Early postsurgical carotid restenosis: redo surgery versus angioplasty/stenting

Treatment of Carotid Restenoses after Endarterectomy: A Retrospective Monocentric Study

BACKGROUND

To compare the different techniques for the treatment of carotid restenosis after carotid artery endarterectomy (CAE).

METHODS

Among 1,218 carotid surgeries carried out in our center between January 2010 and November 2017, 45 procedures were performed for carotid restenosis after CAE, including 11 by iterative conventional surgery and 34 with endovascular techniques (7 transluminal angioplasties alone [TLA], 9 carotid artery stenting [CAS], and 18 angioplasties with active balloons [drug-coated balloon {DCB}]). Perioperative data (cumulated rate of morbimortality [CRMM], duration of hospitalization) and postoperative results (survival, symptomatic restenoses > 50% or asymptomatic stenoses > 70% on ultrasound, reinterventions) were collected retrospectively and analyzed with Fisher's exact test. The long-term results were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier estimator and were compared with the log rank test (P < 0.05 was regarded as significant).

RESULTS

There was one secondary death due to a massive postoperative stroke in the endovascular (ENDO) group. No significant difference regarding CRMM (2.9%, P = 0.756) between the iterative conventional surgery (open surgery; OS) and the ENDO groups of was observed. Three hematomas were found in the OS group versus one in the ENDO group (P = 0.04). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the ENDO group (P < 0.001). No difference was found between the ENDO group and the OS group regarding the two-year survival or the survival without recurrent restenosis (86 vs. 100%, log rank = 0.804, and log rank = 0.114). There were 5 restenoses >70% and two reinterventions in the ENDO group (P > 0.05). The comparison of the different endovascular techniques did not show significant differences regarding the CRMM, the one-year overall survival, the survival without recurrent restenosis, or the survival without reintervention (89% in the DCB and CAS groups vs. 100% in the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA] group, log rank = 0.286; 87% in the DCB group vs. 100% in the PTA and CAS groups, log rank = 0.137; and 94% in the DCB group vs. 100% in the PTA and CAS groups, log rank = 0.585, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, endovascular procedures are equivalent to iterative conventional surgery for the treatment of carotid restenoses in terms of major complications, news restenoses, or survival with less hematoma and a shorter duration of hospitalization. We however could not identify the best endovascular strategy in this indication, and a controlled study comparing the various endovascular strategies is proposed.

Anatomical and Technical Factors Influence the Rate of In-Stent Restenosis following Carotid Artery Stenting for the Treatment of Post-Carotid Endarterectomy Stenosis

Background

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been advocated as an alternative to redo surgery for the treatment of post-carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stenosis. This study analyzed the efficacy of CAS for post-CEA restenosis, focusing on an analysis of technical and anatomical predictive factors for in-stent restenosis.

Methods

We performed a retrospective monocentric study. We included all patients who underwent CAS for post-CEA restenosis at our institution from July 1997 to November 2013. The primary endpoints were the technical success, the presence of in-stent restenosis >50% or occlusion, either symptomatic or asymptomatic, during the follow-up period, and risk factors for restenosis. The secondary endpoints were early and late morbidity and mortality (TIA, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death).

Results

A total of 153 CAS procedures were performed for post-CEA restenosis, primarily because of asymptomatic lesions (137/153). The technical success rate was 98%. The 30-day perioperative stroke and death rate was 2.6% (two TIAs and two minor strokes), and rates of 2.2% (3/137) and 6.2% (1/16) were recorded for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. The average follow-up time was 36 months (range, 6–171 months). In-stent restenosis or occlusion was observed in 16 patients (10.6%). Symptomatic restenosis was observed in only one patient. We found that young age (P = 0.002), stenosis > 85% (P = 0.018), and a lack of stent coverage of the common carotid artery (P = 0.006) were independent predictors of in-stent restenosis.

Conclusion

We identified new risk factors for in-stent restenosis that were specific to this population, and we propose a technical approach that may reduce this risk.

Determinants of In-Stent Restenosis after Carotid Angioplasty: A Case-Control Study

Purpose:

To report a retrospective study that sought to identify clinical factors contributing to the development of in-stent restenosis in the carotid arteries, to profile the patients at greatest risk, and to review the treatment modalities evolved from our experience.

Methods:

Between December 2000 and April 2003, 195 carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS) procedures (12 bilateral) were performed in 183 patients (131 men; median age 65.9 years, interquartile range 55.2–72.7). Stenting for de novo stenoses was performed in 119 (61%) carotid arteries; 76 (39%) vessels were treated for postsurgical restenosis. Nearly two thirds of the patients (117, 64%) were symptomatic. Patients were evaluated at 3 and 6 months and at 6-month intervals thereafter with duplex ultrasonography. Angiography was used to confirm any recurrent lesion detected on the ultrasound scan.

Results:

Overall perioperative neurological complications included 4 (2.2%) minor strokes, 1 (0.5%) intracranial hemorrhage, and 1 (0.5%) major stroke; both patients with major neurological complications died at 5 and 12 days, respectively, after the procedure. During the 12.5-month follow-up (range 0–27.2), 3 non-procedure-related late deaths and another 9 (4.9%) neurological events occurred (2 strokes and 7 transient ischemic attacks). In-stent restenosis after CAS was present in 10 (5.2%) of 193 carotid arteries (9/181 patients) in follow-up; all but 1 artery had been treated for postsurgical restenosis. All lesions were treated secondarily with endovascular procedures. Statistical analysis demonstrated that postsurgical restenosis was the only predictive factor for the development of in-stent restenosis (OR 15.5, 95% CI 2.05 to 125.6, p = 0.001) in this cohort.

