Safety of stenting and endarterectomy by symptomatic status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

What the National Coverage Determination for Carotid Artery Stenting Means for the Treatment of Patients with Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

In October 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services agreed to revisit its national coverage determination (NCD) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). We provide an overview of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion, and discuss the likely ramifications on patient care and outcomes in the future.

METHODS

We completed a narrative review of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion.

RESULTS

Arguments presented in favor of the CAS NCD expansion predominantly focused on the outcomes of 4 large multicenter randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2021 that reported similar outcomes for composite end points between patients undergoing CAS and carotid endarterectomy. The main arguments against expanding the CAS NCD centered around higher patient stroke risks with CAS, increasing health-care costs, premature decision-making, and the lack of a validated shared decision-making tool that can be readily applied to carotid revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

By expanding the indications for CAS to asymptomatic and standard-risk patients, they will be exposed to excess and unnecessary risks without any evident benefits, potentially leading to widespread adoption of a procedure driven by financial incentives rather than genuine patient benefits.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision.

METHODS

The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS.

RESULTS

The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

Association of Centre Quality Certification with Characteristics of Patients, Management, and Outcomes Following Carotid Endarterectomy or Carotid Artery Stenting

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the association between center quality certifications and patients' characteristics, clinical management, and outcomes after carotid revascularization. Methods: This study is a pre-planned sub-study of the ISAR-IQ project, which analyzes data from the Bavarian subset of the nationwide German statutory quality assurance carotid database. Hospitals were classified as to whether a certified vascular center (cVC) or a certified stroke unit (cSU) was present on-site or not. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death until discharge from the hospital. Results: In total, 31,793 cases were included between 2012 and 2018. The primary outcome rate in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA ranged from 0.7% to 1.5%, with the highest rate in hospitals with cVC but without cSU. The multivariable regression analysis revealed a significantly lower primary outcome rate in centers with cSU in asymptomatic patients (aOR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86; p < 0.001). In symptomatic patients needing emergency treatment, the on-site availability of a cSU was associated with a significantly lower primary outcome rate (aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40-0.80; p < 0.001), whereas the presence of a cVC was associated with higher risk (aOR 3.07; 95% CI 1.65-5.72). Conclusions: This study provides evidence of statistically significant better results in some sub-cohorts in certified centers. In centers with cSU, the risk of any stroke or death was significantly lower in asymptomatic patients receiving CEA or symptomatic patients treated by emergency CEA.

Treatment Strategies for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS), and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials were researched with PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases. Fixed-effects model and random-effects model were used to estimate the relative risks and the hazard ratios (HRs). The results of the probabilistic analysis were reported as surfaces under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Data from 10 348 patients (CEA: n = 4758; CAS: n = 3919; OMT: n = 1673) were evaluated. Compared with the previous OMT, CEA, CAS, and the current OMT (c-OMT) were all effective in reducing the risk of stroke (CEA: HR, 0.52; CI, 0.40-0.66; CAS: HR, 0.58; CI, 0.42-0.81; c-OMT: HR, 0.40; CI, 0.15-0.94); CEA and CAS reduced the risk of ipsilateral stroke (CEA: HR, 0.41; CI, 0.28-0.59; CAS: HR, 0.51; CI, 0.31-0.84), and the risk of fatal or disabling stroke (CEA: HR, 0.59; CI, 0.43-0.81; CAS: HR, 0.57; CI, 0.34-0.95). Regarding reducing the risk of stroke, only CEA was statistically significant in patients with any degree of stenosis compared with the previous medical treatment (<80%: HR, 0.48; CI, 0.33%-0.70%; 80%-99%: HR, 0.53; CI, 0.38-0.73).

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the perioperative outcomes of CAS were similar to that of CEA; CEA, CAS, and c-OMT shared similar long-term outcomes; and CEA and CAS may be more effective in patients with high levels of asymptomatic stenosis.

A Comparative Analysis and Results of Carotid Interventions Based on Duplex Ultrasound as a Single Exam Versus Multiple Diagnose Exams

BACKGROUND

To determine the results, safety, and clinical outcomes of carotid interventions performed with duplex ultrasound (DUS) as a single preoperative image for internal carotid artery (ICA) assessment, compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).

METHODS

Prospective, consecutive cohort study of 2 groups of patients submitted to carotid interventions, 1 group of patients with DUS as a sole exam (group DUS) compared to patients with DUS plus CTA or MRA for ICA stenosis diagnosis (group CTA/MRA) regarding clinical outcomes such as major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack and perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

Two groups of patients were identified: group DUS with 47 patients and group CTA/MRA plus DUS with 68 patients. The mean age of the patients was 71.67 years in total cohort, and most of them were male (66.1%). Group DUS had higher prevalence of male, dyslipidemia, ischemic heart disease, peripheral artery disease and chronic kidney disease than group CTA/MRA (83% vs. 54.4%, P = 0.001; 93.6% vs. 51.5%, P < 0.001; 36.2% vs. 16.2%, P = 0.009; 29.8% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.019; 14.9% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.007, respectively). We have performed a Kaplan-Meier regarding survival rates: Group DUS had 93.5%% and Group CTA/MRA had 90.3%% at 720 days. P = 0.15, standard error < 10 at 720 days. a Kaplan-Meier analysis regarding primary patency rates showed Group DUS with 92.7% and Group CTA/MRA with 94.7% at 720 days. P = 0.78, standard error < 10 at 720 days. Furthermore, the incidence of postoperative stroke was 2.6% (asymptomatic 1.7%, symptomatic 2.9%), with no differences among DUS and CTA/MRA groups (2.1% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.78, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently of the type of carotid intervention (carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting (CAS)), DUS as an only preoperative carotid image has similar results regarding postoperative outcomes when compared to CTA/MRA for preoperative carotid evaluation.

Carotid artery stenting with flow inversion cerebral protection and MicroNet-covered stent

BACKGROUND

The study aims to evaluate the association of proximal flow-inversion cerebral protection and MicroNet-covered CGuard stents in reducing early and late embolic events in carotid artery stenting procedures.

