Carotid artery stenting with pre-stenting dilatation alone: Safety and efficacy.

As new technology becomes available, the stent technique for the extracranial carotid artery continues to evolve into a safer, more effective therapy for stroke prevention. With the availability of embolic protection, improved stent designs, and added endovascular physician experience, outcomes for carotid artery stenting (CAS) now consistently parallel those for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Although carotid endarterectomy was established as the gold standard for carotid revascularization, the available scientific evidence must continue to be interpreted in the context of further advancements in nearly all related areas of medicine. One multicenter randomized trial and several nonrandomized registries have successfully established the CAS indications for patients with high surgical risk and have provided evidence to support the use of CAS techniques in patients with low surgical risk. Clinicians must continue to improve their understanding of patient-specific factors and conduct research that will refine indications while optimizing current medical therapy and that will integrate CAS and carotid endarterectomy as complementary treatments. Response by LoGerfo p 1610 The outcomes for CAS have been improving over the past 10 years and now appear nearly equivalent to those for CEA. In fact, many historical similarities are seen in the development of these 2 techniques. Although CEA was established as the gold standard for extracranial carotid revascularization, the available scientific evidence must continue to be interpreted in the context of further advancements in nearly all related areas of medicine. The current research comparing CAS and CEA has not shown a clinically robust and statistically significant difference between the 2 treatments. When differences do exist, clinicians must continue to refine patient-specific indications and to conduct further research to understand these complex risk-benefit analyses in the context of advanced medical treatments and complementary revascularization techniques. The following review details the argument to support implementation of CAS technology for athero-occlusive carotid …

Carotid artery disease is a major cause of ischemic stroke, the risk of which is directly related to the severity of stenosis and presence of symptoms.1,2 Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, with approximately three quarters of a million strokes per year. Stroke is the leading cause of functional impairment, with more than 20% of survivors requiring institutional care and up to one third having a permanent disability.3 More worrisome, however, is the fact that as the population ages, the number of patients having strokes appears to be increasing.4 The pathophysiology of stroke may be broadly classified as hemorrhagic, embolic, or ischemic. The majority of strokes are caused by embolic events due to atheroemboli from the carotid artery, the ascending aorta, and arch vessels or cardiac thromboembolism from the left atrium or ventricle. It is estimated that carotid artery stenosis is responsible for 15% to 20% of all strokes.5 As percutaneous treatment options expand, there is uncertainty about appropriate therapy for carotid disease. This document will focus on 3 current controversies: (1) carotid artery revascularization in asymptomatic patients, (2) carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who are considered to be at increased surgical risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and (3) the current role for CAS in patients at average surgical risk. ### Prevalence and Natural History The prevalence of asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis (≥50%) in persons >65 years of age is estimated to be between 5% and 10%, whereas ≤1% of patients are estimated to have a severe narrowing (>80%).6 In asymptomatic patients with ≥50% carotid artery stenoses, the annual risk of stroke is between 1% and 4.3%.2,7 Long-term (10- to 15-year) cohort studies in asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis demonstrate an ipsilateral stroke rate between 0.9% and 1.1% per …

David Pelz MD L. Nelson Hopkins MD Elad Levy MD Section Editors: Atherosclerotic stenosis of the major intracranial arteries (intracranial internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery, vertebral artery, basilar artery) is probably the most common cause of stroke worldwide.1 Intracranial atherosclerosis causes 30% to 50% of strokes in Asia2 and 8% to 10% of strokes in North America.3 This review focuses on the medical and endovascular treatment of atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis. Initially, a retrospective study suggested that warfarin was superior to aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis.4 This retrospective data combined with a proposed pathophysiological rationale for anticoagulation5 made warfarin a common treatment choice for symptomatic intracranial stenosis.6 However, the Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial showed that aspirin was safer and as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis. WASID was stopped early after a mean follow-up of 1.8 years because of higher rates of death and major hemorrhage in the warfarin arm. The primary end point of ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage or vascular death, occurred in 22.1% of patients assigned aspirin and 21.8% of those in the warfarin group.7 The rates of myocardial infarction or sudden death were also higher in the warfarin arm. Certain high-risk subgroups of patients with intracranial stenosis were previously thought to benefit from anticoagulation, such as those with severe stenosis,4 vertebrobasilar disease,4 and those who have failed antithrombotic therapy.8 In WASID, however, patients with severe stenosis9 or those previously on antithrombotic therapy9,10 did not benefit from warfarin. Patients with basilar artery stenosis in WASID did appear to have a lower rate of the primary end point on warfarin, but there was no difference in the rate of stroke in the …

Delay between Symptoms and Surgery for Carotid Artery Stenosis: Modification of Our Practice

A fifteen-year experience with carotid endarterectomy after a formal operative protocol requiring highly frequent patch angioplasty.

