Feasibility of carotid artery stenting in patients with angiographic string sign

Background : Treatment of angiographic string sign (SS) of the carotid artery with carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been associated with a high incidence of periprocedural neurological events. We describe our experience with CAS in a case series of symptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis and angiographic SS. Methods : We performed a retrospective review from 1999 to 2009 using our cardiac cath laboratory database and identified nine patients with the angiographic SS who underwent CAS. All patients were referred for carotid angiography by a neurologist due to symptoms (stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). All lesions were predilated and treated with self‐expanding stents. Distal protection devices were utilized (six patients) once they became available. Periprocedural outcomes and long‐term follow‐up was reviewed when available. Results : The average time from onset of symptoms to CAS was 45 days. All CAS procedures were technically and clinically successful without acute complications. One year follow‐up was available in eight patients. One patient had a possible TIA, and the remaining seven patients did not report any events (death, stroke, TIA or myocardial infarction). Carotid ultrasound evaluation at 12 months was available in six patients and showed no evidence of restenosis. Conclusions : In our experience, CAS in patients with severe symptomatic carotid stenosis and angiographic SS is feasible, with an acceptably low periprocedural complication rate. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Carotid artery stenting: a therapeutic alternative in subtotal internal carotid artery occlusions

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is emerging as a less invasive modality for treating atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the internal carotid artery (ICA). Randomized trials like the SAPPHIRE trial have demonstrated that CAS is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, and maybe even superior in high-risk symptomatic patients. However, patients with subtotal ICA occlusions with thrombus are excluded from randomized CAS trials and CAS registries. To our knowledge, carotid angioplasty with stenting has not been attempted in these cases. We present three cases of symptomatic subtotal ICA occlusions successfully treated with CAS without any periprocedural complications. With careful patient selection and technical expertise, endovascular management could be considered as a treatment option in subtotal carotid occlusions.     

Carotid artery revascularization with distal protection in high‐surgical‐risk patients in routine clinical practice: Rationale and design of the CABANA safety surveillance program

Background: Continuous improvement in carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes, especially for periprocedural death and stroke in high‐surgical‐risk patients, have been seen in recent randomized trials of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy and CAS registries. However, these studies use stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria for patient, institution, and physician selection. The Carotid Stenting Boston Scientific Surveillance Program (CABANA) study was initiated to evaluate periprocedural outcomes with modern versions of the Carotid Wallstent and FilterWire EZ System for operators with a wide range of clinical specialties, CAS experience and training levels, in patients with a broad range of high‐surgical‐risk conditions and lesion types. Methods: This prospective, single‐arm study enrolled 1,097 subjects with 1,098 carotid artery lesions at 99 study centers. Investigators were grouped into one of three tiers according to whether they had a high, medium, or low level of previous CAS experience and were also categorized by their CAS‐credential‐based training requirements for the CABANA study. Follow‐up at 30 days includes clinical evaluation and independent neurological and NIH stroke scale assessments. The primary endpoint rate of 30‐day composite stroke, death, and MI, as well as the rates of these individual events, will be evaluated across the overall study, by physician experience tier, and by physician training tier. Discussion: The evaluation of periprocedural CAS safety in a real‐world environment with modern devices in high‐surgical‐risk patients treated by physicians with a broad range of training and experience will better inform treatment decisions in the future. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Carotid artery disease: Stenting versus endarterectomy

Atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis is a major cause of disabling stroke or death. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is currently considered to be the standard of care for patients with a severe symptomatic stenosis and selected patients with an asymptomatic carotid stenosis, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is increasingly being used as an alternative treatment modality. This article briefly summarizes the current trial data on CEA and CAS. More importantly, potential risk factors for CEA and CAS are reviewed and the complementary role of these techniques in the management of the individual patient is discussed.     

