repeat intervention was greater (P <.05) in the repeat CEA group (83 +/- 15 months) compared with the CAS group (50 +/- 8 months). In the CAS group, 17 of 52 arteries (33%) were judged not to be surgical candidates because of surgically inaccessible high lesions (n = 8), medical comorbid conditions (n = 4), neck irradiation (n = 3), or previous surgery with cranial nerve deficit or stroke (n = 2). Three patients who underwent repeat CEA had lesions not appropriate for treatment with CAS.

RESULTS

Overall 30-day morbidity was similar after CAS (12%; death due to ipsilateral intracranial hemorrhage, 1; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible neurologic deficits or transient ischemic attack, 2; access site complication, 2). and repeat CEA (11%; no death; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible cranial nerve injury, 1; cervical hematoma, 1). Combined stroke and death rate was 3.7% for repeat CEA and 5.7% for CAS (P >.1). All duplex ultrasound scans obtained within 3 months after CEA and CAS demonstrated patent ICA and velocity spectra of less than 50% stenosis. During follow-up, no repeat CEA (mean, 39 months) or CAS (mean, 26 months) repair demonstrated ICA occlusion, but two patients (8%) who underwent repeat CEA and 4 patients (8%) who underwent CAS required balloon or stent angioplasty because of 80% RCS. At last follow-up, no patient had ipsilateral stroke and all ICA remain patent. At duplex scanning, stenosis-free (<50% diameter reduction) ICA patency at 36 months was 75% after repeat CEA and 57% after CAS (P =.26, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid angioplasty for treatment of high-grade stenotic ICA after CEA resulted in similar anatomic and neurologic outcomes compared with open surgical repair. Most lesions are amenable to endovascular therapy, and CAS enabled treatment in patients judged not to be suitable surgical candidates. Duplex scanning surveillance after repeat CEA or CAS is recommended, because stenosis can recur after either secondary procedure.

Systematic review of the risks of carotid endarterectomy in relation to the clinical indication for and timing of surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Reliable data on the risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in relation to clinical indication and timing of surgery are necessary to target CEA more effectively, to inform patients, to adjust risks for case mix, and to understand the mechanisms of operative stroke.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all studies published from 1980 to 2000 inclusive that reported the risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA. Pooled estimates of risk by type of presenting ischemic event and time since the last event were obtained by Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 383 published studies, only 103 stratified risk by indication. Although the operative risk for symptomatic stenosis overall was higher than for asymptomatic stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 1.81; P<0.00001; 59 studies), risk in patients with ocular events only tended to be lower than for asymptomatic stenosis (OR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.14; 15 studies). Operative risk was the same for stroke and cerebral transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.35; P=0.08; 23 studies) but higher for cerebral transient ischemic attack than for ocular events only (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.72 to 3.12; P<0.00001; 19 studies) and for CEA for restenosis than primary surgery (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; P=0.018; 6 studies). Urgent CEA for evolving symptoms had a much higher risk (19.2%, 95% CI, 10.7 to 27.8) than CEA for stable symptoms (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.7 to 5.7; P<0.001; 13 studies), but there was no difference between early (<3 to 6 weeks) and late (>3 to 6 weeks) CEA for stroke in stable patients (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.62; P=0.62; 11 studies). All observations were highly consistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of stroke and death resulting from CEA is highly dependent on the clinical indication. Audits of risk should be stratified accordingly, and patients should be informed of the risk that relates to their presenting event.

Surgical Treatment of Recurrent Carotid Artery Stenosis and Carotid Artery Stenosis after Neck Irradiation: Evaluation of Operative Risk

Surgical treatment of recurrent carotid artery stenosis after endarterectomy and carotid artery stenosis after neck irradiation purportedly has a higher complication rate than primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Accordingly, carotid angioplasty has been proposed as a safer alternative. The purpose of this study was to evaluate operative risks on the basis of our experience with these lesions. A series of 679 carotid revascularizations (CRV) performed over a period of 9 years was retrospectively reviewed. Immediate outcome and operative technique was analyzed in three groups: group 1 included 549 "routine" CRV, group 2 included 8 CRV for recurrent stenosis after CEA, and group 3 consisted of 11 CRV for stenosis after neck irradiation. No difference in revascularization techniques was found between groups 1 and 2. In contrast there were fewer CEA and resection-anastomosis procedures in group 2 than in group 1 (62.5% vs. 98.2%; p < 0.0006) and more bypass procedures (37.5% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.0015). The cumulative neurological morbidity/mortality rate (CMMR) was 0% in groups 2 and 3 as compared to 4.4% in group 1. In comparison with group 1, early and permanent neurological morbidity rates were significantly higher in both group 2 (2.2% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.015 and 0.2% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.028, respectively) and group 3 (2.2% vs. 18.2%; p = 0.028 and 0.2% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.039, respectively). Surgical treatment of recurrent stenosis after CEA and stenosis after neck irradiation is not associated with a higher CMMR. The only potentially valid justification for using percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in these patients would be a higher risk of cervical neurological morbidity.

