Carotid Stenting without Embolic Protection Increases Major Adverse Events: Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Carotid artery stenting for symptomatic carotid near occlusions: Feasibility, safety and outcome analysis

INTRODUCTION

Extracranial internal carotid stenosis (EICS) is a well-established cause of stroke. Carotid near-occlusion (CNO), either distally collapsed or not, is a rare sub-type of EICS with conflicting data regarding the necessity for treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for patients with symptomatic CNOs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Institutional review board (I06-420-23) approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Consecutive data from January 2019 to January 2023 was obtained. Sixty-five patients underwent 66 procedures for symptomatic CNOs. Diagnosis of CNOs were made with DSA images. Treatment decisions were made by a multidisciplinary team. Patient data including age, gender, clinical presentation, affected side, complications (initial/ follow-up), and pre and post mRS scores were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 22 female and 43 male patients with symptomatic CNOs (mean age: 71.52 ± 9.32 years). The mean time from symptom-to-treatment was 3.91 weeks ± 3.74 weeks (ranging from 0 to 20 weeks). There were eight events recorded in the 30 days period after CAS; five (7.7%) were cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (one causing haemorrhage) and three (4.5%) ischemic complications. Permanent neurologic deficit rate was 6% and 61 patients (94%) mRS scores were unchanged during last follow-up. Mean follow-up period was 22.94 ± 16.67 months (ranging from 0.5 to 60 months).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that in the complex population of patients with symptomatic CNOs, CAS is a feasible option with acceptable rate of permanent neurologic deficits. Further studies are needed to assess its safety and long-term efficacy.

Use of an embolic protection device during carotid artery stenting is associated with lower periprocedural risk

OBJECTIVE

To investigate associations between individual embolic protection device (EPD) use and respective center policy with periprocedural outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

This analysis is based on the nationwide German statutory quality assurance database and was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). According to their policy towards EPD use, hospitals were categorized as routine EPD (>90%), selective EPD (10-90%), or sporadic EPD (<10%) centers. Primary study outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 302 patients who had undergone CAS between 2013 and 2016 were included. The highest in-hospital stroke or death rate was found in sporadic EPD centers, followed by selective and routine EPD centers (3.1% vs 2.9% vs 1.8%; P<0.001). Across the whole cohort, EPD use was associated with a lower in-hospital stroke or death rate (OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72). In the multivariate regression analysis, EPD use was independently associated with a lower in-hospital stroke rate (aOR=0.66; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94). Regarding center policy, routine EPD centers showed a significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with sporadic EPD centers (aOR=0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary real-world cohort with low risk of selection bias, EPD use was associated with a lower in-hospital risk of stroke. A center policy of routine EPD use was associated with lower mortality. These data support routine use of EPD during CAS to enhance patient safety.

Dual-layered micromesh stent technology for embolic prevention in carotid revascularization: technical experience and clinical outcomes from a high-volume interventional radiology center

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become a cornerstone of carotid revascularization for stroke prevention. Despite the advantages of CAS, large-scale randomized trials involving prior (single-layer) first generation stents (FGS) demonstrated a higher risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular events compared to surgery. Dual-layer mesh-covered stents (DLSs) showed promising results in terms of 30-day embolic events in initial studies; larger-scale evidence is accumulating. This study aims to evaluate 30-day clinical efficacy of DLS against a closed-cell stent, based on large-volume data.

METHODS

The study center is part of the Italian National Outcomes Evaluation Program (PNE). CAS procedures performed between November 2017 and September 2023 were eneterd into a prospectively collected database. Our The primary endpoint was survival free of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. In addition, technical success and periprocedural major adverse clinical event rate (with a focus on stroke) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a total of 1101 CAS procedures (745 males; mean age 79±7.8 years), 48.6% were symptomatic. Majority (80.2%) were treated with DLSs. Technical success was achieved in 98.9%. The FGSs group showed a significantly higher peri-procedural stroke rate when compared with CGuard and Roadsaver DLS: 4.59% vs. 1.18% vs. 2.63% (P=0.008); minor stroke rates were 4.13% vs. 0.83% and 0% P=0.01). The cumulative stroke, MI and death - free survival at 30 days was 97.46%. A statistically significant higher cumulative 30-day death/stroke/MI rate occurred in FGSs-treated patients compared to the CGuard and Roadsaver DLS-treated (6.42% vs. 1.42% and 2.63%, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DLS in patients undergoing CAS in our large-volume center showed a high technical success rate and minimal cerebral embolic complications by 30 days. High volumes and an experienced interventional team may contribute to these favorable outcomes.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting has been used effectively to treat internal carotid artery stenosis since 1989 (Mathias et al. in World J Surg. 25(3):328-34, 2001), with refined and expanded techniques and tools presently delivering outstanding results in percutaneous endoluminal treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

PURPOSE

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is directed at interventional radiologists and details the guidelines for carotid artery stenting, as well as the different implementation techniques. In addition to updating all previously published material on the different clinical indications, it will provide all technical details reflective of European practice for carotid artery stenting. CIRSE Standards of Practice documents do not aim to implement a standard of clinical patient care, but rather to provide a realistic strategy and best practices for the execution of this procedure.

