Carotid angioplasty and stenting in octogenarians: Is it safe?

Purpose: Elderly patients have a higher risk of complications in carotid endarterectomy. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed in octogenarians also increases the procedure related risk. Methods: 870 patients (male 626) mean age 70.9 ± 9.3 years underwent 930 CAS for de novo lesions (n = 851) restenoses (n = 54) post radiation (n = 14) inflammatory arteritis (n = 9) post trauma aneurysms (n = 2). Indications for treatment: symptomatic carotid stenosis ≥ 70% (n = 577) or asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 80%. Patients were separated into two age groups: <80 years (749 patients, 806 CAS) and >80 years (121 patients, 124 CAS). 187 CAS performed without protection (N.P?) 6 patients >80 years, 743 with protection (NP+) (occlusion balloon: 334, filters: 404, reversal flow: 6) 118 patients >80 years. Data analysis included neurological complications, death and myocardial infarction (MI) rate at 30 days, anatomical particularities. Technical points will be described depending on the age of the patient. Results: Technical success 804/806 in patients <80 years, 123/124 in patients >80 years (NS). 30 days outcomes: in the patient group <80 years we observed 9 TIA (1.1%) 3 without NP (1.7%) 6 with NP (0.9%), 5 minor strokes (0.6%) 2 without NP (1.1%) 3 with NP (0.5%), 3 major strokes: 2 without NP (1.1%) 1 with NP (0.2%), 5 deaths (0.6%) 2 without NP (1.1%) 3 with NP (0.5%). Death/stroke/MI: 14 (1.8%) 6 without NP (3.3%), 8 with NP (1.3%). In the group >80 years, we observed 2 TIA (1.7%) 1 without NP 1 with NP (0.92%) 1 minor stroke without NP (17%) no major stroke, no death. Death/stroke/MI 1 without NP (17%). Conclusion: CAS can be performed in elderly patients without higher risk than in younger patients. But good indications, a meticulous technique, protection devices are mandatory and some technical points must be pointed out to avoid neurological complications and failures. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Neuroprotection during carotid artery stenting using the GORE flow reversal system: 30‐day outcomes in the EMPiRE Clinical Study

Background : Each of the embolic protection devices used in carotid artery stenting (CAS) has advantages and disadvantages. The prospective, multicenter, single‐arm EMPiRE Clinical Study investigated a proximally placed device (GORE Flow Reversal System) that provides distal neuroprotection during CAS by reversing blood flow in the internal carotid artery, thereby directing emboli away from the brain. Methods : The study evaluated 30‐day outcomes in 245 pivotal high‐surgical‐risk patients (mean age, 70 years; 32% symptomatic; 16% ≥80‐years old) with carotid stenosis who underwent CAS using the flow reversal system. The primary endpoint was a major adverse event (MAE; stroke, death, myocardial infarction, or transient ischemic attack) within 30 days of CAS. The MAE rate was compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) derived from CAS studies that included embolic protection. Results : The MAE rate was 4.5% (11 patients; P = 0.002 compared with the OPC). The stroke and death rate was 2.9%. No patient had a major ischemic stroke. Six patients (2.4%) had intolerance to flow reversal. The death and stroke rates in the symptomatic, asymptomatic, and octogenarian subgroups were 2.6, 3, and 2.6%, respectively, meeting American Heart Association guidelines for carotid endarterectomy. Conclusion : The stroke and death rate in this study was among the lowest in CAS trials. The results indicate that the flow reversal system is safe and effective when used for neuroprotection during CAS and that it provides benefits in a broad patient population. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Multidisciplinary approach to carotid stenting