METHODS

From 2018 to 2023, we performed 204 procedures in 180 patients with flow inversion cerebral protection and CGuard stents at the Vascular Surgery Unit of Sant'Eugenio Hospital in Rome. Cerebral protection was achieved with a Flow-Gate2 catheter connected to a peripheral vein. The tip balloon is inflated in the CCA to obtain an effective endoclamping, the pressure difference between the carotid bifurcation and the venous compartment ensures a constant back flow with wash-out in the venous compartment. Inclusion criteria were: life expectancy of >12 months, target lesions indicating treatment according to ESVS Guidelines, increased surgical risk due to comorbidities or anatomic issues. ECD follow-up was performed immediately postoperatively, at 30 days, 6 and 12 months, and subsequently annually.

RESULTS

The treatment protocol was successfully implemented in 99% of cases. No major strokes occurred, while one minor stroke (0.5%) occurred within 8 hours of the procedure, regressing in the following months. One perioperative death (0.5%) due to cerebral hemorrhage occurred three hours after the procedure. All patients remained asymptomatic, with no short or medium-term neurological score deterioration. One hemodynamically significant restenosis (0.5%) was detected at the 6-month follow-up. All patients completed the 6 months follow-up, though 6 (3%) were lost at the 12-month appointment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospective monocentric study has demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of the FlowGate2 flow inversion cerebral protection system in association with MicroNet covered CGuard stent.

Use of Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet therapies with thromboxane inhibitors and adenosine 5'-diphosphate antagonists have been widely used following carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, these therapies may not apply to patients who are intolerant or present acutely. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are a proposed alternative therapy in these patients; however, their use has been limited due to concerns of increased risk for intracranial bleeding. Thus, this study aims to assess the safety profile of GPI in patients undergoing CAS.

METHODS

All patients undergoing CAS in the Society of Vascular Surgery - Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2012 to 2021 was included and grouped into GPI versus non-GPI therapy (control). The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)/seizure. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (Transcarotid artery revascularization using flow reversal (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting), and stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate major primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 50,628 patients underwent carotid revascularization. Of these, 4.4% of the patients received GPI. Mean age was similar between control versus GPI (71.35(9.67) vs. 71.36(10.20) years). Compared to the control group, patients who receive GPI are less likely to be on optimal medical therapy, including aspirin (83.0% vs. 88.1%), P2Y12 inhibitor (73.0% vs. 82.7%), and statin (82.3% vs. 86.0%) (All P < 0.05). In addition, patients in the GPI group were more likely to undergo TCAR for carotid revascularization (52.2% vs. 48.4%) for emergent/urgent (29.4% vs. 16.8%) and symptomatic indications (55.5% vs. 49.7%) (All P < 0.001). After stratifying by surgical approach, if patients underwent TFCAS and received a GPI, they were at increased odds of developing stroke/death (1.77(1.25-2.51)), death (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.67(1.07-2.61)), stroke/TIA (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 1.65(1.09-2.51)), and ICH/seizure (OR (95% CI): 2.13(1.23-3.68)) (All P < 0.05). No difference was seen in outcomes between the 2 groups if undergoing TCAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who receive GPI were more likely to be symptomatic at presentation and less likely to be medically optimized before their carotid revascularization. Transfemoral access in patients receiving GPI was associated with increased odds of morbidity and mortality. However, this was not observed if undergoing TCAR. TCAR can be considered for its overall favorable results in high-risk patients who are not medically optimized.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS

BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

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.

Comparison of Perioperative Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Current management guidelines for the treatment of carotid stenosis are controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and endarterectomy.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 10, 2022, for randomized controlled trials that compared CAS with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among patients with carotid stenosis. The analyzed outcomes mainly included stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), cranial nerve palsy, the cumulative incidence of mortality, stroke, or MI and the cumulative incidence of death or stroke in the perioperative periods. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated and pooled. Subgroup analyses were based on whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials with 12,277 participants (6514 and 5763 in the CAS and CEA groups, respectively) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that compared with CEA, CAS was associated with decreased risks of perioperative MI (RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.29∼0.77) and perioperative cranial nerve palsy (RR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01∼0.06) but higher risks of perioperative stroke (RR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.18∼1.87) and cumulative incidence of death or stroke (RR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.20∼1.93).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative safety was equivalent between CAS and CEA. However, CEA may be preferred when considering both procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke.

Influence of Carotid Endarterectomy on Choroidal Perfusion: The INFLATE Study

PURPOSE

Patients with clinically significant carotid artery stenosis (CAS) undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) were imaged with swept-source OCT angiography (SS-OCTA) imaging protocol to determine if there were changes in choroidal blood flow after surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with clinically significant CAS undergoing unilateral CEA.

METHODS

All participants underwent SS-OCTA imaging using a 6 × 6-mm scan pattern on both eyes before CEA and within 1 week after CEA. Previously validated automated algorithms were used to measure the mean choroidal thickness (MCT) and choroidal vascular index (CVI) within 2.5-mm and 5-mm circles centered on the fovea. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of various baseline factors including age, mean arterial blood pressure, and degree of stenosis, on both baseline of MCT and CVI, and the changes in MCT and CVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in MCT and CVI.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen eyes from 60 patients with a mean age of 71.57 ± 7.37 years were involved in the study. At baseline, MCT in both the 2.5-mm and 5-mm circles was significantly thinner on the surgical side compared with the nonsurgical side (P = 0.03), while no significant differences were seen in the CVI at baseline between the 2 sides (2.5-mm circle: P = 0.24; 5-mm circle: P = 0.09). Within 1 week after CEA, there were significant increases in the MCT on the surgical side, as compared with the nonsurgical side, in both the 2.5-mm (P < 0.001) and the 5-mm (P < 0.001) circles. No significant change in mean CVI was noted before and after CEA on the surgical side versus the nonsurgical side (2.5-mm circle: P = 0.30; 5-mm circle: P = 0.97). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that baseline MCT before CEA significantly decreased with age on both the surgical (P < 0.001) and nonsurgical sides (P = 0.003) while the changes in MCT and CVI after CEA were not associated with age, mean arterial blood pressure, or degree of stenosis.

CONCLUSION

A rapid and significant increase in MCT was observed on the ipsilateral side of CEA, suggesting an improvement in choroidal perfusion within 1 week after surgery.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Predictors of Transfemoral Access Site Complications in Neuroendovascular Procedures: A large Single-Center Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The transfemoral (TF) route has historically been the preferred access site for endovascular procedures. However, despite its widespread use, TF procedures may confer morbidity as a result of access site complications. The aim of this study is to provide the rate and predictors of TF access site complications for neuroendovascular procedures.

