Carotid artery surgery vs. stent: a cardiovascular perspective.

Stroke is a major health catastrophe that is responsible for the third most common cause of death and the leading cause of disability. Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of brain infarctions and the risk of stroke is directly related to the severity of carotid artery stenosis and to the presence of symptoms. Familiarity with different methods of measuring degrees of carotid artery stenosis is a key in understanding the role of revascularization of this disorder. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA), surgical removal of the carotid atherosclerotic plaque, is intended to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis and currently the most commonly performed vascular procedure in the United States. Several randomized clinical trials had demonstrated the benefits of CEA in selected groups of patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, CEA can cause stroke, the very thing it intended to prevent, and is associated with significant perioperative complications such as those related to general anesthesia, cardiac or nerve injury. Moreover, several anatomical and medical conditions may limit candidates for CEA. Carotid artery stenting (CS) is an evolving and less invasive technique for carotid artery revascularization. Recent studies demonstrated that CS with embolic protection devices has become an alternative to CEA for high-surgical-risk patients and the procedure of choice for stenoses inaccessible by surgery. The role of CS in low risk patients awaits the completion of several ongoing studies.     

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。     

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.     

Symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: what is the preferred treatment?

Stroke is a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. Carotid artery disease is the etiology for 15% to 20% of stroke. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces the risk of ipsilateral stroke and death in symptomatic patients with 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis when the operative risk of stroke or death is less than 6%. Treatment benefit is greater with earlier surgery, more severe stenoses, and older age. Recently, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a treatment option, especially in patients with high surgical risk due to anatomic or clinical variables. Nondisabling stroke risk may be higher with CAS than CEA, but the difference is narrowed with the use of embolic protection devices. The risk for myocardial infarction is lower with CAS than CEA. There is no difference in risk for disabling stroke or death. Worse results with new or low-volume CAS operators is a concern. CEA and CAS are complementary revascularization strategies. CEA may be preferred in older patients with complex anatomy or bulky plaques. CAS may be preferred in younger patients and those with restenosis, history of neck radiation, surgical contraindications, or surgically inaccessible lesions. The role for optimal medical therapy as an alternative treatment strategy remains to be defined. Nevertheless, all patients should be treated with lifestyle interventions and secondary risk factor control to target levels to reduce the risk of subsequent atherosclerotic events.     

Carotid Artery Stenting

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has achieved clinical equipoise with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), as evidenced by 2 large U.S. randomized clinical trials, multiple pivotal registry trials, and 2 multispecialty guideline documents endorsed by 14 professional societies. The largest randomized trial conducted in patients at average surgical risk of CEA, CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) found no difference between CAS and CEA for the combined endpoint of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after 4 years of follow-up. The largest randomized trial comparing CAS and CEA in patients at increased surgical risk, SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy), looked at 1-year stroke, death, and MI incidence and found no difference in symptomatic patients, but a significantly better outcome in asymptomatic patients for CAS (9.9% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.02). Given that >70% of carotid revascularization procedures are performed in asymptomatic patients for primary prevention of stroke, it is incumbent upon clinicians to demonstrate that revascularization has an incremental benefit over highly effective modern medical therapy alone.     

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.     

Percutaneous versus surgical revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the number one disease associated with permanent disability. In 2006, the estimated total cost of stroke in the United States was a staggering $60 billion. Significant stenosis of the internal carotid artery is responsible for 10% to 20% of all strokes, and current recommendations suggest that patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis undergo revascularization for stroke prevention or risk reduction. Since the 1950s, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been the dominant modality of revascularization. However, carotid artery angioplasty, introduced in the 1980s, and subsequent carotid artery stenting (CAS), have greatly improved in recent years and provide a viable alternative to CEA, particularly for certain high-risk patients. Encouraging results from clinical studies of CAS and CEA have played pivotal roles in shaping current practice guidelines. We review the published studies on CAS and discuss appropriate use of this procedure for symptomatic carotid artery disease.     

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.     

Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stenting

The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) is controversial. The inter-collegiate Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC) recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularization. CAS may be considered for specific high risk patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who have contraindications for carotid endarterectomy, or in those under 70years of age where carotid re-vascularization is considered appropriate. Advances in endovascular technologies and the long-term results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines.     

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.     