Carotid artery stenting: analysis of data for 105 patients at high risk

OBJECTIVES

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by some clinicians. However, recently published clinical trials have reported 30-day stroke and death rates of 10% to 12%. This prompted review of our experience with CAS in patients at high risk, to document our results and guide further use of CAS.

METHODS

From September 1996 to the present, we performed 114 consecutive CAS procedures in 105 patients. Sixty-three patients were men (60%) and 42 patients were women (40%), with mean age of 70 years (range, 45-93 years). Indications for CAS included recurrent stenosis after previous CEA in 74 patients (65%), primary lesions in 32 patients at high risk (28%), and carotid stenosis with previous ipsilateral radiation therapy in 8 patients (7%). Asymptomatic stenosis (>80%) was managed in 70 patients (61%), and symptomatic lesions (>50%) were treated in 44 patients (39%).

RESULTS

CAS was technically successful in all patients. Mean severity of stenosis before CAS was 87% +/- 6%, compared with 9% +/- 4% after CAS. Two patients (1.9%) died, 1 of reperfusion-intracerebral hemorrhage and 1 of myocardial infarction 10 days after discharge; and 1 patient (0.95%) had a stroke (retinal infarction), for a 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85%. Two patients (1.9%) had transient neurologic events. No cranial nerve deficits were noted. No neurologic complications have been noted in the last 27 patients (26%).

CONCLUSIONS

A 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85% in our experience demonstrates acceptability of CAS as an alternative to repeat operation or primary CEA in patients at high risk or in patients with radiation-induced stenosis. We recommend further clinical investigation of CAS and participation in clinical trials by vascular surgeons.

High-risk carotid endarterectomy: fact or fiction

OBJECTIVE

It has been proposed that patients whose conditions do not meet North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial inclusion criteria or have anatomic risk factors constitute a "high-risk" group for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and might be candidates for primary carotid angioplasty stenting. Our objective was to review a consecutive series of isolated CEAs, identify the number of such patients at high risk, and determine whether their operations were associated with increased complication rate.

METHODS

Consecutive isolated CEAs performed between June 1996 and June 2001 were reviewed. High-risk comorbidities included: age 80 years or more (n = 80), New York Heart Association class III/IV angina (n = 16), Canadian class III/IV heart failure (n = 4), myocardial infarct 6 months or less (n = 11), steroid-dependent or oxygen-dependent pulmonary disease (n = 4), and creatinine level of 3 or more (n = 13). Anatomic high risk was defined by: contralateral occlusion (n = 66), lesion above C(2) or requirement of digastric division (n = 53), reoperation (n = 29), and neck radiation (n = 3). Statistical analysis was with chi(2) analysis.

RESULTS

Of 788 patients reviewed, 228 (29%) were classified as high risk by one or more of the previous criteria (63% comorbidity, 28% anatomy, 9% both). Presence of preoperative neurologic symptoms and postoperative results were similar across all patient groups. The total stroke and death rate was 1.1% for all the patients. Six patients had postoperative strokes (0.8%), and three patients died of myocardial infarcts (0.4%). The stroke and death rate was 1.3% in the high-risk group as compared with 1.1% in the normal-risk group (P =.51).

CONCLUSION

The concept of the high-risk CEA must be critically reexamined. Although 29% of patients for CEA were high risk as defined by others, we found no evidence that this influenced the results after CEA. Patients with significant medical comorbidities, contralateral carotid occlusion, and high carotid lesions can undergo operation without increased complications. If a high-risk group exists, it is small and restricted to reoperation or radiated neck (4% in this series). With this possible exception, carotid angioplasty stenting should be restricted to randomized clinical trials.

Early postsurgical carotid restenosis: redo surgery versus angioplasty/stenting

PURPOSE

To compare the results of balloon angioplasty/stenting (BA/S) versus redo surgery in patients with early carotid restenosis.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients (35 women; mean age 69 years, range 46-82) with early restenosis (<24 months from the primary endarterectomy) in 63 carotid arteries were treated during a 5-year period; 41 patients (41 arteries) had redo surgery (group A) and 20 patients (22 arteries) had BA/S (group B). Patients were followed regularly with duplex ultrasound to detect >or=50% recurrent restenosis (RRS) after redo surgery or BA/S. Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis was used to estimate the stroke-free survival rates and freedom from >or=50% RRS.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable for both groups, as were the perioperative stroke and death rates (2.4% and 0% for group A, respectively, versus 4.5% and 0% for group B, p=0.46). Group A had a 12% incidence of cranial nerve injury (all transient) versus 0% for group B (p=0.11); however, group B had a higher incidence of >or=50% RRS than group A (32% versus 0%, p=0.0003). The stroke-free survival rates for redo surgery at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 88% versus 95%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 63% for BA/S (p=0.067). Redo surgery had a 100% freedom from >or=50% RRS at the same time intervals, while recurrent restenosis rates for the BA/S patients were 95%, 86%, 69%, 52%, and 52% (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

BA/S and redo surgery have comparable stroke and death rates in the treatment of early RCS; however, redo surgery is associated with cranial nerve injuries (transient), while stent patients have a higher incidence of recurrent lesions. These considerations should be kept in mind when selecting the appropriate treatment for patients with early postsurgical restenosis.