METHODS

This is a single center retrospective study of TF neuroendovascular procedures performed between 2017 and 2022. The incidence of complications and associated risk factors were analyzed across a large cohort of patients.

RESULTS

The study comprised of 2043 patients undergoing transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures. The composite rate of access site complications was 8.6 % (n = 176). These complications were divided into groin hematoma formation (n = 118, 5.78 %), retroperitoneal hematoma (n = 14, 0.69 %), pseudoaneurysm formation (n = 40, 1.96 %), and femoral artery occlusion (n = 4, 0.19 %). The cross-over to trans radial access rate was 1.1 % (n = 22). On univariate analysis, increasing age (OR=1.0, p = 0.06) coronary artery disease (OR=1.7, p = 0.05) peripheral vascular disease (OR=1.9, p = 0.07), emergent mechanical thrombectomy procedures (OR=2.1, p < 0.001) and increasing sheath size (OR=1.3, p < 0.001) were associated with higher TF access site complications. On multivariate analysis, larger sheath size was an independent risk factor for TF access site complications (OR=1.8, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Several pertinent factors contribute towards the incidence of TF access site complications. Factors associated with TF access site complications include patient demographics (older age) and clinical risk factors (vascular disease), as well as periprocedural factors (sheath size).

Predictors of hemodynamic instability during and persistent after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVES

The risk factors for post-carotid artery stenting severe hemodynamic instability remain elusive. This study aimed to identify the predictors of severe hemodynamic instability during and persisted after carotid artery stenting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent carotid artery stenting for extracranial carotid artery stenosis at a single-center between September 2018 and July 2021 were retrospectively assessed. The predictive factors of severe hemodynamic instability intraoperation and post-operation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 139 patients included, 63 experienced severe hemodynamic instability, with 45 and 18 cases occurring intra and postoperatively, respectively. Persistent was observed in 21 patients. Smoke exposure (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; p=0.039), carotid bifurcation stenosis (OR, 0.91; p=0.018), and large-diameter balloon (>4 mm) dilatation (OR, 11.95; p<0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for hemodynamic instability at any stage of carotid artery stenting. Intraoperatively, large-diameter balloon (>4 mm) dilatation was associated with an increased risk of hemodynamic instability occurrence (OR, 4.67; p=0.01), whereas general anesthesia (OR, 0.19; p=0.001) and a longer distance from the stenosis to the carotid bifurcation (OR, 0.89; p=0.01) were negatively associated with hemodynamic instability. Furthermore, smoking exposure (OR, 3.73; p=0.03), large diameter balloon dilatation (OR, 6.12; p=0.032), distance from stenosis to bifurcation (OR, 0.85; p=0.047) and long-stent (40 mm) implantation (OR, 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.95]; p=0.007) could independently predict persistent hemodynamic instability.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a smoking history, lesions near the carotid bulb, or dilatation using a large-diameter balloon were most likely to suffer severe hemodynamic instability. General anesthesia can protect against severe hemodynamic instability only intraoperatively. Long-term stent implantation may reduce persistent hemodynamic instability.

Medical Malpractice and the Neurologist: Specific Neurological Claims

This chapter highlights the most frequently encountered neurological malpractice claims. The format is designed to provide a rudimentary understanding of how lawsuits arise and thereby focus discussion on adapting practice patterns to improve patient care and minimize liability risk.

Effect of remimazolam versus propofol for the induction of general anesthesia on cerebral blood flow and oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to investigate the effects and safety of remimazolam versus propofol on cerebral oxygen saturation and cerebral hemodynamics during the induction of general anesthesia in patients receiving carotid endarterectomy (CEA), so as to provide theoretical basis for better clinical application of remimazolam.

METHODS

Forty-three patients (60-75 years old) with carotid artery stenosis (carotid artery stenosis greater than 70%) were randomly divided into the remimazolam group (R group) and the propofol group (P group). Anesthesia was induced with remimazolam (0.3 mg/kg) or propofol (1.5-2 mg/kg) individually. At time of admission (T0), post-anesthesia induction (T1), consciousness disappears (T2), 1 min after loss of consciousness (T3), 2 min after loss of consciousness (T4) and pre-endotracheal intubation (T5), measurement in patients with regional cerebral oxygen saturation (SrO₂), average blood flow velocity (Vm), resistance index (RI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and cardiac index (CI) were recorded.

RESULTS

SrO₂ increased significantly in both groups after induction of anesthesia compared with baseline (P < 0.05) and decreased after loss of consciousness (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the mean value of the relative changes in SrO₂ between the groups. Meanwhile, the Vm, RI, HR and CI of each time point between two groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) while MAP in group P at T5 was lower than that in group R individually(P < 0.05). In each group, Vm, HR, CI and MAP at T2-T5 were all significantly reduced compared with T1, with statistically differences(P < 0.05). Specifically, there was no difference of RI at each time between or within groups(P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that remimazolam can be administered safely and effectively during the induction of general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy in elder population and it demonstrated superiority in hemodynamic changes compared with propofol.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was retrospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300070370. Date of registration: April 11, 2023.

Outcomes Following Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center in South Korea

BACKGROUND Previous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) included a large number of patients, but the diagnosis, treatment selection, and performance were heterogeneous. This retrospective study from a single center in South Korea aimed to evaluate outcomes following CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed using the data of patients who underwent carotid revascularization between September 2016 and June 2021 at a single institution. The primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death during the periprocedural period. RESULTS We enrolled a total of 61 (44 symptomatic and 17 asymptomatic) patients who underwent CEA or CAS. Among them, 36 (59%) underwent CEA and 25 (41%) underwent CAS. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in degree of carotid stenosis (CEA: 87.0±9.1, CAS: 80.5±9.3, P=0.007). All patients with confirmed plaque ulceration before carotid revascularization underwent CEA. Two (3.3%) periprocedural strokes occurred, 1 in each group, on the ipsilateral side. There were no significant differences between CEA and CAS in the event-free survival rate for stroke during the follow-up (log-rank test=0.806). CONCLUSIONS Favorable outcomes in terms of periprocedural stroke were observed. We found no significant difference between the 2 carotid revascularization techniques in the incidence of periprocedural stroke in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. To confirm our findings, further studies involving a larger number of patients and continuous follow-up are necessary.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome.