Carotid Endarterectomy: Current Concepts and Practice Patterns

Background Stroke is the number one cause of disability and third leading cause of death among adults in the United States. A major cause of stroke is carotid artery stenosis (CAS) caused by atherosclerotic plaques. Randomized trials have varying results regarding the equivalence and perioperative complication rates of stents versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of CAS. Objectives We review the evidence for the current management of CAS and describe the current concepts and practice patterns of CEA. Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant studies regarding CEA and stenting for the management of CAS. Results The introduction of CAS has led to a decrease in the percentage of CEA and an increase in the number of CAS procedures performed in the context of all revascularization procedures. However, the efficacy of stents in patients with symptomatic CAS remains unclear because of varying results among randomized trials, but the perioperative complication rates exceed those found after CEA. Conclusions Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to treat carotid artery disease through medical therapy, CEA, and stenting. Although data from randomized trials differ, it is important for surgeons to make clinical decisions based on the patient. We believe that CAS can be adopted with low complication rate in a selected subgroup of patients, but CEA should remain the standard of care. This current evidence should be incorporated into practice of the modern vascular surgeon.     

The carotid artery revascularization and endarterectomy (CARE) registry: Objectives,design, and implications

This is the first comprehensive national registry that will provide data characterizing contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become the standard revascularization therapy to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery disease, while carotid artery stenting (CAS) offers a percutaneous alternative in selected patients. Given the rapid growth in the numbers of CAS procedures being performed, there is a critical need for a national program to assess quality outcomes. The Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry was developed through a multispecialty collaboration resulting in a comprehensive data collection tool for carotid revascularization procedures. The intent of the CARE registry is to collect and analyze clinical data to measure clinical practice, patient outcomes, and enable quality improvement for carotid revascularization. Finally, the CARE Registry satisfies the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data reporting criteria for reimbursement. © 2008 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.     

颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗

作为一种经典的血管重建方式,颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy,CEA)已被广泛用于颅外颈动脉重度狭窄的治疗.近年来,颈动脉支架置入术(carotid artery stenting,CAS)已有逐步取代CEA的趋势.大量临床研究发现,除围手术期并发症外,CEA和CAS后颈动脉再狭窄对患者的预后也具有重要影响.文章就CEA和CAS术后再狭窄的诊断和治疗研究现状做了综述.     

Transradial approach for carotid artery stenting: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become accepted as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for revascularization of the internal carotid artery (ICA) among high risk patients. CAS from the femoral approach can be problematic due to access site complications as well as technical difficulties related to peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and/or anatomical variations of the aortic arch. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of the radial artery as an alternative approach for CAS. METHODS: Forty-two patients (mean age 71 +/- 1, 26 male) underwent CAS. All had a CA stenosis greater than 80% and comorbid conditions increasing the risk of carotid endarterectomy. The target common carotid artery (CCA) was initially cannulated via the radial artery using a 5F Simmons 1 diagnostic catheter which was then advanced to the external CA (ECA) over an extra support 0.014" coronary guidewire. After removing the coronary guidewire, a 0.035" guidewire was advanced into the ECA, and the Simmons 1 was exchanged for a 5F or 6F shuttle sheath and positioned in the distal CCA. In four patients with a bovine aortic arch, the left CCA was accessed with a 5F Amplatz R2 catheter which was then exchanged for a shuttle sheath over a 0.035" guidewire. CAS was performed using standard techniques with weight-based bivalirudin for anticoagulation. RESULTS: CAS was successful in 35/42 (83%) patients, including 28/29 (97%) right CA, 4/5 (80%) bovine left CA, 7/13 (54%) left CA. Mean interventional time was 30 +/- 3 minutes. The sheath was removed immediately after the procedure. There were no radial access site complications. One patient sustained a stroke 24 hrs after the procedure with complete resolution of symptoms (Mean NIH stroke scale 2.0 +/- 0.3 before, 1.9 +/- 0.3 after). Median hospital stay was 2 +/- 0.6 days. Inadequate catheter support at the origin of the CCA was the technical cause of failure in the seven unsuccessful cases. CONCLUSION: CAS using the transradial approach appears to be safe and technically feasible. The technique may be particularly useful in patients with right ICA lesions and severe PVD or unfavorable arch anatomy, and among patients with a bovine aortic arch.     

