Age and gender disparities in the risk of carotid revascularization procedures

The potential effect of age and gender stratification in the outcome of patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid revascularization procedures (CRP) may have important implications in clinical practice. Both European Stroke Organization and American Heart Association guidelines suggest that age and sex should be taken into account when selecting a CRP for an individual patient. We reviewed available literature data through Medline and Embase. Our search was based on the combination of terms: age, gender, sex, carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Postoperative stroke and mortality rates increased with age after any CRP (CEA or CAS), especially in patients aged over 75 years. Older patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing CAS were found to have a nearly double risk of stroke or death compared with CEA, while CEA was found to benefit more patients aged over 70 years with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Male patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis had lower stroke/mortality rates and benefited more from CEA compared with females. For the periprocedural risk of stroke or death in patients with carotid artery stenosis after CAS no sex differences were found. Therefore, CEA appears to have lower perioperative risks than CAS in patients aged over 70 years, and thus should be the treatment of choice if not contraindicated. The periprocedural risk of CEA is lower in men than in women, while there was no effect of gender on the periprocedural risk of CAS.     

Treatment of carotid artery disease: Stenting or surgery?

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the only form of cerebral revascularization for which Level 1 evidence of effectiveness has been reported. Recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of carotid artery stenting (CAS) as an alternative to CEA. Its popularity is due to the perceived advantages of a less invasive treatment for carotid occlusive disease. Two randomized trials have reported no difference in the composite stroke, death, and myocardial infarction rate between CAS and CEA. However, these trials were not powered to identify superiority between the two procedures. A trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health is currently underway to make that determination. The lead-in phase of this trial noted low complication rates with CAS. These results have encouraged the US Food and Drug Administration to approve the use of CAS in patients with neurologic symptoms (ie, ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and amaurosis fugax) in association with severe medical co-morbidities. Patients with carotid restenosis after previous CEA, anatomically inaccessible lesions above C2, and radiation-induced stenoses may also benefit from preferential treatment with CAS. The National Institutes of Health have now expanded the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) to include asymptomatic patients, and resulting data will help to clarify the role of CAS in this subset as well.     

Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy in a single academic center

BACKGROUND: Evidence is accumulating that carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) might become an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of high-grade carotid artery disease (CAD). Evaluating the efficacy of this novel technique in single institutions in addition to performing further large trials can help to guide optimal patient management in everyday practice. METHODS: In this study we compared the early outcome of 100 prospectively followed patients who underwent CAS with a retrospectively reviewed group of 142 patients that underwent CEA over the same time period. Only patients who had received pre- and postsurgical evaluations by a neurologist were included. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials the occurrence of minor or major strokes, myocardial infarction and death within 30 days was analysed. RESULTS: Both groups had similar age and sex distributions, as well as cerebrovascular risk factors. In the group of CAS patients 63 (63%) and in the group of CEA patients 92 (65%) had a symptomatic carotid stenosis, respectively. For symptomatic patients the overall complication rate (any stroke or death) was 6.5% (3 minor and 3 major strokes) in the surgical and 8% (2 minor strokes, 2 major strokes, and 1 death) in the non-surgical group (n.s.). For asymptomatic patients there was one minor stroke (2%) in the surgical and no stroke or death in the non-surgical group. As a frequent non-neurological complication the post-procedural course was complicated by groin hematoma requiring surgery in 3 CAS patients, and neck hematoma requiring additional surgery in 3 CEA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Within our academic institution we found comparable complication rates for CAS and CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic high-grade CAD. Although these early results are promising and support the notion that CAS may become an alternative treatment option for CAD in everyday practice, the long-term efficacy of CAS has to be evaluated critically by means of further prospective studies.     