Background: Stroke neurologists, vascular surgeons, interventional neuroradiologists and interventional cardiologists have embraced carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) because of potential advantages over carotid endarterectomy (CEA). At Austin Health, a multidisciplinary neuro‐interventional group was formed to standardise indications and facilitate training. The aims of this study were to describe our organisational model and to determine whether 30‐day complications and early outcomes were similar to those of major trials. Methods: A clinical protocol was developed to ensure optimal management. CAS was performed on patients with high medical risk for CEA, with technically difficult anatomy for CEA, or who were randomised to CAS in a trial. Results: From October 2003 to May 2008, 47 patients (34 male, mean age 71.5) underwent CAS of 50 carotid arteries. Forty‐three cases had ipsilateral carotid territory symptoms within the previous 12 months. The main indications for CAS were high risk for CEA (n= 17) and randomised to CAS (n= 21). Interventionists were proctored in 27 cases. The procedural success rate was 94% with two cases abandoned because of anatomical problems and one because of on‐table angina. Hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy occurred in 12 cases (24%). The duration of follow up was one to 44 months (mean 6.8 months). The 30‐day rate of peri‐procedural stroke or death was 6% and the one‐year rate of peri‐procedural stroke or death or subsequent ipsilateral stroke was 10.6%. Restenosis occurred in 13% (all asymptomatic). Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach is a useful strategy for initiating and sustaining a CAS programme.     

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis >70% by a randomized, controlled trial in a community hospital. BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: A total of 104 patients presenting with cerebrovascular ischemia ipsilateral to carotid stenosis were selected randomly for CEA or carotid stenting and followed for two years. RESULTS: Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique as determined by sequential ultrasound. One death occurred in the CEA group (1/51); one transient ischemic attack occurred in the CAS group (1/53); no individual sustained a stroke. The perception of procedurally related pain/discomfort was similar. Hospital stay was similar, although the CAS group tended to be discharged earlier (mean = 1.8 days vs. 2.7 days). Complications associated with CAS prolonged hospitalization when compared with those sustaining a CEA-related complication (mean = 5.6 days vs. 3.8 days). Return to full activity was achieved within one week by 80% of the CAS group and 67% of the patients receiving CEA. Hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid stenting is equivalent to CEA in reducing carotid stenosis without increased risk for major complications of death/stroke. Because of shortened hospitalization and convalescence, CAS challenges CEA as the preferred treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis if a reduction in costs can be achieved.     

Carotid stenting in high-risk patients: early and late outcomes

Purpose: Some patients with severe carotid stenosis have anatomical or clinical comorbidities that place them at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The early and late outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) were evaluated in patients at high risk for CEA. Methods: Between 2002 and 2009, 186 patients were enrolled in a high‐risk CAS institutional registry. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerberovascular events (MACCEs) at 30 days, including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes were technical, procedural, and clinical success; nonstroke neurological events; and death and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years. Results: Twenty‐five patients (13.2%) were symptomatic. Thirty day MACCE occurred in 2.6%, including death in 1 (0.5%), stroke in 3 (1.6%), and myocardial infraction in 1 (0.5%) patient. Strokes were nonfatal in 3 (1.6%), major in 2 (1.1%), and minor in 1 (0.5%) patients. Other neurological events included transient ischemic attack in 9 (4.7%) and retinal artery occlusion in 2 (1.1%) patients. After stroke, 2 patients had complete resolution of neurological deficit within 30 days, and 1 patient had improvement in neurological deficit. By Kaplan–Meier analysis, all‐cause mortality was 47.5% and ipsilateral stroke was 4.5% at 5 years. Conclusions: In patients who are high risk for CEA, CAS can be performed with low MACCE at 30 days and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years. However, nearly half of these patients die within 5 years from causes unrelated to stroke. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:247–253)     