Comparison of results of carotid stenting followed by open heart surgery versus combined carotid endarterectomy and open heart surgery (coronary bypass with or without another procedure)

We compared a novel strategy of carotid stenting (CS) followed by open heart surgery (OHS) to the combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and the OHS approach in patients requiring coronary and carotid revascularization. Between 1997 and 2002, CS as a prelude to OHS was performed in 56 patients, and 111 patients underwent combined CEA+OHS. Adverse events included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and their combinations. At baseline, the CS+OHS group had more unstable/severe angina (52% vs 27%, p = 0.002), severe left ventricular dysfunction (20% vs 9%, p = 0.05), symptomatic carotid disease (46% vs 23%, p = 0.002), and the need for repeat OHS (32% vs 9%, p = 0.0002). Severe contralateral carotid disease was more prevalent in the CEA+OHS group (28% vs 11%, p = 0.01). At 30 days, CS+OHS patients had a significantly lower incidence of stroke or MI (5% vs 19%, p = 0.02). A propensity score was created for each patient to account for baseline differences. In a final logistic regression model that included the propensity score, CS+OHS was associated with a trend toward reduced stroke or MI (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 1.09, p = 0.06) and reduced death, stroke, or MI (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.27, p = 0.12). In conclusion, despite a higher baseline risk profile, patients who underwent CS+OHS had significantly fewer adverse events than those undergoing CEA+OHS. CS may be a safer carotid revascularization option for this challenging patient population.     

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.     

A First-in-Human Evaluation of a Novel Mesh-Covered Stent for Treatment of Carotid Stenosis in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy: 30-Day Results of the SCAFFOLD Trial

Objectives

The primary purpose of this study was the composite of major adverse events through 30 days post-index procedure or ipsilateral stroke from 30 days to 1 year (365 days). Presented here is the composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) through 30 days.

Mandatory Diagnostic Angiography for Carotid Artery Stenosis Prior to Carotid Artery Intervention

Introduction: Revascularization is an important strategy for reducing stroke risk in patients with severe carotid atherosclerosis. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and/or carotid ultrasound have traditionally been used as the only diagnostic modalities prior to revascularization. Patients undergoing CEA frequently have no further assessments of carotid anatomy prior to surgery. Evaluation with carotid ultrasound and MRA can often overestimate the degree of stenosis. We sought to determine if noninvasive imaging was sufficient for determining whether a patient should be referred for carotid intervention.
Methods: We performed an analysis of 101 patients referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS). All patients had previously been evaluated with carotid ultrasound and 94% had undergone MRA as well. We sought to determine if noninvasive diagnostic imaging for carotid stenosis was sufficient to determine the necessity for endovascular intervention.
Results: Of the 101 patients referred for carotid intervention, 36 (36%) were shown to have <70% stenoses and did not require intervention. Of those who had significant disease, 49 (75%) underwent successful CAS, 15 (23%) underwent CEA, and 1 patient was treated medically for a total occlusion. Three of the 36 patients not requiring carotid intervention were found to have subclavian stenosis. Two (4%) of the patients undergoing CAS and 4 (27%) of the patients undergoing CEA had minor complications. No patients suffered a major stroke, MI, or death at follow-up.
Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates that 36% of patients referred for endovascular intervention based on noninvasive imaging did not meet criteria by angiography. This emphasizes the need for carotid angiography prior to carotid intervention.     

Carotid intervention: stent or surgery? A prospective audit

Summary

This study represents a prospective audit comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), performed by a single surgical team. Between January 2005 and December 2008, 440 patients were referred; 177 had CAS and 263 CEA. Selection of procedure was individualised and contra-indications for CAS included internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis > 85–90%, intraluminal thrombus, ICA tortuosity, gross surface ulceration of plaque and excessive calcification. Type III aortic arch and arch calcification also precluded CAS.Standard techniques were used for both procedures with a protection device routinely used for CAS. Most CEAs were performed under general anaesthesia, with selective intraluminal shunting. One hundred and eighty-six patients were selected for CAS; nine (48%) were converted to CEA for technical reasons.The operative risk profile was similar, but significantly more in the CAS group were hypertensive. Almost half (49%) in the CAS group were asymptomatic vs 26% in the CEA group. All asymptomatics had 70+% stenosis on Duplex Doppler.Results were reported within one month of the procedure. The stroke rate was 2.3% for CAS vs 1.9% for CEA (p > 0.05). Stroke and death plus one M1 was 4.5% after CAS vs 3.4% after CEA (p > 0.05). Disabling stroke occurred in 1.1% of CAS patients vs 0.4% of CEA patients. These results are satisfactory and compare favourably with other similar series.