METHODS

The writing group, which was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee, consisted of five clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in carotid artery stenting procedures. The writing group reviewed existing literature on carotid artery stenting procedures, performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select relevant publications in the English language from 2006 to 2022.

RESULTS

Carotid artery stenting has an established role in the management of internal carotid artery stenosis; this Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for its safe performance.

Transradial carotid artery stenting using double layer micromesh stent and novel post-dilation balloon with integrated embolic protection

OBJECTIVES

The highest rate of embolization during carotid artery stenting occurs during post-dilation. We evaluated the ability of the Paladin system (Contego Medical, Raleigh, NC), a novel PTA balloon with an integrated 40-ɥm pore filter, to collect microemboli that may pass into the cerebral circulation when used during post-dilation.

METHODS

25 symptomatic patients underwent transradial CAS using the Paladin system in conjunction with the Roadsaver (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) micromesh stent. No additional embolic protection was used. The Paladin filters were collected following the procedure and preserved in formalin for histological analysis. The contents were evaluated for particle count and size. Subjects were followed for 30 days and evaluated for major cardiac adverse events (death, stroke and MI). Secondary endpoints included procedure success, device success, access site complications according to EASY score classification, major vascular or ischemic complications at follow up and in-stent restenosis rate evaluated with duplex ultrasound.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 68,5 years. Type 2 aortic arch was present in 77 % of patients and type 1 and type 3 in 12 % and 11 % of patients respectively. Procedural and device success was obtained in all cases without complications. The 30-day MAE rate was 0 %. Twenty-three filters underwent histological analysis. Microscopic debris was present in 100 % of filters, and 75 % of particles were less than 100ɥm in size. The mean number of particles per filter was 3352 ± 1567 (IQR 4300-2343), and the mean number of particles between 40-100ɥm per filter was 2499 ± 1240 (IQR 3227-1575).

CONCLUSION

CAS through radial approach can be safely and effectively performed using the IEP technology Paladin device and double-layer micromesh Roadsaver stent. This strategy can simplify the procedure and decrease peri-procedural complications and procedural time.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Radial or Femoral Access for Carotid Stenting

PURPOSE

There is a growing interest in performing coronary artery and neurovascular interventions via the radial artery; however, few studies have examined the outcomes of transradial carotid stenting. Therefore, our study aimed to compare cerebrovascular outcomes and crossover rates in carotid stenting between transradial and traditional transfemoral approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching three electronic databases from inception to June 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In addition, random effect meta-analysis was used to pool the odds ratios (ORs) for stroke, transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiac events, death, major vascular access site complications, and procedure crossover rates between the transradial and transfemoral approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were included involving a total of n = 567 transradial and n = 6176 transfemoral procedures. The ORs for stroke, transient ischemic attack, and major adverse cardiac events were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.72-2.86, I2 = 0), 0.51 (95% CI 0.17-1.54, I2 = 0), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.86, I2 = 0), respectively. Neither the major vascular access site complication rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.32-3.87, I2 = 0) nor crossover rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 0.62-25.11, I2 = 57%) showed statistically significant differences between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

The modest quality of the data suggested comparable procedural outcomes between the transradial and transfemoral approaches when performing carotid stenting; however, high level evidence regarding postoperative brain images and risk of stroke in transradial carotid stenting are lacking. Therefore, it is reasonable for interventionists to weigh up the risks of neurological events and potential benefits, including fewer access site complications, before choosing the radial or femoral arteries as access sites. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are imperative.

Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverTM Dual-Layer Carotid Stent System

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) using first-generation single-layer stents is widely accepted as a good alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but it is associated with worse outcomes in terms of both plaque prolapse and cerebral embolization.

AIM

To evaluate the perioperative and midterm outcomes of CAS using the new-generation RoadsaverTM dual-layer micromesh-covered carotid stent.

METHODS

Herein, we present the results of an observational, retrospective, multicentric study on non-consecutive patients who underwent the CAS procedure between January 2017 and December 2022 at three Italian, high-volume vascular surgery centers. The inclusion criteria were the patients' eligibility for the CAS procedure in accordance with the current Italian guidelines, and the implantation of a Roadsaver stent. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were included in the study. The patients requiring reintervention for carotid restenosis following CEA were also included. Perioperative data regarding procedural success was defined as the successful implantation of the device in the desired position, less than 30% residual stenosis, and the absence of intraoperative neurological complications. The primary outcome was any adverse cerebrovascular event such as stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the procedure and/or after discharge. The secondary outcomes were the need for further intervention, and all-cause death following procedure.

