Carotid angioplasty and stenting, success relies on appropriate patient selection

OBJECTIVE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is a percutaneous alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. This study sought to evaluate whether patients at increased perioperative risk for CEA may be treated with CAS while maintaining equivalent outcomes. METHODS: This study was a nonblinded, retrospective analysis of data obtained from September 2002 to present in the CAS group and from January 1997 to present in the CEA group. Two hundred thirty-one CAS and 647 CEA procedures were performed. Patients were selected for CAS based on criteria that placed them at increased risk for standard CEA surgery. Except for percentage women treated, baseline demographics did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: mean age (72.0 years [range 46-94] vs 70.5 years [range 42-92], P = NS), mean follow-up (12.8 +/- 11.8 months vs 8.7 +/- 10.0 months, P = NS) and percentage women treated (41.4% vs 32.3%, P = .03). Cerebral protection devices were used in 228/231 patients treated with CAS, and each patient underwent an NIH Stroke Scale assessment 24 hours postoperatively and at 30 days follow-up by an independent observer. RESULTS: Preoperative neurologic symptoms did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: amaurosis fugax (6.06% vs 6.96%, P = NS), transient ischemic attacks (13.4% vs 13.9%, P = NS), strokes (19.9% vs 14.1%, P = NS) and total symptoms (27.7% vs 30.5%, P = NS). Due to the selection of patient groups based on predefined clinical characteristics, factors associated with an increased risk of complications from standard CEA surgery were generally more prevalent in patients treated with CAS: neck irradiation (6.06% vs 1.24%, P < .001), neck dissection for cancer therapy (7.8% vs 1.5%, P < .001), prior ipsilateral CEA (15.2% vs 3.4%, P 相似文献   

Intrapatient comparison of restenosis between carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and carotid endarterectomy

AIM: Comparison of restenosis in patients who underwent both carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAS) and contralateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: From our CAS data registry (1998-present) all patients with a history of contralateral CEA at any other time were selected (n = 63). Mean age was 70.6, SD = 6.8 for CAS and 68.2, SD = 6.1 for CEA and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis was present in 24% of patients pre-CAS and 40% pre-CEA. All CEAs were primary interventions, 19% of CAS were secondary to restenosis after previous ipsilateral CEA. All patients were followed up prospectively with duplex at 1 year (CAS: n = 58, CEA: n = 59), 2 years (CAS: n = 44, CEA: n = 53), 3 years (CAS: n = 27, CEA: n = 41), and every year thereafter. Within each patient we compared restenosis (>50%) between CAS and CEA procedures. RESULTS: After a follow-up of 28.7 months for CAS (SD = 16.9) and 54.4 months for CEA (SD = 39.5) the rate of = or > 50% restenosis for CAS vs CEA at 1, 2, and 3 years was 23% vs 10%; 31% vs 19%; and 34 vs 24%, respectively (log rank P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our intrapatient comparison of patients who underwent both CAS and contralateral CEA did not reveal significant difference in restenosis between both procedures.     

Comparison of nonneurological events in high-risk patients treated by carotid angioplasty versus endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in high cardiac risk patients. METHODS: Patients ineligible for carotid revascularization by North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial/Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study criteria were treated with CAS (n = 11) or CEA (n = 10). RESULTS: Significant numbers had cardiac (CAS 72%, CEA 60%; P = 0.66) and hypertensive (CAS 82%, CEA 80%; P = 0.64) risk factors. Adverse hemodynamic events were more frequent in the CAS group (CAS 73%, CEA 20%; P = 0.03). Major complications were noted in 1 patient in each group (CAS, myocardial infarction; CEA, death). Postoperative stay was similar (CAS 2.1 +/- 1.4, CEA 1.8 +/- 1.1 days; P = 0.60). However, 4 in the CAS group were readmitted within 1 month (congestive heart failure 2, myocardial infarction 1, rest pain 1), compared with no new events in the CEA group (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the use of CAS in patients with cardiac risk factors may not be justifiable.     