Carotid endarterectomy: a review

BACKGROUND: Since the validation of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as an effective means of stroke prevention, there has been renewed interest in its best indications and methods, as well as in how it compares to carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). This review examines these topics, as well as the investigation of carotid stenosis and the role of auditing and reporting CEA results. INVESTIGATION: Brain imaging with CT or MRI should be obtained in patients considered for CEA, in order to document infarction and rule out mass lesions. Carotid investigation begins with ultrasound and, if results agree with subsequent, good-quality MRA or CT angiography, treatment can be planned and catheter angiography avoided. An equally acceptable approach is to proceed directly from ultrasound to catheter angiography, which is still the gold-standard in carotid artery assessment. INDICATIONS: Appropriate patients for CEA are those symptomatic with transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling stroke due to 70-99% carotid stenosis; the maximum allowable stroke and death rate being 6%. Uncertain candidates for CEA are those with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis, and those with asymptomatic stenosis > or = 60% but, if selected carefully on the basis of additional risk factors (related to both the carotid plaque and certain patient characteristics), some will benefit from surgery. Asymptomatic patients will only benefit if surgery can be provided with exceptionally low major complication rates (3% or less). Inappropriate patients are those with less than 50% symptomatic or 60% asymptomatic stenosis, and those with unstable medical or neurological conditions. TECHNIQUES: Carotid endarterectomy can be performed with either regional or general anaesthesia and, for the latter, there are a number of monitoring techniques available to assess cerebral perfusion during carotid cross-clamping. While monitoring cannot be considered mandatory and no single monitoring technique has emerged as being clearly superior, EEG is most commonly used. "Eversion" endarterectomy is a variation in surgical technique, and there is some evidence that more widely practiced patch closure may reduce the acute risk of operative stroke and the longer-term risk of recurrent stenosis. CAROTID ANGIOPLASTY AND STENTING: Experience with this endovascular and less invasive procedure grows, and its technology continues to evolve. Some experienced therapists have reported excellent results in case series and a number of randomized trials are now underway comparing CAS to CEA. However, at this time it is premature to incorporate CAS into routine practice replacing CEA. AUDITING: It has been shown that auditing of CEA indications and results with regular feed-back to the operating surgeons can significantly improve the performance of this operation. Carotid endarterectomy auditing is recommended on both local and regional levels.     

The Role of Neurosonology in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Carotid Artery Disease: A Review

Carotid artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of ischemic stroke with high rates of recurrence. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are highly recommended for the secondary prevention of symptomatic CAD during the first 14 days following the index event of transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. CEA or CAS may also be offered in selected cases with severe asymptomatic stenosis. Herein, we review the utility of neurosonology in the diagnosis and pre‐/peri‐interventional assessment of CAD patients who undergo carotid revascularization procedures. Carotid ultrasound may provide invaluable information on plaque echogenicity, ulceration, risk of thrombosis, and rupture. Transcranial Doppler or transcranial color‐coded sonography may further assist by mapping collateral circulation, evaluating the impairment of vasomotor reactivity, detecting microembolization, or reperfusion hemorrhage in real time. Neurosonology examinations are indispensable bedside tools assisting in the diagnosis, risk stratification, peri‐interventional monitoring, and follow‐up of patients with CAD.     

Neurological complications of carotid revascularisation

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective treatment for patients with recently symptomatic severe carotid stenosis and in selected patients with symptomatic moderate carotid stenosis. Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is emerging as an alternative to CEA, and randomised controlled trials suggest comparable efficacy to CEA in prevention of non-perioperative stroke. Neurovascular complications can result from both procedures, usually from thromboembolism from the operated vessel, cerebral hypoperfusion causing ischaemia and, rarely, intracerebral haemorrhage. The overall incidence of perioperative strokes complicating CEA and CAS is approximately 4% and 6%, respectively, and represents a devastating outcome that the procedure was designed to prevent. Other neurological sequelae complicating carotid revascularisation include cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, cranial and peripheral nerve injuries, and contrast encephalopathy in patients undergoing CAS. In this review, we analyse the incidence, mechanisms and perioperative management of neurological complications for patients undergoing carotid revascularisation.     