Safety and efficacy of carotid stenting in the very elderly

Background : Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients at high risk for complications from surgery. The very elderly (≥80‐year‐old) are one subgroup of patients identified as being at increased risk for carotid surgery. However, there is concern that the very elderly are also at increased risk for complications of CAS. A stroke and death rate of 12% was reported in very elderly patients during the roll‐in phase of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST). We are reporting on a large clinical series of CAS with independent neurological assessment in the very elderly. Methods : Between 1994 and 2008, a consecutive series of 418 CAS patients (≥80‐year‐old) were treated at four high‐volume centers with extensive CAS experience. Independent neurologic assessment was performed after CAS procedures. Thirty‐day follow‐up information was available in 389 patients. Results : The average age was 83.2 ± 2.8 years. Most patients were male (63.2%), and the target lesion carotid stenosis was asymptomatic in two‐thirds (68.2%) of patients. The majority of patients treated with CAS had a history of coronary artery disease (74.4%), hypertension (87.8%), and dyslipidemia (71.1%). One third (30.1%) were diabetic and more than half (56.5%) were current or former smokers. Embolic protection devices (EPD) were used in 78.7% of cases with the CAS procedure being performed before EPD availability being the most common reason for not using them. The overall 30‐day incidence of stroke and death was 2.8% (11/389). The cumulative incidence of major cardiovascular events (stroke, death, or myocardial infarction) during that time period was 3.3% (13/389). Conclusions : This large series of CAS with independent neurologic assessment is convincing evidence that the very elderly (≥80 years) can safely undergo CAS with stroke and death rates comparable to younger patients. The key to obtaining these excellent results is that CAS be performed by high volume, experienced operators who exercise restraint regarding patient selection. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗老年症状性颈动脉狭窄的研究

目的探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)在老年症状性颈动脉狭窄中的应用。方法回顾分析我院108例老年症状性颈动脉狭窄行CEA患者的临床资料。结果 108例患者行CEA共125例次,成功率100%,其中颈动脉狭窄60%～75%者48例次,占38.4%,狭窄>75%者77例次,占61.6%,围手术期严重并发症2例,发生率1.9%,围手术期死亡1例,占0.9%。101条颈动脉术后1个月经颈多普勒超声显示,颈内动脉最狭窄处血管内径较术前明显增加[(6.11±1.36mmvs 1.59±0.82mm,P<0.05],狭窄程度由术前的(78±21)%降至(14±12)%,最狭窄处收缩期最大流速明显改善[(208±22)cm/s vs(93±18)cm/s,P<0.05]。81例患者术后18个月脑缺血症状较术前改善者75例(92.6%),再发短暂性脑缺血发作5例(6.2%),脑卒中1例(1.2%),发现术侧颈动脉>60%的再狭窄1例(1.2%),低于北美症状性颈动脉剥脱试验水平。结论 CEA是治疗老年症状性颈动脉狭窄的有效方法,在预防老年患者缺血性脑卒中等重大脑血管事件的发生中有重要价值。     

Is Age of 80 Years a Threshold for Carotid Revascularization?

Background and purpose:

Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of carotid stenotic disease. With increasing life expectancy clinicians are more often confronted with patients of higher age. Octogenarians were often excluded from randomized trials comparing CAS to CEA because they were considered high-risk for revascularization. Conflicting results on the peri-procedural outcome of carotid revascularization in these patients have been reported. In order to objectively evaluate whether age above 80 years should be an upper limit for indicating carotid revascularization we systematically reviewed the currently available literature.

Methods:

Literature was systematically reviewed between January 2000 and June 2010 using Pubmed and Embase, to identify all relevant studies concerning CAS and CEA in octogenarians. Inclusion criteria were 1) reporting outcome on either CEA or CAS; and 2) data subanalysis on treatment outcome by age. The 30-day Major Adverse Event (MAE) rate (disabling stroke, myocardial infarction or death) was extracted as well as demographic features of included patients.