Part One: For the Motion. Completion Angiography Should be Used Routinely Following Carotid Endarterectomy

Carotid Endarterectomy in Academic Versus Community Hospitals: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data

Carotid stenting is a less invasive percutaneous procedure than carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Reports suggest that it can be performed with periprocedural complication rates similar to those of carotid endarterectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine short- and long-term outcomes in the largest prospective cohort of carotid stenting patients. This study followed 528 consecutive patients (604 hemispheres/arteries) undergoing carotid stenting. There was a 0.6% (n=3) fatal stroke rate and 1% (n=5) nonstroke death rate at 30 days. The major stroke rate was 1% (n=6), and the minor stroke rate was 4.8% (n=29). The overall 30-day stroke and death rate was 7.4% (n=43). Over the 5-year study period, the 30-day minor stroke rate improved from 7.1% (n=7) for the first year to 3.1% (n=5) for the fifth year (P:<0.05 for trend). The best predictor of 30-day stroke and death was age >/=80 years. After the 30-day period, the incidence of fatal and nonfatal stroke was 3.2% (n=31). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 3-year freedom from ipsilateral or fatal stroke was 92+/-1%. Experience from a single group of operators demonstrates that carotid stenting can be performed with an acceptable 30-day complication rate. Late follow-up also demonstrates a low rate of fatal and nonfatal stroke. These results suggest that carotid stenting may be comparable to carotid endarterectomy, and it underscores the clinical equipoise and premise for the National Institute of Health-supported, randomized Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stent Trial comparing carotid stenting with carotid endarterectomy.

Female Sex Does Not Influence 30-Day Stroke and Mortality Rates after Carotid Endarterectomy

TEVAR With Supra-Aortic Trunk Revascularization Is Associated With Increased Risk Of Periprocedural Ischemic Stroke

Reducing postprocedural stroke is important to improve the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the trends of stroke occurring within 30 days after the procedure during the first 5 years TAVR was used in the United States, the association of stroke with 30-day mortality, and the association of medical therapy with 30-day stroke risk. Retrospective cohort study including 101 430 patients who were treated with femoral and nonfemoral TAVR at 521 US hospitals in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from November 9, 2011, through May 31, 2017. Thirty-day follow-up ended June 30, 2017. TAVR. The rates of 30-day transient ischemic attack and stroke were assessed. Association of stroke with 30-day mortality and association of antithrombotic medical therapies with postdischarge 30-day stroke were assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model and propensity-score matching, respectively. Among 101 430 patients included in the study (median age, 83 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 76-87 years]; 47 797 women [47.1%]; and 85 147 patients [83.9%] treated via femoral access), 30-day postprocedure follow-up data was assessed in all patients. At day 30, there were 2290 patients (2.3%) with a stroke of any kind (95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%), and 373 patients (0.4%) with transient ischemic attacks (95% CI, 0.3%-0.4%) . During the study period, 30-day stroke rates were stable without an increasing or decreasing trend in all patients (P for trend = .22) and in the large femoral access subgroup (P trend = .47). Among cases of stroke within 30 days, 1119 strokes (48.9%) occurred within the first day and 1567 (68.4%) within 3 days following TAVR. The occurrence of stroke was associated with a significant increase in 30-day mortality: 383 patients (16.7%) of 2290 who had a stroke vs 3662 patients (3.7%) of 99 140 who did not have a stroke died (P < .001; risk-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 6.1 [95% CI, 5.4-6.8]; P < .001). After propensity-score matching, 30-day stroke risk was not associated with whether patients in the femoral cohort were (0.55%) or were not (0.52%) treated with dual antiplatelet therapy at hospital discharge (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.46) nor was it associated with whether patients in the nonfemoral cohort were (0.71%) or were not (0.69%) treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.54-1.95). Similarly, 30-day stroke risk was not associated with whether patients in the femoral cohort were (0.57%) or were not (0.55) treated with oral anticoagulant therapy at hospital discharge (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73-1.46) nor was it associated with whether patients in the nonfemoral cohort were (0.75%) or were not (0.82%) treated with an oral anticoagulant (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.47-1.83). Between 2011 and 2017, the rate of 30-day stroke following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a US registry population remained stable.

Outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: Is there a high-risk population? A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program report

IP085. Contemporary Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy Mandate Revision of Society Guidelines to Recommend New Benchmarks for Appropriate Treatment of Carotid Artery Disease

Angiographic lesion characteristics can predict adverse outcomes after carotid artery stenting

Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy: How does the Australian state of New South Wales compare with international benchmarks?