Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Stenting in One Session in High-Risk Patients

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Feasibility and Safety of Separate Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Restrict Protective Method for Bilateral Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The treatment strategy for bilateral carotid stenosis (BCS) is not clear. We report our experience of treating 12 patients with BCS using separate carotid artery stenting (CAS) using the restrict protective method. The order of treatment site and the protective method are also discussed.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and November 2016, 24 lesions in 12 patients (range, 44-83 years; mean, 71 years; 1 woman) underwent CAS at Kariya Toyota General Hospital. These cases were reviewed retrospectively. In all cases, CAS was first performed on the more severely stenosed site. All procedures were performed using the proximal protective method involving balloons and a filter device. We took into consideration adverse events including death from any cause, major stroke within 30 days, and death between 30 days and 1 year later from any stroke.

RESULTS

All procedures were successfully performed under local anesthesia. There was not a single case that showed intolerance during flow arrest to prevent distal embolisms. We observed no adverse events, restenosis, or recurrent symptoms during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Good outcomes can be achieved in patients with BCS when attempting separate CAS using the restrict protective method.

Feasibility and Safety of Simultaneous Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting for Bilateral Carotid Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience using a Hybrid Procedure

BACKGROUND

The treatment for bilateral carotid stenosis (BCS) is challenging, and the optimal treatment strategy is not clear. We report our experience of treating 8 patients with BCS by simultaneous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS), thereby providing an alternative for vascular surgeons.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and August 2014, 8 patients (5 males and 3 females; range, 53-82 years; mean, 69 ± 8.8 years) underwent simultaneous CEA and CAS in our hospital. CEA before CAS was done in 5 patients, and CAS before CEA was done in 3 patients. One patient also underwent simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting due to unstable angina. Intraoperative transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, carotid shunts, patches, and embolic protection devices were used in all patients. Instances of hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS), hemodynamic depression, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death were recorded.

RESULTS

All patients completed the procedure. One patient developed postprocedural HPS. After systemic treatment, he recovered completely. There were no deaths, major and/or minor strokes, or MI, nor did any patient exhibit lower palsy in cranial nerves in the perioperative period (<30 days) or on clinical follow-up (3 and 6 months). We observed no restenosis and no recurrent symptoms during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

After careful preoperative assessment and preparation, simultaneous CEA and CAS for high-grade BCS may be considered as an alternative management strategy in carefully selected patients.

Simultaneous Bilateral vs Unilateral Carotid Artery Stenting: 30-Day and 1-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (sbCAS) compared with unilateral CAS (uCAS).

METHODS

The database in our institution was queried to identify all patients treated with CAS from January 2005 to December 2012. In this time frame, 120 (18.8%) patients (mean age 64.9 ± 7.7 years; 96 men) underwent sbCAS and 517 (81.2%) patients (mean age 65.7 ± 7.7 years; 421 men) received uCAS. The primary endpoint was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or any ipsilateral stroke within 1 year.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rates of the primary endpoint between the sbCAS and uCAS groups (6.7% vs 4.6%, p=0.358). The rates of the primary endpoint among symptomatic patients was 8.0% in the sbCAS group and 5.0% in the uCAS group (p=0.299) and 3.1% and 4.0%, respectively (p=0.821) among asymptomatic patients. During the 30-day periprocedural period, the rates of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between the sbCAS and uCAS groups among all patients (5.8% vs 4.4%, p=0.479), symptomatic patients (6.8% vs 5.0%, p=0.594), or asymptomatic patients (3.1% vs 3.5%, p>0.999). After this period, the incidences of any ipsilateral stroke were similarly low (0.8% and 0.2%, respectively; p=0.342).

CONCLUSION

The study showed that simultaneous bilateral CAS had no more adverse events than unilateral CAS during the periprocedural period or within 1 year. This 1-stage strategy may become a valuable alternative in the treatment of patients with severe bilateral carotid stenosis.

Simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting in a series of 9 patients: a single-center experience with review of literature

Objectives:

Simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (SBCAS) is a challenging procedure, and selection criteria play an important role in determining the final outcome. The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the SBCAS in a series of 9 patients with significant bilateral carotid artery disease (>50% on the symptomatic side and >60% on the asymptomatic side).

Materials and Methods:

The present study is a retrospective study of 9 patients from January 2005 to December 2012 in a tertiary care center. There were 8 males and 1 female in the age range 50 to 75 years and an average mean age of 63 years. Inclusion criteria of the present study were patients with bilateral internal carotid artery stenosis >50% (50 - 99%) in the symptomatic side and >60% in the asymptomatic side as seen on digital subtraction angiography (DSA). SBCAS with use of distal protection device (Spider device, ev3), to prevent intra-procedural embolic migration, was done in all the patients.

Results:

Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%). Post-procedural events in the form of hypotension and bradycardia occurred in 3 patients after the placement of stent on both the sides, in 2 patients after the placement of the first stent, and in 1 patient after the placement of the second stent. We did not encounter any cases of hyperperfusion, which was a concern in these patients. There were no deaths, major or minor strokes, or myocardial infarction either in the post-procedural period (up to 1 month) or on clinical follow-up 3 and 6 months post-treatment.

Conclusion:

SBCAS was an effective and safe alternative treatment method in a select group of patients with bilateral carotid artery disease. It can be considered as a feasible treatment option with acceptable risks.

Simultaneous bilateral carotid stenting in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The safety and efficacy of SBCAS have not been evaluated in detail. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcome after SBCAS in high-risk patients compared with unilateral stent placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2002 and October 2008, a total of 205 consecutive high-risk patients underwent CAS at our institution. Of these patients, 30 (14.6%) underwent SBCAS (n = 24) and staged SBCAS (n = 6). Patients who underwent unilateral CAS (n = 175) during the same period served as controls. The stroke risk factors, procedural results, and outcome at 30 days and 6 months, as well as the restenosis rate at 6 months, were compared by using either the chi(2) test or the Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test.

RESULTS

Our data revealed no significant differences in the stroke risk factors between the SBCAS and the control group. HPS occurred more commonly in SBCAS (ie, 16.7%, 4/24) compared with 2.9% (5/175) in the control group (P = .014). However, there was no statistical significance between 2 groups in the event rate of stroke (minor and/or major stroke), death, or restenosis at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in outcome at 6 months following stent placement between SBCAS and unilateral CAS in the high-risk patient group, even though HPS occurred more commonly after SBCAS.