Conclusions:

The present study, far from being exhaustive on the subject, indicates that patients who develop restenosis after carotid endarterectomy are also prone to develop restenosis after CAS; moreover, although strongly recommended for postsurgical restenosis, CAS carries a greater risk of in-stent restenosis in this subgroup, thus reducing the benefits of this procedure.

Indications for treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

Background

There is significant variation in the indications for intervention in patients with recurrent carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to describe these indications in a contemporary cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies reporting on the indications for carotid intervention in patients with recurrent stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) that were published between 1990 and 2012.

Results

There were 50 studies reporting on a total of 3524 patients undergoing a carotid procedure; of these, 3478 underwent CEA as the initial intervention. Reintervention was by CEA in 2403 patients and by CAS in 1121. Only 54·7 per cent of the patients were treated for any symptoms and, importantly, just 444 (23·1 per cent of 1926 symptomatic patients) underwent intervention for documented ipsilateral symptoms. None of the studies reported whether the patients were evaluated for other sources of emboli. The remaining 45·3 per cent of patients had asymptomatic restenosis and in the majority of the studies were treated when the degree of stenosis exceeded 80 per cent. The time to repeat intervention was significantly longer in patients with recurrent atherosclerosis, in asymptomatic patients and in patients undergoing CEA.

Conclusion

The reported criteria for retreatment of carotid stenosis were not rigorous and there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the indications for intervention.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perceptual and instrumental evaluation of voice and tongue function after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Laryngeal and tongue function was assessed in 28 patients to evaluate the presence, nature, and resolution of superior recurrent laryngeal and hypoglossal nerve damage resulting from standard open primary carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

The laryngeal and tongue function in 28 patients who underwent CEA were examined prospectively with various physiologic (Aerophone II, laryngograph, tongue transducer), acoustic (Multi-Dimensional Voice Program), and perceptual speech assessments. Measures were obtained from all participants preoperatively, and at 2 weeks and at 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The perceptual speech assessment indicated that the vocal quality of "roughness" was significantly more apparent at the 2-week postoperative assessment than preoperatively. However, by the 3-month postoperative assessment these values had returned to near preoperative levels, with no significant difference detected between preoperative and 3-month postoperative levels or between 2-week and 3-month postoperative levels. Both the instrumental assessments of laryngeal function and the acoustic assessment of vocal quality failed to identify any significant difference on any measure across the three assessment periods. Similarly, no significant impairment in tongue strength, endurance, or rate of repetitive tongue movements was detected at instrumental assessment of tongue function.

CONCLUSIONS

No permanent changes to vocal or tongue function occurred in this group of participants after primary CEA. The lack of any significant long-term laryngeal or tongue dysfunction in this group suggests that the standard open CEA procedure is not associated with high rates of superior recurrent and hypoglossal nerve dysfunction, as previously believed.

Carotid Artery Angioplasty for Restenosis Following Endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

The higher complication rate associated with the surgical treatment of restenosis following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has led several authors to advocate angioplasty as the treatment of choice in the management of restenosis. We describe our experience with internal carotid artery angioplasty for post-endarterectomy restenosis over 7 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 1994 to April 2001, all patients with a >90% restenosis following CEA were considered for angioplasty. Thirty angioplasties were carried out in 25 patients, 80% (24/30), for asymptomatic recurrent stenosis. There was no difference between those who had intervention for recurrent stenosis (n=31) and those who did not (n=545) in age, sex, smoking status or incidence of diabetes or hypertension. A significantly greater number of patients who underwent angioplasty were hypercholesterolaemic (p<0.05, Chi-squared test).

RESULTS

Mean time from surgery to angioplasty was 13 months (range 1-23). Angioplasty was technically successful in 29 cases (97%). Three patients (10%) experienced transient neurological symptoms during the procedure. There were no strokes. Ninety-six percent (28/29) of patients were followed up with duplex scanning. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range 2-48). Three patients developed a greater than 90% restenosis.

CONCLUSION

Angioplasty is an acceptable alternative to surgery in the management of internal carotid artery restenosis following endarterectomy.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Neurological outcomes after carotid stenting protected with the NeuroShield filter compared to unprotected stenting

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes for two nonrandomized cohorts of patients with high-grade carotid disease who underwent either unprotected carotid stenting or stent implantation protected by the NeuroShield filter.

METHODS

Under this protocol, symptomatic patients with carotid stenoses >70% or asymptomatic patients with bilateral carotid stenoses who were being evaluated for coronary artery bypass grafting were eligible for carotid stenting. Between December 1998 and November 2001, 75 consecutive patients (57 men; median age 67 years range 45-85) underwent carotid stenting without cerebral protection; concurrently, 75 carotid stent procedures protected with the NeuroShield filter were performed in 73 patients (51 men; median age 66 years, range 47-83). A neurologist reviewed all patients before and after treatment. The groups were comparable for age, sex, and symptoms, but the protected group had a higher proportion of postsurgical restenoses (14.7% versus 1.3%; p=0.003). Outcome measures included death and neurological events at 24 hours and 30 days.

RESULTS

There were minor technical difficulties in 12 of the protected group, but none were clinically relevant. The procedural all-stroke/death rates in the unprotected versus protected groups, respectively, were 5.3% (4/75) and 2.7% (2/75; p=0.681), while the disabling stroke/death rates were 4% (3/75) and 1.3% (1/75; p=0.620). At 30 days, the all-stroke/death rates were 10.7% (8/75) in the unprotected group and 4.0% (3/75) in the protected group (p=0.117); the death/major-disability-from-stroke rates were 6.7% (5/75) and 2.7% (2/75), respectively (p=0.442).

CONCLUSIONS

Filter-related complications are well tolerated. Neuroprotection devices have the potential to reduce the procedural neurological event rate. Larger series and/or randomized trials are required for further evaluation.