Carotid Artery Stenosis Contralateral to Intracranial Large Vessel Occlusion: An Independent Predictor of Unfavorable Clinical Outcome After Mechanical Thrombectomy

Impact of carotid stenosis on the outcome of stroke patients submitted to reperfusion treatments: a narrative review

Intravenous thrombolysis (IT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MD) are the two interventional approaches that have changed the outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Ipsilateral and contralateral carotid stenosis (ICS, CCS) play an important role in regulating cerebral hemodynamics, both in chronic and acute situations such as AIS. Several studies have explored their role in the incidence and severity of stroke, but very few have investigated the possible impact of ICS and CCS on the efficacy of interventional procedures. The purpose of this review was to I) highlight the incidence and prevalence of carotid stenosis (CS); II) assess the impact of ICS and CCS on cerebral hemodynamics; III) evaluate the effect of carotid stenosis on the efficacy of interventional therapies (IT and MT) for AIS; and IV) report therapeutic complications related to CS. We searched PubMed/Medline for case reports, reviews, and original research articles on English-language review topics during the period from January 1, 2000 to October 1, 2023. CS is associated with 15-20 % of the total number of AIS. ICS and CCS had a negative influence on both cerebral hemodynamics before AIS and outcome after interventional procedures (IT, MT alone or in bridging). Available data on cerebral hemodynamics and efficacy of interventional therapies for AIS suggest a negative role of CS. Therefore, early diagnosis of CS may be considered relevant to preventive and post-stroke treatment strategies.

Ipsilateral and contralateral carotid stenosis contribute to the outcome of reperfusion treatment for ischemic stroke

Introduction

Ipsilateral and contralateral carotid stenosis (ICS, CCS) influence acute ischemic stroke (AIS) severity and prognosis. Few data are available about their impact on reperfusion therapies efficacy. Aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of ICS and CCS on the effect of intravenous thrombolysis (IT), mechanical thrombectomy (MT) or both and of antiplatelet therapy (AT).

Methods

We enrolled all the consecutive patients admitted for AIS to our stroke unit and submitted to IT, MT, IT+MT, or AT. We established the presence of a significant ICS or CCS (≥70%) by ultrasound examination or brain angio-CT, or MRI. Clinical and instrumental information were collected; delta National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) from pre-treatment to patients' discharge was employed as the main outcome measure.

Results

In total, 460 subjects were enrolled, 86 with ICS and 38 with CCS. We observed a significant linear trend of delta (NIHSS) between carotid stenosis categories for patients undergoing IT (p = 0.011), MT (p = 0.046), and MT+IT (p = 0.040), but no significant trend among subjects receiving no reperfusion treatments was observed (p = 0.174).

Discussion

According to our findings, ICS and CCS negatively influence AIS patients' outcome treated by interventional therapies. ICS might exert an unfavorable effect both by cerebral hypoperfusion and by continuous microembolization toward ischemic area, while CCS is probable involved in reducing the collateral circles effectiveness. The importance of early carotid stenosis detection and treatment should then be reevaluated not only to manage the prevention approaches but also to obtain insights about post-stroke treatment strategies efficacy.

Risk for Additional Infarction in Emergency Carotid Artery Endarterectomy in Thrombectomy Acute Stroke Patients

Purpose: Thromboembolic occlusion of the middle cerebral artery with tandem occlusion of the internal carotid artery is a life-threatening condition with unfavorable neurological outcome. We perform emergency carotid endarterectomy in the same anesthesia session as thrombectomy in our angiography suite whenever needed despite the absence of electrophysiological neuromonitoring. Methods: We evaluated 47 thrombectomy patients with emergency CEA in our clinic between June 2013 and November 2020. To determine whether there were additional infarctions due to the surgical procedure, we assessed the initial diagnostic CT imaging for previously infarcted areas, cerebral perfusion, and vascular anatomy, including collateralization in the Circle of Willis (CoW). We then analyzed follow-up imaging with respect to new infarctions that could not be explained by the initial stroke. Results: 5 of 47 (11%) patients had a complete CoW. There was contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or occlusion in 18/47 (38%) patients. Surgical procedure was eversion CEA in 34 (72%) and with a patch graft CEA in 13 (28%) cases. Shunts were used during surgery in 17/47 (36%) patients. Two patients suffered from an additional infarction in a new territory, however this was not caused by the surgical procedure but due to embolism during endovascular thrombectomy. In 1 of these 2 patients a hemodynamic border zone infarction was also observed, which could have developed during thrombectomy as well as during surgery, although this could not be attributed with absolute certainty to the surgery. The final infarction size was significantly larger in patients with contralateral ICA stenosis or occlusion ( P = .038). Neither CoW anatomy nor the absence of a shunt during surgery could be identified as risk factors for additional infarction. Conclusion: Emergency surgery in the angiography suite without neuromonitoring was not associated with an increased additional stroke rate in our patient cohort.