Carotid artery stenting in a single center, single operator, single type of device and 15 years of follow-up

Patient Selection Criteria and Procedural Standardization for Carotid Artery Stenting-A Single Center Experience

The gold standard for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis is the carotid endarterectomy (CEA). According to current guidelines, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative. Randomized control trials (RCTs) show significantly higher rates of peri-interventional strokes after CAS compared to CEA. However, these trials were usually characterized by a great heterogeneity in the CAS procedure. In this retrospective analysis from 2012 to 2020, 202 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were treated with CAS. Patients were carefully pre-selected according to anatomical and clinical criteria. In all cases, the same steps and material were used. All interventions were performed by five experienced vascular surgeons. Primary endpoints of this study were perioperative death and stroke. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis was present in 77% of the patients and symptomatic in 23%. The mean age was 66 years. The average degree of stenosis was 81%. The CAS technical success rate was 100%. Periprocedural complications occurred in 1.5% of cases, including one major stroke (0.5%) and two minor strokes (1%). The results of this study indicate that through a strict patient selection based on anatomical and clinical criteria, CAS can be performed with very low complication rates. Furthermore, standardization of the materials and the procedure itself is crucial.

The Safety and Long-Term Efficacy of Carotid Artery Stenting: An All-Comers Registry

Background Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the prevention of future cerebrovascular events in patients with carotid artery stenosis. Despite multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CAS and CEA for carotid disease, real-world data outside the rigorous environment of trials is scarce. Methods The present study is a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care center, wherein all patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and December 2019 were included. All patients were followed up for one year of the last enrolled patient at an interval of one, six, and 12 months and then yearly thereafter. The primary composite outcome was defined as a combination of periprocedural (until 30 days of procedure) major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and the long-term incidence of ipsilateral stroke. The secondary outcome included the rate of restenosis. Results A total of 115 patients (86 males and 29 females) (147 lesions) who underwent CAS between 2007 and 2019 were followed up for a median of 80.5 months. Seventy-seven (67.27%) patients were symptomatic, and 38/115 (33%) were asymptomatic. Periprocedural MACCEs were noted in six patients, and four patients had ipsilateral stroke on long-term follow-up; hence, the primary composite outcome was observed in 10 (8.7%) patients. Higher age was found to be significantly associated with the primary composite outcome (p-value = 0.005). Five (4.34%) patients were lost to follow-up, while four (3.48%) patients developed restenosis. Conclusion CAS is a safe and less invasive intervention in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis and is equally effective in preventing future strokes. The incidence of primary outcome rises with an increase in age.

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

Treatment and Predictors of Recurrent Internal Carotid Artery In-Stent Restenosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to examine the effectiveness of different therapeutic options for and to identify the possible risk factors of recurrent internal carotid artery (ICA) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

METHODS

Forty-six ICA ISRs, which were reintervened at least once, were retrospectively analyzed regarding clinical and imaging characteristics, as well as invasive treatment type (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA] with a plain balloon, PTA with a drug-eluting balloon [DEB], re-stenting) used.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 29.5 months (IQR, 8.5-52.8 months) in patients who underwent reintervention for ICA ISR. Stent occlusion occurred in 3 patients (6.5%). One ISR recurrence was noted in 10 patients (21.7%); reintervention was carried out in 7 cases (7/10 [70%]; PTA, N = 5; PTA with a DEB, N = 1; re-stenting, N = 1), while 3 patients (3/10; 30%) received best medical treatment. Two ISR recurrences were observed in 3 patients (6.5%); all of them underwent reintervention (PTA, N = 1; PTA with a DEB, N = 2). Three ISR recurrences were seen in 1 patient (2.2%), who was treated with PTA. No recurrence was observed in those patients, who had DEB treatment. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed statin therapy to be a protective factor against recurrent ISR (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.84; P = .029).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that PTA with a DEB is the most effective for the treatment of recurrent ISR, and confirms the importance of statin use in patients who have had a carotid reintervention.

Carotid artery stenting: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the latest evidence about carotid artery stenting (CAS) including indications, safety, efficacy, and available equipment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The micromesh stent, a new stent design which offers excellent flexibility and embolic protection, has been associated with promising outcomes.

SUMMARY

CAS has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment method for carotid artery stenosis with comparable outcomes with surgical management. The implementation of new technology combined with operator experience has led to a paradigm shift; however, to date, no robust evidence exists about patient and lesion selection. Many studies are underway to clarify the technical aspects of CAS as well as the optimal treatment of carotid artery stenosis for each patient population.