Transcervical carotid stenting with flow reversal is safe in octogenarians: a preliminary safety study

BACKGROUND: The use of carotid stenting in octogenarian patients is controversial; some authors consider this population at high risk for the procedure. Anatomic vascular complexity may be an important reason for the high reported rates of periprocedural thromboembolic complications. Transcervical carotid angioplasty and stenting (TCS) with flow reversal avoids aortic arch instrumentation. In this study, we analyzed our experience with TCS in octogenarian patients and compared the results with those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the same age group in terms of safety. METHODS: The study included 81 patients, > or =80 years, a retrospective cohort of 45 consecutive patients treated with CEA (January 2002 to January 2005), and a prospective cohort of 36 consecutive patients treated with TCS with protective flow reversal (January 2005 to January 2007). Patients were considered symptomatic according to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria. Stenting indication was established on the SAPPHIRE criteria. General anesthesia was used in patients undergoing CEA, and local anesthesia in those receiving TCS. Primary endpoints were: stroke, death, or acute myocardial infarction within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were peripheral nerve paralysis and cervical hematoma. Statistical significance for between-group differences was assessed by Pearson chi(2) or Fisher exact test, and Student t test. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Follow-up was limited to 30 days. RESULTS: Baseline epidemiological characteristics and revascularization indications were similar between both groups. Mean age was significantly higher in the TCS group (83.5 +/- 3.35) than the CEA group (81.7 +/- 1.55) (P = .004). Percentage of symptomatic lesions was similar: 30.6% in TCS vs 44.4% in CEA (P = .2). Comorbid conditions (respiratory or cardiac) were more frequent in TCS group (61.6% vs 26.6%; P = .002). There were no significant differences between groups for the primary endpoints: 4.4% (one stroke, one acute myocardial infarction) for CEA vs 0% for TCS (P = .5). Among CEA patients, there were two peripheral nerve palsies (4.4%) and one cervical hematoma (2.2%); there were no such complications with TCS (P = .5 and P = 1, respectively). In one asymptomatic TCS patient, Doppler study at 24 hours following the procedure showed a common carotid artery dissection, which was treated by a common carotid to internal carotid bypass. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary experience, transcervical carotid angioplasty and stenting with flow reversal for cerebral protection was as safe at short term as carotid endarterectomy in octogenarian patients, who additionally had considerable comorbidity; thus, it may be possible to extend the indications for carotid revascularization in this population. Studies in larger patient series are required to confirm the trends observed in this study.