Results:

After exclusion of 23 articles, 46 studies were included in this review, 18 involving CAS and 28 involving CEA. A total of 2.963 CAS patients and 14.365 CEA patients with an age >80 years were reviewed. The MAE rate was 6.9% (range 1.6 - 24.0%) following CAS and 4.2% (range 0 – 8.8%) following CEA.A separate analysis in this review included the results of one major registry 140.376 patients) analyzing CEA in octogenarians only reporting on 30-day mortality and not on neurological or cardiac adverse events. When these data were included the MAE following CEA is 2.4% (range 0 – 8.8%)

Conclusions:

MAE rates after CEA in octogenarians are comparable with the results of large randomized trials in younger patients. Higher complication rates are described for CAS in octogenarians. In general, age > 80 years is not an absolute cut off point to exclude patients from carotid surgery. In our opinion, CEA should remain the golden standard in the treatment of significant carotid artery stenoses, even in the very elderly.     

Safety of carotid artery stenting for symptomatic carotid artery disease: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease have produced conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate currently available data by comparing CAS with CEA in patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and scientific meeting abstracts up to 31 October 2006 and then calculated summary risk ratios (RRs) for mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, and death using random- and fixed-effect models. Data from five trials with 2122 patients were pooled. There was no difference in risk of 30-day mortality (summary RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.47, P = 0.25), stroke (summary RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67-4.00, P = 0.34), disabling stroke (summary RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.50-5.62, P = 0.50), death and stroke (summary RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81-2.92, P = 0.19), or death and disabling stroke (summary RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.57-2.51, P = 0.64) among patients randomized to CAS, compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences could be identified between CAS and CEA in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. Larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two strategies.     

Outcomes following extracranial carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting has become a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), especially for patients considered at high risk for post-operative complications. This study investigated the feasibility, safety and long-term outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients. METHODS: From July 1995 to November 2000, sixty-two consecutive patients considered to be at high risk for post-operative complications of CEA were followed prospectively after undergoing extracranial CAS procedures. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients [37 men (60%) and 25 women (40%)] underwent a total of 69 CAS procedures. The mean age was 67 +/- 9 years (range, 32-89 years). Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 95% and severe coronary artery disease in 58%. Sixteen patients (26%) had a previous ipsilateral CEA, twenty-one percent had a history of neck radiation and 32% had a history of significant contralateral carotid artery disease. Fifty-two patients (84%) were symptomatic. All 69 CAS procedures were technically successful. The major post-operative complications were two minor strokes (2.8%), one major stroke (1.4%) and one fatal major stroke (1.4%). The mean length of follow-up was 17 months (range, 4 months to 5.6 years). Two patients (2.8%) have suffered ipsilateral neurologic events following CAS. Long-term follow-up revealed restenosis at 6 months in 4 patients (5.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting is safe and feasible. This procedure produces satisfactory outcomes in patients who are at high risk for post-operative complications of CEA.     

Treatment strategies for carotid stenosis in patients at increased risk for surgery

The purpose of carotid revascularization is stroke prevention. The merits of carotid revascularization as well as the type of revascularization are dependent on the “natural risk” and the “revascularization risk.” In general, the natural risk of stroke in any patient with carotid stenosis (CS) is dependent on the symptomatic status of the patient and CS severity. Contemporary choices for carotid revascularization include carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Anatomical (hostile neck situations, severe bilateral CS, CEA restenosis) and clinical (severe cardiopulmonary diseases, prior cranial nerve injury) factors may increase the risk of CEA. Likewise, anatomical (complex aortic arch and brachiocephalic arterial anatomy, presence of thrombus, and heavy calcification) and clinical (need for heart surgery within 30 days) factors may increase the risk of CAS. Other factors such as the presence of symptomatic CS (transient ischemic attack or stroke within 6 months), decreased cerebral reserve, chronic kidney disease, and age older than 75 years may increase the risk of CEA and CAS. In general, symptomatic patients with severe CS exceed revascularization risk. In contrast, asymptomatic patients who are high risk for CEA should be considered for CAS because the natural risk of stroke should undergo careful assessment of baseline cognitive function, aortic arch and carotid artery anatomy, and likelihood of survival for 3 years. Patients who have normal cognitive function, favorable anatomy, and high likelihood of survival more than 3 years should be considered for CAS, whereas patients with multiple unfavorable features may be treated with optimal medical therapy, without revascularization.     