A comparison of carotid artery stenting with neuroprotection versus carotid endarterectomy under local anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce the risk of stroke in patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Despite the known impact of type of anesthesia on outcome after CEA, none of the current studies comparing CEA with CAS addresses the effect of anesthetic choice on perioperative events. In this study, we compare our results of distally protected CAS versus CEA under local anesthesia. METHODS: Clinical data of 345 patients who underwent 372 procedures for carotid artery occlusive disease over a 36-month were retrospectively collected for this analysis. Distal embolic protection was used in CAS procedures. All procedures, both CEA (n = 221, 59%) and CAS (N = 152, 41%), were performed under local anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was aggregate 30-day major ipsilateral stroke and/or death. Follow-up serial Duplex ultrasound examinations were performed. RESULTS: Both patient cohorts were similar in terms of demographic and risk factors, with the exception of a higher incidence of coronary artery disease in the CAS group (59% versus 30%, P <.05). The 30-day stroke and death rates were 3.2% (CAS) and 3.7% (CEA) (P = not significant). Cranial nerve injury only occurred in the CEA patients (2.3%). Perioperative hemodynamic instability was more common among patients in the CAS group (11.9% versus 4.1%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous carotid stenting with neuroprotection provides comparable clinical success to CEA performed under local anesthetic. Further studies are warranted to validate the long-term efficacy of CAS and to elucidate patient selection criteria for endovascular carotid revascularization.     

A comparative analysis of long-term mortality after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting

Background

The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of “real-world” outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort.

Safety and efficacy of carotid angioplasty and stenting in high-risk patients

Performance of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) may be associated with an increased risk in patients with significant comorbid medical conditions, neck irradiation, or previous CEA. This study compared the results of CEA with carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in high-risk patients treated for carotid stenosis. Five hundred forty-five patients who underwent CEA and 148 patients who underwent CAS were evaluated. For patients undergoing CEA, general anesthesia was used in 91 per cent, electroencephalographic monitoring was used in 63 per cent, and shunting was performed in 19.8 per cent. Cerebral protection devices were used in 145/148 of CAS cases, and self-expanding stents were used in all cases. Evaluated end points included major cardiovascular events, and a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction for the duration of the follow-up. Mean follow-up was 18 months for CAS and 23 months for CEA. Significant differences were present in patient age (CAS, 75 +/- 11.0 years vs CEA, 71 +/- 9 years, P = 0.012), however, there were no significant differences (P = NS) in gender or smoking history. The mean modified Goldman Score was significantly higher for CAS (21.1 +/- 14.8 [95% confidence interval = 18, 24]) than for CEA (6.3 +/- 6.8 [95% confidence interval = 5.7, 6.9]; P = 0.0001) patients. The incidence of periprocedural complications did not vary significantly between patients treated with CAS (CVA, 1.4%; myocardial infarction [MI], 1.4%; death, 0.7%; CVA/MI/death, 3.4%) compared with CEA (CVA, 1.8%; MI, 1.1%; death, 0.4%; CVA/MI/death, 4.0%). CAS is equivalent to CEA in safety and efficacy, even when performed in patients who may be at increased surgical risk.     

颈动脉内膜剥脱术和颈动脉支架的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的 评价颈动脉内膜剥脱术和颈动脉支架治疗颈动脉狭窄的近期和中期临床效果.方法 前瞻性单中心随机对照研究,自2004年5月至2006年12月,将同意入组的40例有症状(狭窄程度>50%)和无症状(狭窄程度>70%)颈动脉狭窄患者随机分为两组,即颈动脉内膜剥脱术组(CEA)和颈动脉支架组(CAS).一期观察终点是术后30 d内出现严重脑梗死或死亡;二期观察终点是各种手术并发症、急性脑缺血发作、偏瘫、急性心肌梗死和术后18个月内的脑卒中、死亡和再狭窄等,同时回顾性分析两组总的住院费用.结果 CEA和CAS两组患者术前一般资料、临床症状、伴随疾病等因素均无差异.CEA组20例23支颈动脉手术(3例分别行双侧CEA),术中应用转流管9条(39.1%),颈动脉补片12条(52.2%);CAS组20例23支颈动脉支架(3例行双侧CAS),应用脑保护装置21个(91.3%).CEA和CAS两组术后30 d内神经系统并发症(4.3%对8.7%,P=0.46)、急性心肌梗死(4.3%对0,P=0.31)和伤口血肿(8.7%对0,P=0.14)等差异均无统计学意义,至术后18个月无短暂性脑缺血发作和再狭窄病例.CEA和CAS两组平均住院费用分别为(16 450.95±6188.76)和(70 130.15±11 999.02)元人民币,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).结论 CEA和CAS术后30 d和术后18个月的并发症、病死率和临床疗效无明显差异,但CAS的住院花费明显高于CEA.     