Periprocedural outcome for patients with carotid stenosis treated with endovascular therapy: a single center evaluation

Endovascular procedures are a less invasive revascularization strategies than endoarterectomy for carotid stenosis, but to date Guidelines recommend surgery for a major periprocedural safety. Evidences come from randomized studies where operator’s experience in endovascular group was not considered. We retrospectively evaluated 524 endovascular procedures (carotid angioplasty ± stenting, CAS) performed between 1996 and 2010 on 486 patients (mean age 71.3 ± 7.8 years) with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from a single center. We evaluated efficacy (residual stenosis ≤30 % after postprocedural angiography) and safety [minor (TIAs or myocardial infarcts) and major (stroke or death) complications in the first 30 days] of procedures and correlated them with the increasing experience of the operator. CAS was successful in 504/524 cases (96.2 %); unsuccessful procedures occurred more frequently in case of angioplasty alone rather than angioplasty and stenting (13/61, 21.3 % vs. 7/463, 1.5 %, OR 17.64, 95 % CI 6.69–46.06). 17/524 (3.2 %) CAS met the combined safety endpoint: stroke in 2.4 % and death in 0.8 %; the rate of disabling stroke/death was 1.6 %. Center experience was inversely related to the rate of stroke/death (R ² = 0.9375), passing from 5.0 % after 100 CAS to 2.8 % after 500 CAS; for disabling stroke/death (R ² = 0.9386), the rate was 4 % after 100 CAS and 1.6 % after 500 CAS. CAS is an effective and safe revascularization procedure in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, if effected in experienced centers. The use of carotid artery stenting than angioplasty alone and emboli protection devices can much more improve the previous considerations.     

血管成形术治疗症状性重度颈动脉狭窄的临床研究

目的 探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)和颈动脉支架成形术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)治疗症状性重度颈动脉狭窄的近期和中期临床效果.方法 回顾性地分析了2016年1月至2018年12月在我院接受CEA或CAS治疗的203例症状性重度颈动脉狭窄患者的...     

Consensus and controversy in the treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular diseases]

Surgical and endovascular revascularization for ischemic cerebrovascular diseases (CVD) should be strictly indicated based on medical treatment. In this report, we describe current consensus and controversy in the treatment of ischemic CVD, and perspectives. 1) Local intra-arterial fibrinolytic therapy for acute cerebral embolism; intra-venous t-PA can be beneficial when given within 3 hours of stroke onset (NINDS), but many patients present later after stroke onset and alternative treatments are needed. Despite an increased frequency intracranial hemorrhage, treatment with intra-arterial proUK within 6 hours for MCA occlusion significantly improved clinical outcome at 90 days (mRS 40% >25%, PROACT-II). MELT-Japan are going now and waiting for results. 2) Carotid stenting; Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in those considered at high risk for CEA. SAPPHIRE study confirmed CAS is an excellent option for patients with coexisting coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and other comorbid conditions that make them poor candidates for CEA. Now, CREST in USA and CSSA in Europe are going for randomized trial compared with CEA and CAS in any risk for CEA patients. 3) Stenting for intracranial arteries; Stroke rates in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis may be high on medical therapy. Although there is no clinical evidence and appropriate devices for intracranial vessels, it seems to be a potentially effective in the future.     

Carotid Artery Stenosis: Medical Therapy,Surgery, and Stenting

Purpose of Review

The purpose of the study was to update the recent information pertaining to carotid artery stenosis risk stratification and treatment.

Recent Findings

Current decision-making related to carotid artery stenosis is based on clinical trials that are outdated. Medical therapy has improved considerably in the past two decades, and this has reduced the stroke rate for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenoses. In recent community-based studies, the stroke risk with asymptomatic stenosis has been < 1% per year. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, new trials such as CREST 2 and ECST 2 will determine whether revascularization has any benefit beyond aggressive medical management. For symptomatic patients, carotid endarterectomy is associated with a lower periprocedural stroke rate compared to carotid stenting. Age greater than 70 years is also associated with an increased risk for carotid stenting patients.