RESULTS

Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052).

CONCLUSIONS

tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

Safety of Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Stenosis by Age: Meta-Analysis With Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty whether elderly patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis have higher rates of adverse events following carotid endarterectomy. In trials, recurrent stroke risk on medical therapy alone increased with age, whereas operative stroke risk was not related. Few octogenarians were included in trials and there has been no systematic analysis of all study types. We aimed to evaluate the safety of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic elderly patients, particularly in octogenarians.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (from January 1, 1980 through March 1, 2022) reporting post carotid endarterectomy risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We included observational studies and interventional arms of randomized trials if the outcome rates (or the raw data to calculate these) were provided. Individual patient data from 4 prospective cohorts enabled multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies (107 587 patients), risk of perioperative stroke was 2.04% (1.94-2.14) in octogenarians (390 strokes/19 101 patients) and 1.85% (1.75-1.95) in nonoctogenarians (1395/75 537); P=0.046. Perioperative death was 1.09% (0.94-1.25) in octogenarians (203/18 702) and 0.53% (0.48-0.59) in nonoctogenarians (392/73 327); P<0.001. Per 5-year age increment, a linear increase in perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, and death were observed; P=0.04 to 0.002. However, during the last 3 decades, perioperative stroke±death has declined significantly in octogenarians (7.78% [5.58-10.55] before year 2000 to 2.80% [2.56-3.04] after 2010); P<0.001. In Individual patient data multivariate-analysis (5111 patients), age ≥85 years was independently associated with perioperative stroke (P<0.001) and death (P=0.005). Yet, survival was similar for octogenarians versus nonoctogenarians at 1-year (95.0% [93.2-96.5] versus 97.5% [96.4-98.6]; P=0.08), as was 5-year stroke risk (11.93% [9.98-14.16]) versus 12.78% [11.65-13.61]; P=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a modest increase in perioperative risk with age in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. As stroke risk increases with age when on medical therapy alone, our findings support selective urgent intervention in symptomatic elderly patients.

Motor sequela of adult and pediatric stroke: Imminent losses and ultimate gains

Stroke is the leading cause of neurological disability in the United States and worldwide. Remarkable advances have been made over the past 20 years in acute vascular treatments to reduce infarct size and improve neurological outcome. Substantially less progress has been made in the understanding and clinical approaches to neurological recovery after stroke. This chapter reviews the epidemiology, bedside examination, localization approaches, and classification of stroke, with an emphasis on motor stroke presentations and management, and promising research approaches to enhancing motor aspects of stroke recovery.

Radial and ulnar approach for carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver™ double layer micromesh stent: Early and long-term follow-up

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) with a newly designed double-layer micromesh stent using wrist approach in patients with significant carotid disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and December 2021, 105 patients undergoing CAS with Roadsaver™ stent were enrolled in a single center prospective study. Follow-up assessments included neurological exams, duplex ultrasound (DUS), and 12-lead ECG. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite rate of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints included procedure success, access site complications, device success, target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis evaluated with DUS. Long-term outcomes up to 72 months of follow-up were assessed in all eligible patients.

RESULTS

The study population was predominantly male (69.5%) with a median age of 68 ± 8 years. Patients were symptomatic in 80% of the cases, and 35% fulfilled the high-risk criteria for surgical endarterectomy. The right internal carotid artery was the target artery in 56 (53.4%), and the left in 49 (46.6%) of the cases. All procedures were successfully completed from the right wrist, with right radial access in 94 (89.5%) cases and ulnar artery access with previous radial artery occlusion in 11 (10.5%) cases. All patients were treated successfully with the study device. The primary endpoint was met with a 30-day major adverse event rate of 0.9% (1/105). Up to 72 months of follow-up (median 30 ± 20 months) there were no strokes, neurological deaths, or target lesion revascularization of the treated lesion. Doppler ultrasound examination revealed nonsignificant in-stent restenosis in two asymptomatic patients. There was no hand ischemia detected in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study demonstrate the radial and ulnar access for CAS with double layer micromesh Roadsaver™ stent is safe and feasible and associated with favorable early and long-term follow-up.

Proximal versus distal protection: dissecting clinical trials

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid alternative to conventional carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Distal embolization of atherosclerotic debris causing cerebrovascular accidents during CAS has been the most significant concern limiting widespread application of CAS technology. A variety of embolic protection devices (EPDs) with different mechanism of action, have been designed to minimize the risk of major embolization causing stroke and their use is recommended by current guidelines. Two general types of EPDs are available: proximal protection devices (PPDs) and distal protection devices (DPDs). However, there is no convincing clinical evidence of the clinical superiority of one device over another. This review will examine the different types of available devices and also innovative devices and techniques, including strengths and weaknesses of each, and present the available evidence and rationale for their routine use during CAS.

A systematic review & meta-analysis on perioperative cerebral and hemodynamic monitoring methods during carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between different strategies of perioperative cerebral and hemodynamic monitoring during carotid endarterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched.

METHODS

This review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021241891). The GRADE approach was used to describe the methodological quality of the studies and certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke rate. Secondary outcomes measures are 30-day ipsilateral stroke, 30-day mortality, shunt rate and complication rates.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 460 articles. Seventeen RCTs, three prospective observational studies and seven registries were included, reporting on 236 983 patients. The overall pooled 30-day stroke rate is 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 - 2.2%), ranging from 0 - 12.6%. In RCT's the pooled 30-day stroke rate is 2.7% (95% CI 1.6 - 3.7%) compared to 1.3% (95%CI 0.8 - 1.8%) in the registries. The overall stroke risk decreased from 3.7% before the year 2000 to 1.6% after 2000. No significant differences could be identified between different monitoring and shunting strategies, although a trend to higher stroke rates in routine no shunting arms of RCTs was observed. Overall 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction and nerve injury rates are 0.6% (95%CI 0.4 - 0.8), 0.8% (95%CI 0.6-1.0) and 1.3% (95%CI 0.4-2.2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences between the compared shunting and monitoring strategies are found. However, routine no shunting is not recommended. The available data is too limited to prefer one method of neuromonitoring over another method when selective shunting is applied.