RESULTS

Three-hundred-fifty-three (353) patients were included in our study; the mean age was 74.3 years. A total of 5.9% of the patients were symptomatic on their operated side, while 7.3% had contralateral carotid occlusion. A cerebral embolic protection device (CPD) was employed in all patients. A total of 13.3% of the patients were operated on for restenosis after CEA Technical success was achieved in 96.9% of the cases with an intraoperative report of six TIAs (1.7%) and six ipsilateral strokes (1.7%). The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. The thirty-day follow up showed one TIA and one more stroke. At the mean 35-month follow-up time, the primary outcome was present in six patients (1.7%), where four TIAs (1.1%) and two strokes (0.5%) were reported. Restenosis occurred in five patients (1.4%). Death for any cause was reported in 11 patients (3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

As most recent, high-quality studies show, the CAS procedure with second-generation devices such as the Roadsaver stent is safe and effective in preventing carotid-related cerebrovascular events in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The intraoperative and postoperative cerebrovascular complication rate in high volume centers is very low, ensuring confidence in its employment for the CAS procedure along with a CPD as a valid alternative to CEA.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Management of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS), including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), and best medical treatment (BMT), remains inconsistent in current practice. Early studies reported a benefit of CEA vs. BMT; however, the current risk-benefit profile of invasive therapy lacks consensus. By evaluating the effects of modern BMT vs. invasive intervention on patient outcomes, this study aimed to influence the future management of ACAS.

METHODS

A systematic review and series of network meta-analyses were performed assessing peri-operative (within 30 days) and long term (30 days - 5 years) stroke and mortality risk between ACAS interventions. Total stroke, major, minor, ipsilateral, and contralateral stroke subtypes were assessed independently. Traditional (pre-2000) and modern (post-2000) BMT were compared to assess clinical improvements in medical therapy over the previous two decades. Risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen reports of 14 310 patients with > 50% ACAS were included. CEA reduced the odds of a peri-operative stroke event occurring vs. CAS (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 2.2 [0 - 20 fewer/1 000]). CEA and CAS reduced the long term odds of minor strokes (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 - 0.59 [20 fewer/1 000]) and ipsilateral strokes (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.39 [30 fewer/1 000]) vs. all BMT. CEA reduced the odds of major strokes and combined stroke and mortality vs. traditional BMT; however, no difference was found between CEA and modern BMT. CAS reduced the odds of peri-operative MI (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0. 26 - 0.91) and CNI (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 - 0.42) vs. CEA.

CONCLUSION

Modern BMT demonstrates similar reductions in major stroke, combined stroke, and mortality to CEA. The overall risk reductions are low and data were unavailable to assess subgroups which may benefit from intervention. However, BMT carries the potential to reduce the requirement for surgical intervention in patients with ACAS.

Endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke caused by isolated internal carotid artery occlusion: treatment strategies, outcomes, and prognostic factors

AIM

To describe the experience of endovascular treatment (EVT) of acute ischaemic stroke caused by isolated internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion, with emphasis on treatment strategies, outcomes, and prognostic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective examination was performed of 66 consecutive patients with acute moderate-to-severe stroke who underwent EVT for isolated ICA occlusion from July 2016 to June 2021. The modified thrombolysis in cerebral ischaemia (mTICI) score was used to evaluate reperfusion outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with poor 90-day outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 3-6).

RESULTS

The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) median score of the 66 patients at admission was 15. Twelve patients (18.2%) showed thrombus migration to the M1 segment or proximal M2 during EVT and underwent additional intracranial thrombectomy. Successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) was achieved in 60 patients (90.9%) and complete reperfusion (mTICI 3) in 42 (63.6%). A poor functional outcome was seen in 27 patients (40.9%). The rate of 90-day mortality was 9.1% (6/66). Higher NIHSS scores and a lower Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) were independently associated with poor outcomes. Complete reperfusion was the only treatment factor with a significant predictive value (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.03; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.25; p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endovascular therapy is safe and effective in patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to isolated ICA occlusion. Prevention of thrombus migration and complete reperfusion should be the aim of EVT.

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.

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.

Lessons From ACST-2

The recent 130-center, international, second ACST trial (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial) involving 3625 patients found that regardless of whether a patient underwent stenting or endarterectomy, the periprocedural risk of disabling or fatal stroke was about 1% and the 5-year estimated risk of nonprocedural disabling or fatal stroke was 2.5%. With advances in technique, technology, and patient selection, stenting done by appropriately trained and experienced operators can achieve safety and efficacy comparable to endarterectomy for asymptomatic patients. The ongoing CREST-2 trial (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial) will clarify whether revascularization, by either stenting or endarterectomy, remains an important therapeutic goal in the setting of modern intensive medical therapy.