双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的处理策略

目的:探讨双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的手术适应证、时机和策略.方法:1987年2月至2007年12月共收治74例双侧颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者,其中34例患者症状限于一侧,均施行了一侧颈动脉内膜切除(CEA),其中8例对侧因狭窄>70%或粥样硬化斑块不稳定而行CEA或支架成形(CAS).38例双侧均有症状,15例双侧先后施行CEA;3例一侧行CEA,对侧行CAS;20例仅行单侧CEA.另外2例双侧无症状,均因狭窄>70%而行单侧CEA,其中1例还行对侧CAS.结果:本组74例患者共行93侧CEA,68例术后顺利,2例神经功能障碍加重,2例出现心肌缺血,1例脑出血,1例声音嘶哑.67例患者平均随访4.9年,63例无与术侧颈动脉相关的脑缺血事件发生.结论:颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者只要指征明确,无论对侧颈动脉正常、狭窄甚至闭塞,均应施行CEA.双侧狭窄患者的治疗时机和策略因人而异.CEA术中主要依据电生理监测结果决定是否采用转流.     

高危颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术和支架术的对比分析

目的对比颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）与颈动脉支架置入术（carotid artery stenting,CAS）在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄中的作用。方法对58例颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者进行回顾性对照研究。其中32例为CEA组;26例为CAS组。术后30d、6个月、1年均进行颈部B超、CTA复查或DSA和神经系统检查。初级观察终点设定为术后30d内发生死亡、卒中事件、心血管不良事件,或随访6个月内的死亡或同侧卒中事件;次级观察终点为与CEA或CAS相关的并发症,或1年内的重度再狭窄。比较2组术后治疗的效果。结果CEA组有3例达到初级观察终点,发生率为9.4%;CAS组有4例达到初级观察点,累积发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.086,P=0.769）。CEA组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为12.5%;CAS组有4例达到次级观察终点,发生率为15.4%（χ2=0.000,P=1.000）。结论CAS在治疗高危颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄时,在安全性和有效性方面与CEA是相同的。     

Outcome of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty versus open surgical repair of recurrent carotid stenosis

PURPOSE: We compared outcome and durability of carotid stent-assisted angioplasty (CAS) with open surgical repair (ie, repeat carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) to treat recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). METHODS: A retrospective review of anatomic and neurologic outcomes was carried out after 27 repeat CEA procedures (1993-2002) and 52 CAS procedures (1997-2002) performed to treat high-grade internal carotid artery (ICA) RCS after CEA. The incidence of intervention because of symptomatic RCS was similar (repeat CEA, 63%; CAS, 60%), but the interval from primary CEA to repeat intervention was greater (P <.05) in the repeat CEA group (83 +/- 15 months) compared with the CAS group (50 +/- 8 months). In the CAS group, 17 of 52 arteries (33%) were judged not to be surgical candidates because of surgically inaccessible high lesions (n = 8), medical comorbid conditions (n = 4), neck irradiation (n = 3), or previous surgery with cranial nerve deficit or stroke (n = 2). Three patients who underwent repeat CEA had lesions not appropriate for treatment with CAS. RESULTS: Overall 30-day morbidity was similar after CAS (12%; death due to ipsilateral intracranial hemorrhage, 1; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible neurologic deficits or transient ischemic attack, 2; access site complication, 2). and repeat CEA (11%; no death; nondisabling stroke, 1; reversible cranial nerve injury, 1; cervical hematoma, 1). Combined stroke and death rate was 3.7% for repeat CEA and 5.7% for CAS (P >.1). All duplex ultrasound scans obtained within 3 months after CEA and CAS demonstrated patent ICA and velocity spectra of less than 50% stenosis. During follow-up, no repeat CEA (mean, 39 months) or CAS (mean, 26 months) repair demonstrated ICA occlusion, but two patients (8%) who underwent repeat CEA and 4 patients (8%) who underwent CAS required balloon or stent angioplasty because of 80% RCS. At last follow-up, no patient had ipsilateral stroke and all ICA remain patent. At duplex scanning, stenosis-free (<50% diameter reduction) ICA patency at 36 months was 75% after repeat CEA and 57% after CAS (P =.26, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid angioplasty for treatment of high-grade stenotic ICA after CEA resulted in similar anatomic and neurologic outcomes compared with open surgical repair. Most lesions are amenable to endovascular therapy, and CAS enabled treatment in patients judged not to be suitable surgical candidates. Duplex scanning surveillance after repeat CEA or CAS is recommended, because stenosis can recur after either secondary procedure.     

Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to be effective in stroke prevention for patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Although several prospective randomized trials indicate that carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative but not superior treatment modality, there is still a significant lack of long-term data comparing CAS with CEA. This study presents long-term results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. METHODS: Between August 1999 and April 2002, 87 patients with a symptomatic high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis (>70%) were randomized to CAS or CEA. After a median observation time of 66 +/- 14.2 months (CAS) and 64 +/- 12.1 months (CEA), 42 patients in each group were re-evaluated retrospectively by clinical examination and documentation of neurologic events. Duplex ultrasound imaging was performed in 61 patients (32 CAS, 29 CEA), and patients with restenosis >70% were re-evaluated by angiography. RESULTS: During the observation period, 23 patients (25.2%) died (10 CAS, 13 CEA), and three were lost to follow up. The incidence of strokes was higher after CAS, with four strokes in 42 CAS patients vs none in 42 CEA patients. One transient ischemic attack occurred in each group. A significantly higher rate of restenosis >70% (6 of 32 vs 0 of 29) occurred after CAS compared with CEA. Five of 32 CAS patients (15.6%) presented with high-grade (>70%) restenosis as an indication for secondary intervention or surgical stent removal, and three presented with neurologic symptoms. No CEA patients required reintervention (P < .05 vs CAS). A medium-grade (<70%) restenosis was detected in eight of 32 CAS patients (25%) and in one of 29 CEA patients (3.4%). In five of 32 CAS (15.6%) and three of 29 CEA patients (10.3%), a high-grade stenosis of the contralateral carotid artery was observed and treated during the observation period. CONCLUSION: The long-term results of this prospective, randomized, single-center study revealed a high incidence of relevant restenosis and neurologic symptoms after CAS. CEA seems to be superior to CAS concerning the development of restenosis and significant prevention of stroke. However, the long-term results of the ongoing multicenter trials have to be awaited for a final conclusion.     

Clinical impact of sex on carotid revascularization

BackgroundThe impact of sex in the management of carotid disease is unclear in the current literature. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of sex on perioperative outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe included patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2012 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Our primary outcome was perioperative stroke/death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, 30-day mortality, and in-hospital MI. We compared perioperative outcomes between female and male patients, stratified by treatment modality and symptom status, and used multivariable regression to account for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 83,436 patients underwent either a CEA (71,383) or CAS (12,053). Asymptomatic and symptomatic CEA females were less likely to be on a preoperative antiplatelet agent, when compared to males. Females overall, were less likely to be on a preoperative statin and more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Within the CAS cohort, females were more likely to have a previous ipsilateral CEA. There were no differences between males and females in major adverse events following CEA for asymptomatic disease. Following CEA for symptomatic disease, there was no difference in stroke/death rate or in-hospital stroke. However, females experienced a higher 30-mortality after adjustment (univariate: 1.0% vs 0.7%, P = .04; adjusted: odds ratio [OR], 1.4:1.02-1.94). Following CAS for asymptomatic disease, females experienced a higher rate of perioperative stroke/death (2.9% vs 1.9% P = .02; OR, 1.5: 1.05-2.03) and in-hospital stroke (2.1% vs 1.2% P = .01; OR, 1.8: 1.20-2.60). There were no differences in outcomes for symptomatic females vs males undergoing CAS.ConclusionsFemales with carotid disease less frequently receive optimal medical treatment with antiplatelet agents and statins. This is an important target area for quality improvement issue in both females and males. Furthermore, among symptomatic CEA patients the female sex is associated with higher mortality and among asymptomatic CAS patients, females experience higher rates of stroke/death. These findings suggest that careful patient selection is necessary in the treatment of female patients. Quality improvement projects should be created to further investigate and eliminate the disparities of optimal medical management between the sexes.     

Comparison of nationwide trends in 30-day readmission rates after carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy

ObjectiveCarotid revascularization procedures, carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), are among the most common vascular interventions performed in the United States, with significant resource utilization. Whereas multiple studies have reported outcomes after these procedures, data regarding 30-day readmission rates after these interventions remain scant.MethodsThe U.S. Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2014) was queried to identify all patients ≥18 years who were readmitted within 30 days after a hospital discharge for CEA or CAS.ResultsAmong 476,260 patients included, 13.5% underwent CAS and 86.5% underwent CEA. The combined 30-day readmission rate for all carotid revascularization procedures was 9.2% (10.6% after CAS and 9.0% after CEA). After 1:3 propensity matching, CAS was associated with higher risk of readmission compared with CEA (10.4% vs 9.4%). Neurologic complications and cardiac conditions were the two most common causes of readmission after both CAS (29.7% and 23.7%, respectively) and CEA (28.2% and 21.7%, respectively). The 30-day readmission rates were higher in CAS patients across all age groups as well as in those with a low or high baseline burden of comorbidities.ConclusionsIn this large nationwide study, CAS was associated with higher 30-day readmission rates compared with CEA irrespective of age or baseline burden of comorbidities. Neurologic or cardiac adverse events were responsible for >50% of readmissions after CAS and CEA.     