Long‐term results of cephalad arteries percutanoeus transluminal angioplasty with stent implantation (The CAPTAS registry)

Introduction : Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. Moreover, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) allows other cephalad arteries revascularization. The aim of this study was to evaluate late outcomes of cephalad arteries PTA. Methods : This is an international multicenter registry of 434 consecutive patients in which 497 PTAs were performed. Patients with symptomatic >50% stenosis or asymptomatic >70% stenosis were enrolled. Stenting of 577 internal carotid arteries (ICA) and 13 common carotid arteries was performed, 20.7% procedures were complex in which bilateral carotid stenoses or carotid and vertebral arteries stenoses were revascularized at one stage. In 15.9% patients, one‐stage coronary intervention was carried out. Distal protection devices were used in 69.6% of cases. PTAs were divided into high (n = 330) and low (n = 167) risk of major adverse coronary and cerebral events (MACCE). Results : At 30 days, there were 15 (3.5%) cases of MACCE [0.9% deaths, 2.1% strokes, and 0.9% myocardial infarction (MI)]. TIAs were observed in 15 (3.9%) patients. There was no significant difference in stroke incidence between procedures with or without neuroprotection (1.8 vs. 3%; P = 0.66) as well as in MACCE occurrence between high and low‐risk groups (4.3 vs. 2%; P = 0.34). Bilateral stenoses increased while hypertension decreased the risk of MACCE. Left ICA lesions increased the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA). At 4 years (1–11 years), the mortality rate was 11.5%, 6% of patients had stroke, and 3% MIs. Restenosis occurred in 3%. There was a trend toward higher mortality rate (13.3 vs. 6.9%; P = 0.07) and MACCE risk in high‐risk group (23.5 vs.14.7% P = 0.06). Age > 65 y.o. and stent length < 24 mm increased, while the statin therapy on admission decreased the risk of long‐term death. Structural valve disease and stent length <30 mm increased the risk of MACCE, while implantation of Acculink stent decreased the risk of CVA. Conclusions : CAS is safe and successful procedure with low early and long‐term adverse events. Special attention should be put on patients with bilateral and left ICA stenoses. If possible, longer stents should be applied. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Carotid artery stenting in octogenarians using a proximal endovascular occlusion cerebral protection device: A multicenter registry

Background : Carotid stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endoarterectomy also in elderly patients with discrepant results. However, the use of proximal neuroprotection devices have not been evaluated in octogenarians. Purpose : The aim of this multicenter prospective registry was to demonstrate that CAS in octogenarians is safe and effective if performed in high‐volume centers by experienced operators. Methods : From July 2005 to May 2009, a total of 198 octogenarians patients, in three different institutions, were included in this registry. All patients underwent CAS using proximal endovascular occlusion device (Mo.Ma. device Invatec, Roncadelle, Italy). An independent neurologist evaluated all patients. The primary endpoint was death and stroke rate at 30 days. Results : 198 octogenarians (135 men; mean age: 83.2 years) were included in the registry. 39.4% of the patients were symptomatic. Procedural success was 100%. In‐hospital complications: Two minor and two major strokes (2.02%) occurred. No device‐related complications and no serious access site complication were noted. Between discharge and 30‐day follow‐up, one patient died due to a cardiac arrest. The overall 30‐day combined stroke/death rate was 2.52%, resulting in 1.61% event incidence in asymptomatic and 3.9% in symptomatic patients (P = ns). Logistic regression did not identify independent predictor of neurological events, except in the female gender. Conclusion : This multicenter prospective registry shows that CAS performed with proximal flow blockage is safe and feasible also in octogenarians. Thirty days death/stroke rates are similar to those of the overall population and within the International guidelines. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