Summary

Clinicians should consider a variety of clinical and radiologic variables in reaching treatment decisions for patients with carotid stenosis. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients should receive optimal medical therapy.

     

Carotid artery revascularization

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, and up to one third of patients have a stroke secondary to carotid occlusive disease. Surgical management has firmly established itself as an important modality in treating this disease. Several prospective randomized trials have defined the patients that would have the most benefit from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). These patient populations include asymptomatic patients with a >or= 60% stenosis and symptomatic patients with a >or= 50% stenosis. The timing of CEA after stroke remains controversial, but recent studies advocate early CEA in a select group of patients. During the CEA, the method of closing of the arteriotomy has an overall effect on the safety of the procedure as well as long-term outcome. As compared with primary repair of the arteriotomy, patch closure has been shown to decrease the frequency of restenosis. In addition, carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) is an alternative method to remove the plaque that has a similar efficacy to standard CEA. The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) continues to evolve and offers the patient a less invasive method of treating the carotid plaque.     

Current status of carotid endarterectomy and stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis

There is still considerable uncertainty about the place of carotid stenting in patients with recently symptomatic carotid bifurcation stenosis. Most reviews of carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting concentrate on technical aspects and advances in stenting, but the techniques involved in both carotid endarterectomy and stenting are evolving. In addition to reviewing the results of the various randomised controlled trials of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, this review considers recent advances and current best practice for endarterectomy. Ongoing randomized trials will determine whether or not the procedural risk of stroke and death is definitely lower with endarterectomy than with stenting, but the key issue that remains to be determined reliably is how the procedural risks of stenting vary with patient characteristics - perhaps the most important question being not whether endarterectomy is better than stenting or vice versa, but for whom is one technique likely to be better than the other.     

Comparative Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Clinical Practice

The objective of the study was to describe immediate and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) with embolic protection in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study, conducted between 2009 and 2017.During the analyzed period, 2132 operations (2006 patients) were performed: 1215 (57%) CEA and 917 (43%) CAS. 278 patients (13.8% of 2006) were not contactable during the follow-up period (>30 days) leaving 1791 cases (1728 patients) for inclusion in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to compare the treatment results of groups (561 cases were matched out of 1791). The results of 615 CEA (316 eversion, 299 “classic” with patch) and 615 CAS (using a variety of carotid stents) were compared. Results: In the asymptomatic subgroup (n = 455), the 30-day rate of stroke was not significantly different between the CEA group and the CAS group (1.5% versus 2.4%, P = .48). The 5-year rate of stroke was not significantly higher for CAS than for CEA (4.6% versus 3.3%, P = .3). In the symptomatic subgroup (n = 160), the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group (7.5% versus 2.5%, P = .04). The 5-year rate of stroke was 13% for CAS and 8.7% for CEA (P = .2). Conclusions: In the symptomatic subgroup, the 30-day rate of stroke was significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group, therefore the use of CAS for symptomatic patients in routine practice should be limited. Our study demonstrates that the rates of stroke and survival after CEA and CAS in patients aged 80 years or younger with asymptomatic or symptomatic severe carotid stenosis did not differ significantly over a period of 5 years.     