Detection of Carotid Artery Stenosis Based on Video Motion Analysis for Fast Screening

Background

Carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is a common cause of ischemic stroke, and the early detection of CAS may improve patient outcomes. Carotid Doppler ultrasound is commonly used to diagnose CAS. However, it is costly and may not be practical for regular screening practice. This article presents a novel noninvasive and noncontact detection technique using video‐based motion analysis (VMA) to extract useful information from subtle pulses on the skin surface to screen for CAS.

Methods and Results

We prospectively enrolled 202 patients with prior carotid Doppler ultrasound data. A short 30‐second video clip of the neck was taken using a commercial mobile device and analyzed by VMA with mathematical quantification of the amplitude of skin motion changes in a blinded manner. The first 40 subjects were used to set up the VMA protocol and define cutoff values, and the following 162 subjects were used for validation. Overall, 54% of the 202 subjects had ultrasound‐confirmed CAS. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve of VMA‐derived discrepancy values to differentiate patients with and without CAS was excellent (area under the curve, 0.914 [95% CI, 0.874–0.954]; P<0.01). The best cutoff value of VMA‐derived discrepancy values to screen for CAS was 5.1, with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 87%. The diagnostic accuracy was consistently high in different subject subgroups.

Conclusions

A simple and accurate screening technique to quickly screen for CAS using a VMA system is feasible, with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence

Background and Purpose

Carotid stenosis is arterial disease narrowing of the origin of the internal carotid artery (main brain artery). Knowing how to best manage this is imperative because it is common in older people and an important cause of stroke. Inappropriately high expectations have grown regarding the value of carotid artery procedures, such as surgery (endarterectomy) and stenting, for lowering the stroke risk associated with carotid stenosis. Meanwhile, the improving and predominant value of medical intervention (lifestyle coaching and medication) continues to be underappreciated.

Methods and Results

This article aims to be an objective presentation and discussion of the scientific literature critical for decision making when the primary goal is to optimize patient outcome. This compilation follows from many years of author scrutiny to separate fact from fiction. Common sense conclusions are drawn from factual statements backed by original citations. Detailed research methodology is given in cited papers. This article has been written in plain language given the importance of the general public understanding this topic. Issues covered include key terminology and the economic impact of carotid stenosis. There is a summary of the evidence-base regarding the efficacy and safety of procedural and medical (non-invasive) interventions for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusions are drawn with respect to current best management and research priorities. Several "furphies" (misconceptions) are exposed that are commonly used to make carotid stenting and endarterectomy outcomes appear similar. Ongoing randomized trials are mentioned and why they are unlikely to identify a routine practice indication for carotid artery procedures. There is a discussion of relevant worldwide guidelines regarding carotid artery procedures, including how they should be improved. There is an outline of systematic changes that are resulting in better application of the evidence-base.

Conclusion

The cornerstone of stroke prevention is medical intervention given it is non-invasive and protects against all arterial disease complications in all at risk. The "big" question is, does a carotid artery procedure add patient benefit in the modern era and, if so, for whom?

Restenosis rates in patients with ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy and contralateral carotid artery stenting

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective study (2001–2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8–72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0–76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics.

Results

Neurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95–3.60; P = 0.070).

Conclusion

Intra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.

ANALYSIS OF SPIN IN VASCULAR SURGERY RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS WITH NONSIGNIFICANT OUTCOMES

OBJECTIVES

Spin is the manipulation of language that distorts the interpretation of objective findings. The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of spin found in statistically nonsignificant randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis (CS), and endovascular repair (EVAR) to open repair (OR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials was performed in June 2020 for studies published describing AAA or CS. All phase three RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes comparing OR to EVAR or CEA to CAS were included. Studies were appraised for the characteristics and severity of spin using a validated tool. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the association of spin grade to (1) funding source (commercial vs non-commercial) and (2) the publishing journal's impact factor.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 355 articles captured were included for analysis. Spin was identified in nine abstracts (9/18) and 13 main texts (13/18) of AAA articles and seven abstracts (7/13) and ten main texts (10/13) of CS articles. For both AAA and CS articles, spin was most commonly found in the manuscript discussion section, with the most commonly employed strategy being the interpretation of statistically nonsignificant primary results to show treatment equivalence or rule out adverse treatment effects. Increasing journal impact factor was associated with a statistically significant lower likelihood of spin in the study title or abstract conclusion (βOR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94 - 0.98, p < 0.01) while no significant association could be found with funding source (βOR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.30-5.92, p = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of statistically nonsignificant RCTs contain interpretations that are inconsistent with their results. These findings should prompt authors and readers to appraise study findings independently and to limit the use of spin in study interpretations.

Inpatient Management of Acute Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

This article focuses on the inpatient evaluation and management of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). We describe foundational principles including quality metrics, TIA, and stroke as emergencies, TIA/minor stroke management, and standard assessments before discussing tailored evaluation and management strategies by stroke type.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the Management of Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review.

METHODS

We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing 5 questions: medical management vs. carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs. CAS in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible.

RESULTS

Medical management compared to carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in MI compared to CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs. CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using pre-planned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that over the long-term, CEA has superior outcome than transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from PAD, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared to a combined carotid intervention and CABG, had better outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated evidence summary will support the SVS clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2-14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

Thirty-Day Results of the Novel CGuard-Covered Stent in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide early-term evaluation, safety, and efficacy of the novel CGuard (Inspire MD, Tel Aviv, Israel) micromesh self-expanding stent with embolic protection system (EPS) during carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent CAS with CGuard carotid stent system from January 2018 to September 2020 in a tertiary center were prospectively evaluated. Primary endpoints included technical success and perioperative neurological events (0-48 hours). Secondary endpoint was the rate of neurologic, cardiac events, and death (major adverse event or MAE) at 30 days. Patency of CGuard, peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end diastolic velocity (EDV) were evaluated at 30 days with duplex ultrasound.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients underwent CAS procedure. Forty patients were symptomatic, and 63 patients were asymptomatic with stenosis greater than 70%. Technical success was 100%. Local anesthesia was applied in 94 patients (93%). Embolic protection devices were used in 6 patients (5.8%). Access site complications were 1.9%. Mean internal carotid artery stenosis diameter reduced from 79.47% to 14.68%. Two patients had transient ischemic attack (1.9%) and 1 patient experienced a cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS) perioperatively. External carotid artery (ECA) occlusion occurred in 1.9%. Four patients experienced jaw claudication (3.8%) postoperatively. Mean time of operation was 41 minutes. Mean duration of hospitalization was 3.1 days. The 30-day rate of MAE was 0%. CGuard patency was 100%, mean internal carotid PSV was reduced from 251.57 to 77.29 cm/s, and mean internal carotid EDV was reduced from 154.62 to 24.63 cm/s at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that CGuard stent with EPS is an effective and safe device for treatment of carotid artery stenosis with acceptable low perioperative neurologic events, even with low embolic protection device usage. Larger multicenter and randomized studies are necessary to confirm its long-term efficacy.