Optimal treatment of carotid artery disease

Extracranial carotid artery disease accounts for approximately 25% of ischemic strokes. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the established gold standard for carotid revascularization, carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is continually developing into a safer and more efficacious method of stroke prevention. Embolic protection, improving stent designs, and ever-increasing surgeon experience are propelling CAS towards equipoise with and possible superiority to CEA. One multicenter randomized trial and several nonrandomized registries have successfully established CAS as an accepted treatment for high-risk patients. Clinicians must strive to perform well-designed clinical trials that will continue to aid understanding and improve application of both endovascular and open techniques for extracranial carotid revascularization. We review the data published to date regarding the indications for and recent developments in the use of CAS.     

A "mouse in a trap" method for cerebral protection during carotid stenting: Technical note.

Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is now used as an alternative to surgical endarterectomy. The introduction of cerebral protection systems during stenting has improved carotid artery stenosis treatment, with less periprocedural complications. A "mouse in a trap" method was conceived and used in three patients. This involved an emboli entrapment-aspiration system using one proximal occluder in the common carotid artery and two distal occluders in the internal carotid artery or external carotid artery, followed by serial inflation-deflation cycles during each carotid stenting procedure. Debris was retrieved before dilation in one patient, after deployment in one, and after dilation in two. Although only used in a few cases to date, the method may improve the practice of CAS in treating patients with carotid stenosis, resulting in less thromboembolic events.     

Hypotension during carotid artery stenting with severe aortic stenosis: the intra-aortic balloon pump option

This case highlights the importance of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients with severe aortic stenosis. We report the case of a patient with severe carotid artery disease and aortic stenosis who first underwent CAS using IABP and subsequently underwent aortic valve replacement. We conclude that IABP could be helpful in the staged treatment of patients with concomitant severe carotid artery disease and aortic valve disease.     

Simultaneous hybrid revascularization by bilateral carotid stenting and coronary artery bypass grafting

Management of patient with concomitant severe coronary and carotid artery disease is challenging. The combined or staged surgical revascularization is burdened by a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recently introduced as an alternative revascularization approach. We describe a case of simultaneous hybrid revascularization by CAS followed by immediate coronary artery bypass graft in a patient with a severe coronary artery disease and bilateral carotid artery stenosis. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Carotid Artery Stenting for Stroke Prevention

Stroke is a global epidemic with a significant economic burden to patients, families, and societies at large. In the industrialized world, stroke is the third most common cause of death, the second most common cause of dementia, and the most common reason for acquired disability in adulthood. Overall, 20%-30% of ischemic strokes are related to extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Revascularization with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard treatment for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an accepted alternative to CEA over the past decade for patients at high surgical risk, and has progressively evolved into an elegant procedure over the past 3 decades, with dedicated equipment including proximal embolic occlusion devices that have minimized procedural strokes. High–surgical-risk CAS registries have established this procedure as an alternative to CEA for high-risk patients. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stent Trial (CREST) has shown similar outcomes with CAS and CEA for patients at standard risk, although CAS is associated with higher minor stroke events and CEA is associated with higher myocardial infarction (MI) events. However, CAS is technically challenging and requires a meticulous approach, with a protracted learning curve that should involve experience with > 70 cases. Careful patient selection is instrumental in avoiding procedural complications, and the procedure should be avoided in patients with prohibitive anatomy. This article reviews the use of CAS for extracranial carotid artery stenosis, considering technical aspects, registry and clinical trial outcomes data, determinants of success, and contemporary guidelines.     

Update of carotid stent trials.

As is the case in many vascular territories, endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery disease is becoming a rival alternative to surgery. Results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are improving with the introduction of embolic protection devices, improved technology, and increasing operator experience. Multiple clinical studies have shown results in favor of CAS as opposed to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients considered at high risk for surgery. Current ongoing trials are examining both treatment options in low and intermediate risk patients in prospective randomized protocols. With the recent FDA approval of carotid stent systems, we are entering a new era in the treatment of carotid artery disease. An update of modern carotid stent studies, as well as stent versus surgery studies in the current era is needed.     

