Carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver stent. Early and four-year results from a single-center registry

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.

Carotid artery revascularization using second generation stents versus surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses and emerging randomized data indicate that second-generation ('mesh') carotid stents (SGS) may improve outcomes versus conventional (single-layer) stents but clinically-relevant differences in individual SGS-type performance have been identified. No comparisons exist for SGS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Thirty-day death (D), stroke (S), myocardial infarction (M), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke and restenosis in SGS studies were meta-analyzed (random effect model) against CEA outcomes. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed/EMBASE/COCHRANE. Forest plots were formed for absolute adverse evet risk in individual studies and for relative outcomes with each SGS deign versus contemporary CEA outcomes as reference. Meta-regression was performed to identify potential modifiers of treatment modality effect.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from 103,642 patients in 25 studies (14 SGS-treated, 41% symptomatic; nine randomized controlled trial (RCT)-CEA-treated, 37% symptomatic; and two Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-CEA-treated, 23% symptomatic). Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard significantly reduced DSM versus RCT-CEA (-2.70% and -2.95%, P<0.001 for both) and versus VQI-CEA (-1.11% and -1.36%, P<0.001 for both). Gore stent 30-day DSM was similar to RCT-CEA (P=0.581) but increased against VQI-CEA (+2.38%, P=0.033). At 12 months, Casper/Roadsaver ipsilateral stroke rate was lower than RCT-CEA (-0.75%, P=0.026) and similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.584). Restenosis with Casper/Roadsaver was +4.18% vs. RCT-CEA and +4.83% vs. VQI-CEA (P=0.005, P<0.001). CGuard 12-month ipsilateral stroke rate was similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.850) and reduced versus RCT-CEA (-0.63%, P=0.030); restenosis was reduced respectively by -0.26% and -0.63% (P=0.033, P<0.001). Twelve-month Gore stent outcomes were overall inferior to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analytic integration of available clinical data indicates: 1) reduction in stroke but increased restenosis rate with Casper/Roadsaver, and 2) reduction in both stroke and restenosis with CGuard MicroNET-covered stent against contemporary CEA outcomes at 30 days and 12 months used as a reference. This may inform clinical practice in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials powered for low clinical event rates (PROSPERO-CRD42022339789).

Carotid artery interventions - endarterectomy versus stenting

Current management of patients with carotid artery stenosis is based on well-established guidelines, including surgical procedures - carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) - and optimal medical treatment alone. Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA are similar, suggesting strong clinical durability for both treatments. Recent advances, which include the emergence of novel endovascular treatment tools and techniques, combined with more recent randomised trial data shed new light on optimal patient selection and treatment in contemporary practice. Improved, modern technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered micromesh stents yield better outcomes and should result in further improvements in CAS. In centres of excellence, nowadays, the majority of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis can be successfully treated with either CEA or CAS.

Technical considerations of endovascular management of true visceral artery aneurysms

BACKGROUND

True visceral artery aneurysms are potentially complex to treat but with advances in technology and increasing interventional radiology expertise over the past decade are now increasingly the domain of the interventional radiologist. BODY: The interventional approach is based on localization of the aneurysm and identification of the anatomical determinants to treat these lesions to prevent aneurysm rupture. Several different endovascular techniques are available and should be selected carefully, dependent on the aneurysm morphology. Standard endovascular treatment options include stent-graft placement and trans-arterial embolisation. Different strategies are divided into parent artery preservation and parent artery sacrifice techniques. Endovascular device innovations now include multilayer flow-diverting stents, double-layer micromesh stents, double-lumen balloons and microvascular plugs and are also associated with high rates of technical success.

CONCLUSION

Complex techniques such as stent-assisted coiling and balloon-remodeling techniques are useful techniques and require advanced embolisation skills and are further described.

Procedural embolic protection strategies for carotid artery stenting: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is an established procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis for either primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Randomized clinical trials have shown an increased risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular events with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate this risk, including alternative vascular access site, proximal/distal embolic protection devices, and dual-layer stents, among others.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a general overview of current embolic protection strategies for CAS. The phases of the procedure which can affect the early risk of stroke and how to reduce it with novel techniques and devices have been discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Innovations in device technologies have dramatically improved the safety and efficacy of CAS. To minimize the gap with surgery, a thorough, patient-oriented approach should be pursued. Endovascular technologies and techniques should be selected on an individual basis to address unique lesion characteristics and vascular anatomies. Meticulous pre-procedural planning, both clinical and anatomical, is needed to assess the embolic risk of each procedure. Only by having an in-depth understanding of the wide range of available endovascular devices and techniques, the operator will choose the most appropriate strategy to optimize CAS results.

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.

Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report intermediate-term results of duplex ultrasound follow-up of carotid artery stenting performed with the dual-layer stent as compared to concurrent patients treated with other commercially available single-layer carotid stents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single centre, retrospective, nonrandomized study including 162 non-consecutive patients with 199 implanted carotid stents treated over a 7-year period was conducted. Patients with at least one ultrasound examination after treatment were included. Procedural and follow-up data for patients treated with the dual-layer stent implantation (83 stents) vs first-generation carotid stents implantations (116 stents) were compared.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 10-32 months) for dual-layer stents and 27.5 months (IQR 10.3-59 months) for single-layer stents. The rate of severe restenosis was significantly higher in the dual-layer stent group than in the single-layer group (13.3% [11/83] vs 3.4% [4/116], p = 0.01). Seven reinterventions were performed in 5 patients with dual-layer stents. The rate of reintervention was significantly higher compared to no reinterventions in single-layer stents (6% [5/83] vs 0% [0/116], p = 0.012). Patients with restenosis had significantly higher presence of dyslipidaemia (100% [12/12] vs 63.3% [95/150], p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, the patients treated with low-profile dual-layer micromesh stent showed higher rates of restenosis and reinterventions compared to first-generation single-layer stents.