Early carotid artery stenting after onset neurologic symptoms

Multiple cavernous malformation syndrome: a casual diagnosis during carotid revascularization procedure

INTODUCTION

Familial cerebral cavernous malformations (FCCM) are a rare condition characterized by the multiple presences of cavernous malformations located in the central nervous system.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We present a case of FCCM incidental diagnosis in a 71-year-old male patient who underwent carotid artery stenting for high-grade carotid artery disease and subsequent reintervention for severe stent restenosis, determining neurological deficit. FCCM diagnosis was made due to the presence of hundreds of cavernous malformations located both in supra- and sub-tentorial regions highlighted by magnetic resonance and confirmed by genetic test for the mutation of the gene KRIT1, inherited also by his son.

Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Women

Background: The role of carotid revascularization in women remains intensely debated because of the lower benefit and higher perioperative risks concerning the male counterpart. Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS) represent the two most valuable stroke prevention techniques due to large vessel disease. This study investigates the early and late outcomes in female sex in a real-world everyday clinical practice.

Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from a single-center database prospectively compiled. A total of 234 procedures, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, were identified (98 CEAs and 136 CASs). Perioperative risks of death, cerebral ischemic events, and local complications were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Long-term outcomes were evaluated in overall survival, freedom from ipsilateral stroke/transient ischemic attack, and freedom from restenosis (>50%) and reintervention.

Results: Women who underwent CAS and CEA did not differ in perioperative ischemic cerebral events (2.2 vs. 0%, p = 0.26) and death (0.8 vs. 0%, p = 1). Other perioperative and 30-day outcomes were similarly distributed within the two groups. Kaplan–Meier curves between CAS and CEA groups highlighted no statistical differences at 6 years in overall survival (77.4 vs. 77.1%, p = 0.47) of ipsilateral stroke/transient ischemic attack (94.1 vs. 92.9%, p = 0.9). Conversely, significant differences were showed in 6 years freedom from restenosis (93.1 vs. 83.3%, p = 0.03) and reinterventions (97.7 vs. 87.8%, p = 0.015).

Conclusion: Our results revealed that both CEA and CAS have acceptable perioperative risk in women. Long-term outcomes highlighted favorable indications for both procedures, especially for CAS, which seemed to be an excellent alternative to CEA in female patients when performed by well-trained operators.

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.