老年症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的临床干预研究

目的探讨老年症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的支架成形术和(或)内科治疗的安全性和短期疗效。方法选择我院经数字减影血管造影术(DSA)证实有颈动脉狭窄且有相关临床症状的老年患者85例,均给予内科治疗,其中58例行颈动脉支架成形术,分析其临床、影像学、治疗和随访观察资料。结果68例患者临床症状改善或消失;住院及随访期间6例(7.1%)发生脑卒中,无脑卒中相关死亡。本组中58例患者共置入支架67个,支架成形术成功率为100%,动脉狭窄率由术前(86.8±9.3)%降至(10.9±2.5)%(t=21.1,P=0.000);术后30天内2例发生支架相关脑卒中;58例支架成形术患者平均随访28.3个月,50例(86.2%)症状改善或消失,2例发生同侧颈内动脉供血区域脑卒中;36例复查颈部血管超声,2例显示支架内再狭窄;10例复查DSA均未发现支架内再狭窄。结论老年症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的综合临床干预短期疗效良好;狭窄的支架成形术方法可行,相对安全。     

颈动脉血管成形术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄近期疗效的Meta分析

目的评价颈动脉血管成形术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期临床疗效和安全性。方法电子检索中国学术期刊网全文数据库(1996—2006年)、MEDLINE(1996—2006年)和Cochrane图书馆(2006年12月前已发表的文献和已注册但未发表的临床试验),并与研究者取得联系获得更多的相关研究资料。纳入比较颈动脉血管成形术和内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验,比较两种治疗方法术后30d内卒中发生率和卒中与死亡的联合发生率。以卒中发生率作为疗效评价指标,以卒中和死亡的联合发生率作为安全性评价指标。2名评价员独立检索和提取资料,对纳入试验的方法学质量进行评价,数据采用RevMan4.2.10版软件进行统计分析。结果在术后30d内的卒中发生率方面,共纳入7项临床试验的2747例患者,其中颈动脉血管成形术组1381例,颈动脉内膜切除术组1366例。在术后30d的卒中和死亡的联合发生率方面,纳入8项临床试验,共2966例患者,其中颈动脉血管成形术组1488例,颈动脉内膜切除术组1478例。Meta分析结果显示,在术后30d内的卒中发生率方面,颈动脉血管成形术略高于颈动脉内膜切除术(OR:1.44;95%CI:1.05~1.97,Z=2.28,P=0.02);在术后30d内卒中和死亡的联合发生率方面,颈动脉血管成形术与颈动脉内膜切除术间差异无统计学意义(OR:1.50;95%CI:0.89~2.52,Z=1.51,P=0.13)。结论现有临床研究资料显示,在目前的技术条件下,颈动脉血管成形术在治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效方面未显示优于内膜切除术;而在治疗的安全性方面,两者间差异无统计学意义。     

Clinical Impact of Contralateral Carotid Occlusion in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Revascularization

BackgroundThe presence of a contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) is an established high-risk feature for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and is traditionally an indication for carotid artery stenting (CAS). Recent observational data have called into question whether CCO remains a high-risk feature for CEA.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the clinical impact of CCO among patients undergoing CEA and CAS in a contemporary nationwide registry.MethodsAll patients undergoing CEA or CAS from 2007 to 2019 in the NCDR CARE (National Cardiovascular Data Registry Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) and PVI (Peripheral Vascular Intervention) registries were included. The primary exposure was the presence of CCO. The outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse-probability of treatment weighting were used to compare outcomes.ResultsAmong 58,423 patients who underwent carotid revascularization, 4,624 (7.9%) had a CCO. Of those, 68.9% (n = 3,185) underwent CAS and 31.1% (n = 1,439) underwent CEA. The average age of patients with CCO was 69.5 ± 9.7 years, 32.6% were women, 92.8% were Caucasian, 51.7% had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, and 45.4% presented with symptomatic disease. Over the study period, there was a 41.7% decrease in the prevalence of CCO among patients who underwent carotid revascularization (p < 0.001), but CAS remained the primary revascularization strategy. Unadjusted composite outcome rates were lower in patients with CCO after CAS (2.1%) than CEA (3.6%). Following adjustment, CCO was associated with a 71% increase in the odds of an adverse outcome after CEA (95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 2.30; p < 0.001) compared with no increase after CAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.22; p = 0.64).ConclusionsCCO remains an important predictor of increased risk among patients undergoing CEA, but not CAS.     