Results of carotid artery stenting. Lessons learned in a Belgian 'real world' practice

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valuable solution for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis in a high-risk patient population for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In literature however, there are concerns about the death and stroke rates of CAS in the 'real world' practice. Since Belgium is a small country with a broad offer of medical care, and there is no reimbursement for CAS, only small numbers of patients can be treated per vascular department.

METHODS

In our department 45 CAS were performed from January 2006 until May 2018. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment and choice of treatment, minor stroke, major stroke and death rates were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of these patients 8/45 (18%) had a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and 37/45 (82%) had an asymptomatic stenosis. A total minor stroke rate of 3/45 (6.6%) was recorded, but no major stroke (0%) or death (0%). Of the 37 patients who were asymptomatic at the start, 1 suffered a minor stroke (1/37, 2.7%) peri-operatively.

CONCLUSION

Real world data from a low volume center show that CAS performed in patients with high risk for CEA yields acceptable outcome that is comparable to the literature. Since CAS is a delicate procedure we advice to centralize the procedure to an dedicated experienced interventionalist and to perform rigorous quality control of your 'real world' data.

Endarterectomy versus stenting for the prevention of periprocedural stroke or death in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials

Background

The incidence of stroke or death in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) cannot be estimated accurately. We aimed to compare periprocedural stroke or death in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CS) treated with CEA versus CAS.

Methods

Ten randomized trials (with ≥100 randomized patients per trial) compared the relative effectiveness of CAS and CEA for the prevention of stroke or death.

Results

In the symptomatic group during the periprocedural period, the results showed that the risk of death or any stroke [risk ratio (RR): 0.627; 95% CI: 0.497-0.792; P<0.001] and the risk of any stroke (RR: 0.654; 95% CI: 0.522-0.820; P<0.001) were significantly greater with CAS than with CEA. The difference in the risk of periprocedural stroke was mostly attributed to nondisabling stroke (RR: 0.407; 95% CI: 0.264-0.627; P<0.001), which was driven especially by ipsilateral ischemic stroke (RR: 0.649; 95% CI: 0.494-0.851; P=0.002) and bradycardia or hypotension (RR: 0.105; 95% CI: 0.051-0.217; P<0.001). However, we found that the CEA group had a higher rate of myocardial infarction than the CAS group (RR: 2.496; P=0.025). Meanwhile, ipsilateral stenosis >70% increased the incidence of periprocedural death or stroke for post-CEA patients (RR: 2.166, 95% CI: 1.112 to 4.220, P=0.023), but no risk factors were identified for post-CAS. Regarding the asymptomatic group, the results demonstrated that patients randomized to CEA had a significantly reduced risk of periprocedural stroke (RR: 0.518; 95% CI: 0.281-0.954; P=0.035), which seems to be driven by periprocedural minor stroke (RR: 0.482; 95% CI: 0.231-0.982; P=0.046).

Conclusions

Among patients with symptomatic CS, CEA was associated with reduced rates of periprocedural stroke and periprocedural nondisabling stroke. Among patients with asymptomatic CS, the rates of minor stroke and stroke in general were higher with stenting than with CEA. Based on the current data, CEA is more beneficial than CAS for 30-day stroke prevention.

Clinical situations requiring radial or brachial access during carotid artery stenting

Introduction

Radial or brachial access may be preferred in the case of severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) or difficult aortic arch anatomy during carotid artery stenting (CAS).

Aim

To evaluate the clinical conditions indicating potential benefit from non-femoral access as well as feasibility and safety of transradial/transbrachial access (TRA/TBA) as an alternative approach for CAS.

Material and methods

Since 2013, 67 patients (mean age: 70 years old, 44 men, 42% symptomatic) were selected for CAS with the TRA/TBA approach. The composite endpoint was stroke/death/myocardial infarction within 30 days of the procedure and compared to the propensity score matched transfemoral approach (TFA) group. Clinical (including neurological) examination and Doppler ultrasonography were performed before the procedure, at discharge and at 30 days.

Results

CAS with TRA/TBA was successful in 63/67 patients. Transfemoral access was not feasible due to PAD in 35 (52.2%) patients, bovine arch in 10 (14.9%), obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m²) in 9 (13.4%), severe degenerative disease of the spine in 7 (10.5%), arch type III in 5 (7.5%) and excessive subclavian stent protrusion in 1 (1.5%) patient. Mean NASCET carotid artery stenosis was reduced from 81% to 9% (p < 0.001). The composite endpoint occurred in 3 (4.8%) cases and it was not statistically significantly different from the matched TFA group (6.3%; p = 0.697). No access site complications requiring surgical intervention or blood transfusion developed.

Conclusions

Transradial and transbrachial CAS may be an effective and safe procedure, and it may constitute a viable alternative to the femoral approach in patients with severe PAD, difficult aortic arch anatomy or obesity.

Carotid artery revascularization: endarterectomy versus endovascular therapy

Carotid endarterectomy is considered the gold standard for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The role of CEA has been defined by multiple randomized multicenter trials and CEA is the most studied surgical procedure. In recent years, with advances in endovascular techniques, carotid angioplasty, and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to CEA especially in high-risk patients. In this article, we review some of the most important trials on the invasive treatment of carotid artery stenosis and summarized the most recent treatment recommendations based on current evidence. The data overwhelmingly supports revascularization of patients with symptomatic stenosis between 70-90%, with a clear preference for CEA over CAS to be done within 14 days of symptom onset is possible. However, CAS is an acceptable alternative to CEA in certain symptomatic patients such as those with severe medical comorbidities, high riding plaques, contralateral occlusion, restenosis after prior CEA, and radiation-induced stenosis. Treatment of asymptomatic patients remains controversial because of advanced of modern medical therapy and large trials are underway to define the role of invasive revascularization in these patients.