High rate of restenosis after carotid artery stenting in patients with high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard procedure for the majority of patients with high-grade symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis and also for specified high-grade asymptomatic stenoses; however, a proportion of patients are treated with carotid endovascular therapy. We aimed to document medium-term clinical and neurosonographical outcome after carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: 53 patients (mean age: 65 +/- 8 years) with high-grade (> or = 70 % by means of duplex sonography) carotid artery stenosis were enrolled into the study. Nineteen patients had asymptomatic, 34 patients had symptomatic stenoses. All patients had a pre-interventional CT, Doppler and duplex sonography, and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) prior to the procedural DSA. All patients were offered CEA as the gold-standard procedure and as an alternative to CAS. Both clinical and Duplex sonographical follow-up was obtained at day 1 and 7, month 1, month 3, month 6, month 12, and every subsequent 6 months after the procedure. Mean follow-up time was 22 +/- 1.6 months (+/- SEM). RESULTS: 2/53 patients suffered from stroke. A further 2 patients suffered from carotid artery occlusion shortly after CAS. The cumulative rate of restenosis during follow-up was 24.5 % (13/53). Four of these (7.5 %) were of high-grade and led to further interventional or surgical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of restenosis was found during follow-up after CAS. Our analysis of non-selected patients emphasizes that CEA remains the gold-standard procedure for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis. The frequently performed endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis outside the setting of a randomized controlled trial is not supported by our data.     

Strategy for management of carotid arterial stenosis: analysis of 293 consecutive patients in a Japanese cerebrovascular center]

Carotid arterial stenosis is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke and is increasing in Japan as the life-style has been westernized. The purpose of this study was to clarify the detailed process of diagnosis and treatment of patients with carotid arterial stenosis. Of the consecutive 1,889 hospitalized patients in our cerebrovascular center during 2001 and 2003, 293 patients had carotid stenosis 50% or more in diameter by the NASCET method; 82 patients were hospitalized during the acute stage of ischemic stroke and 211 patients with or without past history of ischemic stroke were admitted in the chronic stage. Among acute ischemic stroke patients, 62 patients (76%) had mild neurological symptoms of NIH Stroke Scale score < or = 4 on admission. As the initial treatment during the acute phase, all patients underwent antithrombotic medication; 33 of them underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid arterial stenting (CAS) in the chronic stage. Of 211 chronic patients, 123 (58%) did not have a history of symptomatic ischemic stroke, and instead had nonspecific symptoms, including carotid bruit, headache, and vertigo, or were diagnosed as having carotid artery stenosis by examinations of preoperative screenings. One hundred and thirty-five chronic patients underwent CEA/CAS and all the others except for a patient with serious gastrointestinal bleeding underwent anti-thrombotic medication. Statin treatment was chosen for 59 acute patients and 66 chronic patients. Because many patients with carotid arterial stenosis had mild symptoms during the acute phase or did not have ischemic episodes, we might overlook carotid lesions unless we performed screening examinations using ultrasound or magnetic resonance angiography.     

Endarterectomy, best medical treatment or both for stroke prevention in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently frequently performed in subjects with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis over 70%, as clinical trials like the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial demonstrated a significant benefit for stroke prevention. A low risk reduction in the long-term prevention of stroke or death and the required lower than 3% of surgical risk are associated with surgery. That means that an important number of patients needs to be operated to prevent 1 stroke over 5 years (number needed to treat: 21) with an absolute risk reduction of 5.4%. It is reasonable to consider CEA for patients aged 40-75 years and with asymptomatic stenosis of 60-99%, for patients with a life expectancy of at least 5 years, and in centres with a surgical morbidity-mortality of less than 3%. Therefore, it is of interest to identify high-risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis who will more likely benefit from surgery. Techniques such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging may identify plaque morphology or detect clinically asymptomatic embolization. CEA combined with the best medical treatment and good management of modifiable risk factors might be superior to medical management alone or surgery in preventing stroke. There is no level I evidence to support carotid artery stenting in asymptomatic carotid stenosis even in a subgroup of patients with a high surgical risk.     