Is carotid artery stenting in octogenarians really dangerous?

PURPOSE: To evaluate (1) whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed in octogenarians increases the procedure-related risk and (2) the incidence of complex anatomy of the aortic arch and supra-aortic vessels in patients >80 years old, which can increase the technical difficulty of CAS. METHODS: Between December 2000 and September 2005, 1053 patients (903 men; mean age 72+/-2.2 years, range 46-90) underwent 1222 CAS procedures in 2 centers for de novo (n=1192) and restenotic (n=30) lesions (139 staged bilateral procedures). Indications for treatment were the presence of a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis >/=70% (n=798, 65.3%) or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80%. The patients were separated into 2 age categories: under 80 (n=1078 procedures, 88.2%) and 80 or older (n=144 procedures, 11.8%) for this analysis. Data analysis included death and stroke rate at discharge and at 30 days. Anatomical characteristics evaluated were aortic arch elongation, arch and supra-aortic vessel calcification and tortuosity, anatomical tortuosity of the lesion, and carotid plaque composition. RESULTS: Three lesions in octogenarians could not be treated because of failure to access the vessel in 1 case and extremely tortuous arteries in 2. The overall death and stroke rate at 30 days was 2.12% in the older group (2 fatal strokes, 1 minor stroke) and 1.11% in the younger group (3 deaths, 3 major strokes, 6 minor strokes); the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Significantly higher frequencies of tortuosity and calcification of the arch and supra-aortic vessels and of type III aortic arch were observed in the older group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In our experience, CAS has proven to be safe and effective in elderly patients. Different age-related anatomical features can represent an adjunctive technical challenge, but these difficulties can be successfully managed without increased perioperative risk if CAS is performed in high-volume centers by highly skilled operators.     

Carotid artery stenting in high surgical risk patients using the FiberNet® embolic protection system: The EPIC trial results

Objective: The multicenter EPIC (FiberNet Embolic Protection System in Carotid Artery Stenting Trial) single‐arm trial evaluated the 30‐day outcomes of a new design concept for embolic protection during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Background: Embolic protection filters available for use during CAS include fixed and over‐the‐wire systems that rely on embolic material capture within a “basket” structure. The FiberNet® Embolic Protection System (EPS), which features a very low crossing profile, consists of a three‐dimensional fiber‐based filter distally mounted on a 0.014 inch guidewire with integrated aspiration during filter retrieval. Methods: The trial enrolled 237 patients from 26 centers. Demographics, clinical and lesion characteristics, as well as adverse events through a 30‐day follow‐up were recorded. The mean age of the patients was 74 years, 64% were male and 20% had symptomatic carotid artery disease. Results: The combined major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30 days for all death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was 3.0%. There were three major strokes (two ischemic and one hemorrhagic) and two minor strokes (both ischemic) for a 2.1% 30‐day stroke rate. The procedural technical success rate was 97.5% and macroscopic evidence of debris was reported in 90.9% of the procedures. Conclusions: The FiberNet EPS, used with commercially available stents, produced low stroke rates following CAS in high surgical risk patients presenting with carotid artery disease. The unique filter design including aspiration during retrieval may have contributed to the low 30‐day stroke rate reported during CAS in patients considered at high risk for complications following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparative Review of the Treatment Methodologies of Carotid Stenosis