Management of carotid stenosis for primary and secondary prevention of stroke: state-of-the-art 2020: a critical review

Carotid atherosclerotic plaque is encountered frequently in patients at high cardiovascular risk, especially in the elderly. When plaque reaches 50% of carotid lumen, it induces haemodynamically significant carotid stenosis, for which management is currently at a turning point. Improved control of blood pressure, smoking ban campaigns, and the widespread use of statins have reduced the risk of cerebral infarction to <1% per year. However, about 15% of strokes are still secondary to a carotid stenosis, which can potentially be detected by effective imaging techniques. For symptomatic carotid stenosis, current ESC guidelines put a threshold of 70% for formal indication for revascularization. A revascularization should be discussed for symptomatic stenosis over 50% and for asymptomatic carotid stenosis over 60%. This evaluation should be performed by ultrasound as a first-line examination. As a complement, computed tomography angiography (CTA) and/or magnetic resonance angiography are recommended for evaluating the extent and severity of extracranial carotid stenosis. In perspective, new high-risk markers are currently being developed using markers of plaque neovascularization, plaque inflammation, or plaque tissue stiffness. Medical management of patient with carotid stenosis is always warranted and applied to any patient with atheromatous lesions. Best medical therapy is based on cardiovascular risk factors correction, including lifestyle intervention and a pharmacological treatment. It is based on the tri-therapy strategy with antiplatelet, statins, and ACE inhibitors. The indications for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are similar: for symptomatic patients (recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack ) if stenosis >50%; for asymptomatic patients: tight stenosis (>60%) and a perceived high long-term risk of stroke (determined mainly by imaging criteria). Choice of procedure may be influenced by anatomy (high stenosis, difficult CAS or CEA access, incomplete circle of Willis), prior illness or treatment (radiotherapy, other neck surgery), or patient risk (unable to lie flat, poor AHA assessment). In conclusion, neither systematic nor abandoned, the place of carotid revascularization must necessarily be limited to the plaques at highest risk, leaving a large place for optimized medical treatment as first line management. An evaluation of the value of performing endarterectomy on plaques considered to be at high risk is currently underway in the ACTRIS and CREST 2 studies. These studies, along with the next result of ACST-2 trial, will provide us a more precise strategy in case of carotid stenosis.

Impact of Time Interval between Index Event and Stenting on Periprocedural Risk in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of time interval between index event and stenting on the periprocedural risk of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis and to determine the optimal timing of stenting.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 491 (322 symptomatic [65.6%] and 169 asymptomatic [34.4%]) patients undergoing carotid stenting. The symptomatic patients were categorized into Day 0-3, 4-7, 8-10, 11-14, 15-21, and >21 groups according to the time interval between index event and stenting. Periprocedural (≤30 days) risk for clinical (any neurological deterioration) and radiological (new infarction on postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging) events of stenting in each time interval versus asymptomatic stenosis was calculated with logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders, and provided as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Overall clinical event rate (4.3%) of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis was higher than that for asymptomatic stenosis (1.2%; OR, 3.979 [95% CI, 1.093-14.489]; p=0.036). Stenting in Day 0-3 (13.2%; OR, 10.997 [95% CI, 2.333-51.826]; p=0.002) and Day 4-7 (8.3%; OR, 6.775 [95% CI, 1.382-33.227]; p=0.018) was associated with high risk for clinical events. However, the clinical event rates in stenting after 7 days from index event (Day 8-10, 1.8%; Day 11-14, 2.5%; Day 15-21, 0%; Day >21, 2.9%) were not different from that in stenting for asymptomatic stenosis. Overall radiological event rate (55.6%) in symptomatic stenosis was also higher than that in asymptomatic stenosis (35.5%; OR, 2.274 [95% CI, 1.553-3.352]; p<0.001). The high risk for radiological events was maintained in all time intervals (Day 0-3 : 55.3%; OR, 2.224 [95% CI, 1.103-4.627]; p=0.026; Day 4-7 : 58.3%; OR, 2.543 [95% CI, 1.329-4.949]; p=0.005; Day 8-10 : 53.6%; OR, 2.096 [95% CI, 1.138-3.889]; p=0.018; Day 11-14 : 57.5%; OR, 2.458 [95% CI, 1.225-5.021]; p=0.012; Day 15-21 : 55.6%; OR, 2.271 [95% CI, 1.099-4.764]; p=0.028; Day >21 : 54.8%; OR, 2.203 [95% CI, 1.342-3.641]; p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that as stenting was delayed, the periprocedural risk for clinical events decreased. The clinical event risk was high only in stenting within 7 days and comparable with that for asymptomatic stenosis in stenting after 7 days from index event, although the radiological event risk was not affected by stenting timing. Therefore, our results suggest that delayed stenting after 7 days from symptom onset is a safe strategy for symptomatic stenosis.

[Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Carotid Artery Disease]

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Carotid Artery Disease Abstract. A quarter of all ischemic strokes is caused by atherosclerotic obliterations of the extra- and intracranial brain-supplying vessels. The prevalence of atherosclerotic extracranial carotid stenosis rises up to 6-15 % from the age of 65. The risk of stroke in symptomatic carotid stenosis, i.e. after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), is very high at 25 % within 14 days. Conservative therapy is the cornerstone of treatment by controlling the risk factors, treatment with platelet aggregation inhibitors and antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the first line treatment for symptomatic patients with a >50 % and asymptomatic patients with a >60 % carotid stenosis. In order to ensure the best possible treatment of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis, interdisciplinary cooperation in diagnostics, therapy and aftercare in a neuromedical centre of maximum care is necessary.

Procedural Risks of Carotid Intervention in 19,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. Historical RCTs may not represent contemporary practice and administrative datasets may estimate procedural risks more reliably. We studied procedural risks after carotid intervention in a novel, international administrative data set of 18,997 patients admitted to 28 hospitals across 7 countries.

METHODS

Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (n = 16,220) and CAS (n = 2,777) between 2011 and 2015 were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital death within seven days. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients whose length of hospital stay (LOS) exceeded 2 days. We also describe the rate of computerized tomography brain imaging within 2 days of CEA and CAS (proxy for stroke) as procedural strokes were not reliably recorded.