Cerebral embolization in patients undergoing protected carotid-artery stenting and carotid surgery

AIM: Intraoperative cerebral embolization is a greater concern in patients undergoing carotid-artery stenting (CAS) than in those undergoing the reference standard treatment carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We evaluated cerebral embolism with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and transcranial Doppler monitoring during CAS and CEA. METHODS: A series of 75 patients with carotid stenosis, 40 undergoing CEA and 35 transfemoral protected CAS, underwent preoperative and postoperative cerebral DW-MRI. Of the 75 patients, 64 (85%) underwent intraoperative transcranial Doppler monitoring to evaluate the mean number of microembolic signals (MES) recorded in each procedure. RESULTS: None of the patients died. No patient in the CEA but two in the CAS group had strokes (5.7%, P=NS). The mean MES count on transcranial Doppler monitoring was higher in the CAS than in the CEA group (330.0 MES, range 2754 vs 13.2, range 0-49 MES; P<0.01). DW-MRI disclosed a significantly larger number of new ischemic lesions in the CAS than in the CEA group (40 lesions in 12/35 patients, 34.3% vs 4 lesions in 3/40 patients, 7.5%; P<0.01). In the CEA group, all patients with ischemic lesions were asymptomatic whereas in the CAS group 5 were symptomatic (14.3%) and 7 asymptomatic (20%). The cerebral distribution also differed in the two groups: no CEA but 20% of CAS lesions were contralateral. CONCLUSION: CAS is associated with a significantly higher rate of cerebral embolization than CEA. Even though the clinical meaning of new postoperative ischemic lesions remains debatable, it seems prudent to reduce the embolic load by improving procedural techniques and cerebral protection devices.     

颅外段颈动脉狭窄的治疗策略

目的：探讨颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄的治疗方法。方法回顾性分析上海中山医院血管外科2012年1～6月51例颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的临床资料,16例行颈动脉内膜剥脱术（carotid endarterectomy,CEA）,35例行颈动脉支架置入术（ carotid artery stenting ,CAS）。结果51例手术均获成功,1例CAS术后即刻脑卒中,1例CEA术后第3天短暂性脑缺血发作（transient ischemic attack,TIA）,1例CAS术后颈动脉窦压迫。全组术后随访9～15个月,平均13．6月,复查颈动脉B超,无严重再狭窄。结论根据颅外段颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄患者的相关医学资料,对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CEA：①6个月内1次或多次TIA,且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②6个月内1次或多次轻度非致残性卒中发作,症状或体征持续超过24小时且颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;③对于经颈部血管CTA和颈动脉全脑血管造影发现的颈动脉狭窄段≥2 cm。对于有下列情况之一的患者我们倾向于行CAS：①无症状性颈动脉狭窄度≥70％;②有症状性狭窄度范围50％～69％;③无症状性颈动脉狭窄度＜70％,但血管造影或其他检查提示狭窄病变处于不稳定状态。     

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BackgroundMicroembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.MethodsPatients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.ResultsA total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.ConclusionsPatients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.     

Carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and postprocedure hypotension

INTRODUCTION: Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become established as the preferred approach to the management of critical carotid stenosis, carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) has arisen as a competitive modality. We report here a nonindustry-supported experience using CAS in a nonselected patient population suffering from critical carotid stenosis. METHODS: All patients suffering from carotid stenosis (>50% symptomatic or >80% asymptomatic) were offered CAS or CEA. The first 36 patients who underwent attempted CAS over this last year are reported here. CAS was performed with the SMART PRECISE (Cordis, Inc, Miami Lakes, FL) or ACCULINK (Guidant, Inc, St Paul, MN) stents. All procedures were performed with cerebral protection. RESULTS: The planned procedure success rate was 97%, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate was 3.0% in 35 patients who underwent successful CAS. This included a minor stroke and a subendocardial myocardial infarction in the same individual. Both events were attributed to sustained postprocedure hypotension. The most frequent intraprocedure complications observed were bradycardia and hypotension. Persistent postprocedure hypotension requiring vasopressor support complicated 23% of cases. The average duration of vasopressor support in this group was 21 hours. CONCLUSION: CAS can be accomplished with an MAE comparable to CEA and will likely become the dominant alternative to CEA for the management of carotid stenosis. Management of periprocedural cardiovascular instability represents one of the most important elements in the safe conduct of CAS.     