The treatment of carotid stenosis entails three methodologies, namely, medical management, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), as well as carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) have shown that symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% is best treated with CEA. In asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis greater than 60%, CEA was more beneficial than treatment with aspirin alone according to the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis (ACAS) and Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (ACST) trials. When CAS is compared with CEA, the CREST resulted in similar rates of ipsilateral stroke and death rates regardless of symptoms. However, CAS not only increased adverse effects in women, it also amplified stroke rates and death in elderly patients compared with CEA. CAS can maximize its utility in treating focal restenosis after CEA and patients with overwhelming cardiac risk or prior neck irradiation. When performing CEA, using a patch was equated to a more durable result than primary closure, whereas eversion technique is a new methodology deserving a spotlight. Comparing the three major treatment strategies of carotid stenosis has intrinsic drawbacks, as most trials are outdated and they vary in their premises, definitions, and study designs. With the newly codified best medical management including antiplatelet therapies with aspirin and clopidogrel, statin, antihypertensive agents, strict diabetes control, smoking cessation, and life style change, the current trials may demonstrate that asymptomatic carotid stenosis is best treated with best medical therapy. The ongoing trials will illuminate and reshape the treatment paradigm for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis.     

颈动脉支架与内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄疗效和安全性的Meta分析

目的 系统评价颈动脉支架(carotid artery stenting,CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)治疗颈动脉狭窄的安全性和疗效.方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)以及万方医学数据库,并辅以手工检索,收集CAS和CEA治疗颈动脉狭窄的随机对照试验,采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 5.0.24软件进行Meta分析.结果 共纳入12个研究,6903例患者,其中CAS组3460例,CEA组3443例.CAS组术后30 d脑卒中或死亡联合发生风险(RR=1.64,95%CI:1.33～2.03,P＜0.00001)以及脑卒中风险(RR=1.70,95%CI:1.34～2.14,P＜0.00001)高于CEA组;CEA组术后30 d心肌梗死风险(RR=0.62,95%CI:0.39～0.97,P=0.04)和颅神经损伤风险(RR=0.07,95%CI:0.03～0.16,P＜0.00001)高于CAS组;两组术后30 d死亡风险(RR=1.33,95%CI:0.78～2.28,P=0.29)、致残性脑卒中风险(RR=1.27,95%CI:0.82～1.96,P=0.29)和术后1年脑卒中或死亡联合发生风险(RR=0.96,95%CI:0.63～1.46,P=0.84)差异无统计学意义.结论 从安全性方面考虑,对于一般手术风险的颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA仍是治疗颈动脉狭窄的首选治疗手段.具有手术高危因素或不适合手术的患者,CAS治疗更具有优势.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy(CEA) for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Methods The electronic databases (PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang) were searched in order to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparing CAS and CEA for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Cochrane collaboration's RevMan 5.0.24 were used for analyzing data. Results Twelve RCTs totalling 6903 patients (3460 patients were randomized to CAS and 3443 randomized to CEA) with symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis were included in the meta-analysis. There were significantly higher 30-day relative risks after CAS than after CEA for death or any stroke [RR=1.64, 95%CI (1.33-2.03), P＜0.00001] and for stroke [RR=1.70, 95%CI (1.34-2.14), P＜0.00001]. The relative risks of myocardial infarction [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.39-0.97), P=0.04] and cranial neuropathy [RR=0.07, 95%CI (0.03-0.16), P＜0.00001] was significantly less after CAS than after CEA. The relative risks of death [RR=1.27, 95%CI (0.82-1.96), P=0.29] or disabling stroke within 30 days [RR=1.33, 95%CI (0.78-2.28), P=0.29] and any stroke or death at 1 year after the procedures [RR=0.96, 95%CI (0.63-1.46), P=0.84] did not differ significantly between CAS and CEA operation. Conclusions CEA remains the first choice for treatment of carotid stenosis for patients with low surgery risk. For patients with high surgery risk and unsuitable for surgery, CAS has more advantages. It is reasonable to view CAS and CEA as complementary rather than competing modes of therapy.