Interaction of cerebrovascular disease and contralateral carotid occlusion in prediction of shunt insertion during carotid endarterectomy

Severe contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion drive 30-day risk after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

The significant effects on the treatment of severe carotid stenosis by carotid endarterectomy have been widely recognized. However, it is controversial whether patients with severe contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion (SCSO) can benefit from carotid endarterectomy surgery. This study aimed to estimate the SCSO effects on early outcomes after carotid endarterectomy with selective shunting.

METHODS

Between August 2011 and October 2019, a total of 617 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy with selective shunting were analyzed. SCSO was defined as >70% luminal narrowing of the contralateral extracranial carotid stenosis or occlusion. Of these patients, 116 were categorized into an SCSO group while the rest were assigned to the non-SCSO group. Primary study outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse events, defined as stroke, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction during the perioperative period after carotid endarterectomy. Traditional multivariable logistic regression model and logistic regression model adjusted for propensity scores were used to estimate the SCSO effects on primary outcomes. Interaction and stratified analyses were conducted according to age, sex, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes), preoperative neurological deficit, preoperative symptoms, and shunt use.

RESULTS

Mean age was 68.5 ± 9.2 years (86.1% men). Overall major adverse events rate within 30 days was 2.5%. Major adverse events rates in SCSO and non-SCSO groups were 9.5% and 1.6%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, patients with SCSO had a higher risk of major adverse events (non-SCSO vs. SCSO: aOR 5.05 [95% CI, 1.78-14.55]). In 342 propensity score matched patients, results were consistent (propensity score: aOR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.13-12.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

SCSO is an independent predictor of 30-day major adverse events. Whether these patients with SCSO are suitable for carotid endarterectomy should be carefully considered.

Adding carotid total plaque area to the Framingham risk score improves cardiovascular risk classification

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular events (CE) due to atherosclerosis are preventable. Identification of high-risk patients helps to focus resources on those most likely to benefit from expensive therapy. Atherosclerosis is not considered for patient risk categorization, even though a fraction of CE are predicted by Framingham risk factors. Our objective was to assess the incremental value of combining total plaque area (TPA) with the Framingham risk score (FramSc) using post-test probability (Ptp) in order to categorize risk in patients without CE and identify those at high risk and requiring intensive treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed in the primary care setting in an Argentine population aged 22-90 years without CE. Both FramSc based on body mass index and Ptp-TPA were employed in 2035 patients for risk stratification and the resulting reclassification was compared. Total plaque area was measured with a high-resolution duplex ultrasound scanner.

RESULTS

57% male, 35% hypertensive, 27% hypercholesterolemia, 14% diabetes. 20.1% were low, 28.5% moderate, and 51.5% high risk. When patients were reclassified, 36% of them changed status; 24.1% migrated to a higher and 13.6% to a lower risk level (κ index = 0.360, SE κ = 0.16, p < 0.05, FramSc vs. Ptp-TPA). With this reclassification, 19.3% were low, 18.9% moderate and 61.8% high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantification of Ptp-TPA leads to higher risk estimation than FramSc, suggesting that Ptp-TPA may be more sensitive than FramSc as a screening tool. If our observation is confirmed with a prospective study, this reclassification would improve the long-term benefits related to CE prevention.

Surgical Outcomes for Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis: Treatment Strategy for Bilateral Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are beneficial procedures for patients with high-grade cervical carotid stenosis. However, it is sometimes difficult to manage patients with bilateral carotid stenosis. To decide the treatment strategy, one of the most important questions is whether contralateral stenosis increases the risk of patients undergoing CEA.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 201 patients with carotid stenosis who underwent a total of 219 consecutive procedures (CEA 189/CAS 30). We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in patients with carotid stenosis who were treated with either CEA or CAS and evaluated whether or not contralateral lesions increases the risk of patients undergoing CEA or CAS. Furthermore, we retrospectively verified our treatment strategy for bilateral carotid stenosis.

RESULTS

The incidences of perioperative complications were 5.3% in the CEA patients and 6.7% in the CAS patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between these 2 groups. The existences of contralateral occlusion and/or contralateral stenosis were not associated with perioperative complications in both the groups. There were 32 patients with bilateral severe carotid stenosis (>50%). Of those, 13 patients underwent bilateral revascularizations; CEA followed by CEA in 8, CEA followed by CAS in 3, CAS followed by CEA + coronary artery bpass grafting in 1, and CAS followed by CAS in 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our date showed that the existence of contralateral carotid lesion was not associated with perioperative complications, and most of our cases with bilateral carotid stenosis initially underwent CEA.