Comparison of outcomes in women and men following carotid interventions in the Washington state's Vascular Interventional Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program

Background

The benefit for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to prevent a potential stroke has been shown to be less beneficial for women compared with men and the risk of carotid stenting (CAS) is higher in women than men. We hypothesized that a community-based Washington state registry data would also reveal increased morbidity and mortality for women undergoing carotid interventions.

Postprocedural microembolic events following carotid surgery and carotid angioplasty and stenting

OBJECTIVE: The relative safety of percutaneous carotid interventions remains controversial. Few studies have used diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) to evaluate the safety of these interventions. We compared the incidence and distribution of cerebral microembolic events after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) with distal protection to standard open carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using DW-MRI. METHODS: From November 2004 through August 2006, 69 carotid interventions (27 CAS, and 42 CEA) were performed in 68 males at a single institution. Pre- and postprocedure DW-MRI exams were obtained on each patient undergoing CAS and the 20 most recent CEA operations. These 46 patients (47 procedures as one patient underwent bilateral CEAs in a staged fashion) constitute our study sample, and the hospital records of these patients (27 CAS and 20 CEA) were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and location of acute, postprocedural microemboli were determined using DW-MRIs and assessed independently by two neuroradiologists without knowledge of the subjects' specific procedure. RESULTS: Nineteen CAS patients (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 42%-81%) demonstrated evidence of postoperative, acute, cerebral microemboli by DW-MRI vs none of the CEA patients (0%, 95% CI: 0%-17%) (P < .0001). Of the 19 CAS patients with postoperative emboli, nine (47%) were ipsilateral to the index carotid lesion, three (16%) contralateral, and seven (36%) bilateral. The median number of ipsilateral microemboli identified in the CAS group was 1 (interquartile ranges [IQR]: 0-2, range 0-21). The median number of contralateral microemboli identified in the CAS group was 0 (IQR: 0-1, range 0-5). Three (11%) CAS patients experienced temporary neurologic sequelae lasting less than 36 hours. These patients suffered 12 (six ipsilateral and six contralateral), 20 (19 ipsilateral and one contralateral), and zero microemboli, respectively. By univariate analysis, performing an arch angiogram prior to CAS was associated with a higher risk of microemboli (median microemboli 5 vs none, P =.04) CONCLUSIONS: Although our early experience suggests that CAS may be performed safely (no permanent neurologic deficits following 27 consecutive procedures), cerebral microembolic events occurred in over two-thirds of the procedures despite the uniform use of distal protection. Open carotid surgery in this series seems to offer a lower risk of periprocedural microembolic events detected by DW-MRI.     

Silent stroke and cognitive decline in asymptomatic carotid stenosis revascularization

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between serum levels of S100β and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), postoperative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score in asymptomatic patients affected by ≥ 70% carotid stenosis submitted to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS), and to compare MMSE scores and DW-MRI findings at follow-up evaluations. Between April 2008 and April 2009, 60 patients were submitted to carotid intervention. All patients underwent DW-MRI and MMSE preoperatively, at 24 hours postoperatively, at 6 months and at 12 months. Neurobiomarkers were assessed for each patient at six time-points. Thirty-two patients were submitted to CEA and 28 to CAS. No mortality was observed. One CAS patient presented with an ischemic stroke. In six CAS patients and one CEA patient, new subclinical ischemic lesions were detected at postoperative DW-MRI (21.4% versus 3%, P = 0.03). In CAS patients, new DW-MRI lesions were significantly associated with MMSE score decline (P = 0.001). At 12 months, patients presenting with new postoperative ischemic lesions showed lower MMSE scores (P = 0.08). CAS patients showed increasing neurobiomarker levels compared with CEA patients (P = 0.02). In conclusion, microembolization effects may persist over time, so it should be avoided whenever possible. Carotid revascularization procedures should be evaluated and compared not only with respect to death/stroke but also to microembolism rates.