颈动脉粥样硬化斑块无创性高分辨力磁共振成像研究进展

颈动脉粥样硬化性狭窄与脑卒中复发密切相关。目前颈动脉狭窄的治疗方法主要包括药物治疗和外科手术(颈动脉支架成形术和颈动脉内膜切除术)。脑卒中预防在于识别颈动脉狭窄危险因素,筛查脑卒中复发高危患者,从而使其从药物治疗或外科手术中获益,然而目前仅根据颈动脉狭窄程度制定治疗方案,缺乏个体化治疗。近年来,新型影像学技术如无创性高分辨力磁共振成像(HRMRI)等,可以检测出颈动脉易损斑块。与传统数字减影血管造影术测量的颈动脉狭窄程度相比,无创性HRMRI可以根据颈动脉斑块特征准确预测同侧脑卒中风险,从而指导个体化治疗。     

T-Configuration Stent Placement for Carotid Bifurcation Stenosis Co-Existing with Ipsilateral Intracranial Stenosis: A Case Report and Literature Review

In patients with carotid bifurcation stenosis co-existing with ipsilateral intracranial artery stenosis, combined treatment with carotid artery stenting (CAS)/carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and extracranial-to- intracranial (EC-IC) bypass can be a useful option to prevent future ischemic stroke events. EC-IC bypass requires a sufficient antegrade flow in the ipsilateral external carotid artery. However, standard CAS/CEA occasionally lead to external carotid artery occlusion. Herein, we present a case of successful one-stage endovascular revascularization of both the antegrade internal and external carotid artery flow using the carotid T-stent technique for carotid bifurcation stenosis co-existing with ipsilateral middle cerebral artery stenosis.     

Endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis: update on carotid angioplasty and stenting

The endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis has undergone substantial refinement since its introduction, and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting is now widely performed on symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Well-designed, large randomized prospective trials showed that carotid endarterectomy provided a significant and durable benefit to selected patients with significant carotid narrowing. Many trials are currently under way comparing endovascular stenting and surgery. Two recently published trials suggest endovascular stenting is at least as good as carotid endarterectomy in terms of safety and efficacy. In the future, carotid stenting may become the standard procedure for patients with significant carotid occlusive disease and a high estimated risk of future stroke.     

Elevated Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio is Associated with Worse Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Patients

ObjectiveManagement of carotid artery stenosis (CAS) remains controversial and proper patient selection critical. Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with poor outcomes after vascular procedures. The effect of NLR on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients is assessed.Materials and MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of all patients between 2010 and 2018 with carotid stenosis >70% as defined by CREST 2 criteria. A total of 922 patients were identified, of whom 806 were treated with CEA and 116 non-operatively with best medical therapy (BMT). Of patients undergoing CEA, 401 patients (290 asymptomatic [aCEA], 111 symptomatic [sCEA]) also had an available NLR calculated from a complete blood count with differential. All patients treated with BMT were asymptomatic and had a baseline NLR available. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed composite ipsilateral stroke or death over 3 years.ResultsIn sCEA group, the 3-year composite stroke/death rates did not differ between NLR < 3.0 (22.9%) vs NLR > 3.0 (38.1%) (P=.10). In aCEA group, patients with a baseline NLR >3.0 had an increased risk of 3-year stroke/death (42.6%) compared to both those with NLR <3.0 (9.3%, P<.0001) and those treated with BMT (23.6%, P=.003). In patients with NLR <3.0, aCEA showed a superior benefit over BMT with regard to stroke or death (9.3% vs. 26.2%, P=.02). However, in patients with NLR >3.0, there was no longer a benefit to prophylactic CEA compared to BMT (42.6% vs. 22.2%, P=.05). Multivariable analysis identified NLR >3.0 (HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.93-5.42; P<.001) and congestive heart failure (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.33-3.58; P=.002) as independent risk factors for stroke/death in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.ConclusionsNLR >3.0 is associated with an increased risk of late stroke/death after prophylactic CEA for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, with benefits not superior to BMT. NLR may be used to help with selecting asymptomatic patients for CEA. The effect of NLR and outcomes in symptomatic patients requires further study. Better understanding of the mechanism(s) for NLR elevation and medical intervention strategies are needed to modulate outcome risk in these patients.