Contralateral occlusion increases the risk of neurological complications associated with carotid endarterectomy

Objective. To report on the incidence and factors associated with the development of perioperative neurological complications following CEA in patients affected by carotid stenosis with contralateral occlusion (CO) and to compare results between those patients and the whole group of patients submitted to CEA at our vascular division from 1997 to 2012. Methods. Our nonrandomized prospective experience including 1639 patients consecutively submitted to CEA was retrospectively reviewed. 136 patients presented a CO contralateral to the treated carotid stenosis. Outcomes considered for analysis were perioperative neurological death rates, major and minor stroke rates, and a combined endpoint of all neurological complications. Results. CO patients more frequently were male, smokers, younger, and symptomatic (P < 0.001), presented with a preoperative brain infarct and associated peripheral arterial disease (P < 0.0001), and presented with higher perioperative major stroke rate than patients without CO (4.4% versus 1.2%, resp., P = 0.009). Factors associated with the highest neurological risk in CO patients were age >74 years and preoperative brain infarct (P = 0.03). The combination of the abovementioned factors significantly increased complication rates in CO patients submitted to CEA. Conclusions. In our experience CO patients were at high risk for postoperative neurological complications particularly when presenting association of advanced age and preoperative brain infarction.

Treatment strategy for bilateral carotid stenosis: 2 cases of carotid endarterectomy for the symptomatic side followed by carotid stenting

Since the introduction of carotid stenting (CAS), a combined treatment for bilateral lesions using carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS has been developed. However, there has been only 1 report about CEA then CAS. Herein we describe 2 patients with bilateral severe carotid stenosis who were treated by CEA for the symptomatic side and CAS for the contralateral asymptomatic side. A 71-year-old man underwent CEA for the symptomatic side. Although the patient suffered hyperperfusion syndrome after CEA, he recovered fully after 3 weeks of rehabilitation. Two months later, CAS was performed for the asymptomatic side, and he was discharged with no deficit. A 67-year-old man underwent CEA for the symptomatic side. The patient developed no postoperative neurologic deficits except for hoarseness. Four weeks later, CAS was performed for the contralateral asymptomatic side. After the procedure, however, severe hypotension occurred, and treatment by continuous injection of catecholamine was necessary to maintain systematic blood pressure. The patient was ultimately discharged with no deficit. The combined therapy of CAS for the asymptomatic side and then CEA for the symptomatic side has been recommended by several authors. However, one of the problems of this strategy is the higher incidence of postprocedural hemodynamic complications, and hypotension after CAS may be dangerous for the symptomatic hemisphere. We suggest a combined therapy using CEA for the symptomatic side and then CAS for the asymptomatic side can be 1 beneficial treatment option for patients with bilateral carotid stenosis without coronary artery disease.

Carotid endarterectomy using a "home-constructed" shunt for patients intolerant to cross-clamping

PURPOSES

There is a small minority of patients with occlusive carotid artery disease, who are at high-risk for general anesthesia because of their intolerance to carotid flow blockage, even if only for seconds, without neurologic deficit. Even <30 s of temporary clamping of the carotid arteries to deploy a shunt may prove eventful in this patient group. We define safe carotid endarterectomy after the insertion of a novel shunt that we made from simple medical equipment in this patient population.

METHODS

Among 65 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy between March 2010 and December 2012, 5 (7.7 %; 3 men and 2 women; age range 56-77 years) could not tolerate carotid clamping. We used an alternative carotid shunt, made by us from simple equipment in our clinic, during surgery for these patients.

RESULTS

Two patients had bilateral lesions and the remainder had unilateral disease. The degree of stenosis ranged from 70 to 95 %. Temporary carotid clamping resulted in neurologic events, such as loss of consciousness in all and tremor in one, in <10 s (range, from immediately to 8 s after clamping). Full neurologic function was regained 15-30 s after releasing the clamps. All of the patients tolerated the procedures well with the support of our novel shunt. Shunt flow was adequate in all patients and no neurologic deterioration occurred after carotid clamping. The mean carotid clamp time was 28.11 ± 14.19 min. There was no mortality and all patients were followed up for a mean period of 9.3 ± 3.6 months, uneventfully.

CONCLUSIONS

An alternative, simple shunt, which is easily constructed in the operating room or clinic, using an angiocatheter, a three-way stopcock, and a serum line can provide adequate cerebral flow and permit safe carotid endarterectomy for those rare patients with carotid artery stenosis, who cannot tolerate even seconds of carotid occlusion.

Carotid artery stenting - current status of the procedure

Surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was long considered the standard approach for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery disease. This was based on results of several randomized trials demonstrating its effectiveness over the best medical therapy. In the past two decades, patients identified high-risk for surgery were offered carotid artery stenting (CAS) as a less invasive option. Despite its initial limitations, CAS has evolved into an elaborate method currently considered to be equivalent and in selected patients even preferable to CEA. However, outcomes of both procedures are highly operator dependent and a simple stratifying method to prioritize CAS, CEA or medical therapy only has not yet been proposed. In addition, recently published randomized trials highlighted the importance of proper patient selection and rigorous training contributing to low absolute rates of (procedural) adverse events. This review discusses the history and evidence for carotid revascularization and briefly presents technical aspects and innovations in CAS.