RESULTS

In symptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.2% [5/2,118] (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5), and 57.0% [628/1,101] (54.1-60.0) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.1% [21/14,102] (0.1-0.2), and 28.5% [2,864/10,039] (27.7-29.4) had prolonged LOS. In symptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 3.3% [10/307] (1.3-5.2), and 64.3% [144/224] (58.0-70.5) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 0.7% [18/2,470] (0.4-1.1), and 27.5% [601/2,187] (25.6-29.4) had prolonged LOS. After CEA, 8.1% [89/1,101] (6.5-9.7) symptomatic patients and 2.1% [207/10,039] (1.8-2.3) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. After CAS, 7.1% [16/224] (4.0-10.7) symptomatic patients and 3.2% [71/2,187] (2.5-4.0) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Death and LOS after CEA and CAS were higher in symptomatic than asymptomatic patients. Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had particularly increased risk of death. This may be partly explained by case selection, with more comorbid patients preferentially undergoing CAS. While RCTs effectively compare long-term efficacy of CEA versus CAS, administrative datasets can provide reliable estimates of contemporary procedural risks.

Access-Site Complications in Transfemoral Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review of Incidence Rates and Management Strategies

BACKGROUND

The femoral artery is the most common access route for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures. Complications of the transfemoral approach include groin hemorrhages and hematomas, retroperitoneal hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, peripheral artery occlusions, femoral nerve injuries, and access-site infections. Incidence rates vary among different randomized and nonrandomized trials, and the literature lacks a comprehensive review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

To gather data from 16 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 17 nonrandomized cohort studies regarding femoral access-site complications for a review paper. We also briefly discuss management strategies for these complications based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A PubMed indexed search for all neuroendovascular clinical trials, retrospective studies, and prospective studies that reported femoral artery access-site complications in neurointerventional procedures.

RESULTS

The overall access-site complication rate in RCTs is 5.13%, while in in non-RCTs, the rate is 2.78%. The most common complication in both groups is groin hematoma followed by access-site hemorrhage and femoral pseudoaneurysm. On the other hand, wound infection was the least common complication.

CONCLUSION

The transfemoral approach in neuroendovascular procedures holds risk for several complications. This review will allow further studies to compare access-site complications between the transfemoral approach and other alternative access sites, mainly the transradial approach, which is gaining a lot of interest nowadays.

Double Filtration During Carotid Artery Stenting Using a Novel Post-Dilation Balloon With Integrated Embolic Protection

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the safety and performance of the Paladin System, a novel angioplasty balloon with an integrated embolic protection filter designed to increase embolic protection during post-dilation.

BACKGROUND

The risk of major adverse events during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy. However, the risk of minor stroke remains higher with CAS. Much of this risk occurs during post-stent dilation.

METHODS

A total of 106 patients were enrolled in 5 centers in Germany. The study's primary endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 30 days post-procedure. Pre- and post-procedural diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluated new ischemic lesions in 30 subjects. Filter histomorphometric analysis was performed in 23 patients. Retrospective analyses compared outcome rates to historical controls.

RESULTS

Device and procedural success rates were 100%. The combined major adverse event rate (death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) at discharge and at 30 days was 0% and 1.0%, respectively. The single adverse event was a stroke, which occurred at day 12 and was believed unrelated to the device or procedure. New ischemic lesions were found in 11 (36.7%) patients in the diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging subset. New ipsilateral lesions were seen in 9 (30.0%) patients. Mean lesion volume per patient was 0.010 cm³. Debris was present in all filters, and approximately 90% of captured particles were <100 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Paladin System for post-stent dilation during CAS appears safe, and it may effectively decrease the number of embolic particles reaching the brain, which may help reduce the risk of procedure-related stroke. (A Multi-Center Study to Evaluate Acute Safety and Clinical Performance of Paladin® Carotid Post-Dilation Balloon System With Integrated Embolic Protection; NCT02501148).

Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The advance of therapies to reduce the stroke impact of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis has proved difficult over the last decade. Disagreement concerning the underlying randomized control trials has limited entry into the care arena of endovascular therapies. Recently, advances in percutaneous therapies for carotid artery disease have been reported and provide a substantial database supporting the further incorporation of endovascular-based therapies in patients who need revascularization and meet selection criteria. With a second randomized control trial now published, it is time for a re-evaluation of endovascular therapy as a component of carotid artery care. This review describes the advances in the field in the last 5 years, clarifying the current position of these therapies in the care of the patient with asymptomatic carotid artery disease.

Nationwide Trends in Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the Post-CREST Era

Background and Purpose—

The CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) demonstrated equivalent composite outcomes between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for treating carotid stenosis. We investigated nationwide trends in these procedures and associated periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cost, and readmission rates since CREST outcomes were published.

Methods—

We queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients undergoing CEA and CAS for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis from 2010 to 2015. Patients were matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness.

Results—

In total, 378 354 CEA and 57 273 CAS patients were treated during this 6-year period. CEA volume decreased by an average of 2669 procedures annually ( P =0.001) with stable CAS volume ( P =0.225). After matching, CEA patients had a higher rate of periprocedural stroke than CAS patients, driven by increased stroke risk in symptomatic CEA patients (8.1% versus 5.6%; odds ratio, 1.47 [CI, 1.29–1.68]; P <0.001) but a lower rate of overall inpatient mortality (0.8% versus 1.4%; odds ratio, 0.57 [CI, 0.48–0.68]; P <0.001). CEA patients were less likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.2% versus 8.0%; odds ratio, 0.90 [CI, 0.84–0.96]; P =0.018) and 90 days (12.3% versus 14.1%; odds ratio, 0.86 [CI, 0.81–0.90]; P <0.001), and mean hospital costs were lower for CEA compared with CAS ($14 433 versus $19 172; P <0.001).

Conclusions—

The procedural treatment of carotid stenosis has changed dramatically in the post-CREST era. When matched for characteristics and illness severity, patients undergoing CEA had a higher rate of perioperative stroke than patients undergoing CAS, primarily among symptomatic patients. These findings are in contrast to the findings of CREST, which showed nearly twice the risk of stroke in CAS patients compared with CEA patients. CEA was associated with lower procedure cost and readmission rate.