An evidence‐based review of the impact of periprocedural myocardial infarction in carotid revascularization

Landmark trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis of extracranial carotid arteries have favored carotid revascularization. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a minimally invasive option for revascularization of carotid artery stenoses and has been shown to be noninferior to CEA, regardless of patient symptom status. Debate continues regarding the importance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) as an endpoint in carotid revascularization trials. Recent randomized comparisons of CEA and CAS pre‐specify PMI as an endpoint. Understanding PMI in CEA and CAS, the need for routine biomarker assessment surrounding both revascularization strategies, the effect of PMI on long‐term morbidity and mortality, and the groups most at risk for PMI are of critical importance when choosing a carotid revascularization strategy for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, since decreasing the incidence of PMI will make revascularization safer. This review examines available data regarding the relevance of PMI in vascular and carotid‐specific outcomes. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Acute carotid stent thrombosis: review of the literature and long-term follow-up

BackgroundCarotid artery stenting (CAS) is a reasonable alternative to carotid endarterectomy, especially in patients at high risk for surgery. Carotid stent thrombosis can cause thrombembolic events, but fortunately, it is a very rare complication. We present two cases of carotid stent thrombosis and their long-term follow-up.Case reportsOne patient had severe bilateral carotid stenosis and the other had contralateral carotid occlusion. Both patients were on correct antithrombotic treatment and received balloon expandable stents (bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent). During CAS, large thrombus formed within the stent followed by rapid hemodynamic and neurological alteration. We gave a bolus thrombolytic in the clot, followed by continuous intra-arterial infusion. In one case, we performed additional angioplasty. Repeated angiography showed complete resolution of the thrombus, followed by progressive improvement in the neurological state. At discharge, the patients had no neurological deficits. CT scans revealed no acute ischemic lesions.One patient had in-stent restenosis 3 years later, which was treated with an additional self-expandable stent.The last follow-up was done 4 and 9 years, respectively, from the initial CAS complication. Both patients did not experience any neurological events after the last procedure.ConclusionsCarotid stent thrombosis is a rare but potentially fatal complication following CAS. Rapid invasive diagnosis and reperfusion should be done to limit cerebral ischemia. The possible causes must be sighted and reperfusion must be started. Despite an initial dramatic course, a rapid reperfusion ensures a complete neurological recovery and a good prognosis in the long term.     

Percutaneous internal carotid artery angioplasty with stenting: early and long-term results

BACKGROUND. Cerebro-vascular accidents are the third most common cause of death. The most frequent localisation of lesions responsible for stroke are bifurcation of the common carotid artery or the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA). Surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are the non-pharmacological methods used to treat carotid artery stenosis. AIM. To assess the efficacy and safety of CAS of ICA. METHODS. CAS was performed in 75 patients (49 males, 26 females) with a mean age of 65.2+/-9.1 years. Twenty (26.7%) patients underwent CAS with the use of the central nervous system (CNS) protective devices. The immediate, mid-term, and long-term results were analysed. RESULTS. In total, 84 stents were implanted to 80 ICA in 73 patients. In two patients stent implantation was not possible. In 7 (9%) patients with a stenosis of both ICA, a bilateral procedure was performed. In two patients concomitant dilatations of the vertebral artery, and in the other two - of subclavian artery, were performed. In 38 patients coronary angiography was performed directly before CAS; one patient underwent coronary angioplasty. In 20 patients protective CNS devices were used. During the procedure four patients developed ischaemic stroke on the side of CAS. In one patient neurological symptoms completely disappeared within 48 hours. The type of technique used during CAS did not influence the frequency of ischaemic complications. Four patients developed hyperperfusion syndrome which disappeared after a few days. There were fire deaths during follow-up: three due to myocardial infarction (MI), one - after urgent CABG, and one due to pulmonary embolism. There were no deaths due to stroke. No new ischaemic changes in CNS nor significant changes in the neurological status, using the UNSS or Barthel scales, were observed. Asymptomatic restenosis was documented in six patients whereas one patient developed symptomatic restenosis due to stent deformation. CONCLUSIONS. Percutaneous angioplasty of an internal carotid artery carries a risk not exceeding that of surgical endarterectomy. In our study, a one-year follow-up revealed a minor risk of ischaemic stroke. Percutaneous angioplasty with the use of protective devices should be tested in larger groups of patients in order to establish the real clinical usefulness and improved safety of this technique.     

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.     

Transulnar carotid artery stent placement

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increased in popularity as an alternative to carotid artery endarterectomy for the treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis. The access site is predominantly the femoral artery, with radial or brachial access used less often. Here, we describe a case of CAS after failure of brachial access. Transulnar CAS was performed successfully without complications. Transulnar access represents an additional option in a patient undergoing CAS when conventional femoral, brachial, and radial arteries are not applicable. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Starting a carotid artery stenting program is safe

Background : Little is known on the performance of newly initiated carotid artery stenting (CAS) programs. The safety of the procedure is being questioned following the publication of the EVA‐3S trial, a study criticized for the limited interventional experience required to enroll patients. Methods : Within a newly started academic CAS program, patient data and outcomes were collected prospectively. The outcomes of the first 100 consecutive patients treated are reported. A CAS‐fellowship‐trained interventionalist was involved in all procedures. All patients underwent clinical assessment by a neurologist before and after the procedure, and serial ECG and cardiac enzymes were routinely obtained. Primary outcome measures included 30‐day major adverse events (MAE), defined as death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, while on follow‐up deaths and ipsilateral strokes were added. Results : Between July 2003 and November 2006, 92 patients had a single internal carotid artery treated, while 7 underwent staged bilateral CAS. In one patient, the procedure was aborted prior to lesion treatment. The 30‐day MAE rate per procedure was 1.9% (one major and one minor stroke). By a mean follow‐up of 16 months (range 2–42 months), one patient had died of refractory heart failure, while one patient had a minor ipsilateral stroke and three had minor contralateral strokes, corresponding to total MAE per patient of 4%. The rate of any stroke or death was 7%. The rate of restenosis ≥50% per lesion by ultrasound was 3.8%. Conclusion : This single center experience suggests that it is safe to start a CAS program following dedicated fellowship. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The CAPTURE registry: predictors of outcomes in carotid artery stenting with embolic protection for high surgical risk patients in the early post-approval setting.

BACKGROUND: The use of carotid artery stenting with embolic protection has been practiced for over a decade in the United States, and increasingly so since carotid stenting received FDA approval in 2004. While there have been attempts at establishing predictors of outcomes in carotid artery stenting, they have generally been limited to single center experiences and/or multicenter retrospective surveys. This report examines predictors of outcomes in carotid stenting in the earliest and largest prospective multicenter neurologist-adjudicated experience in the United States post device approval. METHODS: The Carotid Acculink/Accunet Post-Approval Trial to Uncover Unanticipated or Rare Events (CAPTURE) is a prospective, multi-center registry conducted to assess outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the noninvestigational setting following device approval for high surgical risk patients (symptomatic with > or =50% stenosis; asymptomatic > or =80% stenosis). A neurologist examined the patients before the procedure, at 24 hr and 30-days post-procedure. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30-days post-procedure. Strokes and neurological events suspected to be strokes were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Adjudication Committee (CEAC) using prespecified definitions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine clinical, procedural, and anatomic predictors of endpoint outcomes. RESULTS: Three thousand five hundred patients were enrolled at 144 sites by 353 physicians of varying specialty backgrounds and CAS experience. The 30-day primary endpoint event rate of death, stroke and MI was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.5-7.1%], and the rate of major stroke and death 2.9% [95% CI: 2.4-3.5]. Predictors of adverse outcomes included age, symptomatic patients, predilation prior to embolic protection device placement, time from symptoms to CAS procedure, and the use of multiple stents. CONCLUSIONS: In general, carotid stenting is performed safely in patients with severe stenosis at high surgical risk, with best outcomes in younger asymptomatic patients. However, there are certain patient and procedural characteristics that are associated with poorer outcomes. In these patients, the risk of stenting should be considered vis-à-vis both the anticipated benefit as well as the alternative surgical and medical options.