Carotid Angioplasty And Stenting Group Research Articles

Thirty-Day Stroke and Mortality After Carotid Revascularization Among Octogenarians with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Real-World Evidence from a National Surgical Quality Registry

The outcomes of carotid revascularization among octogenarians are not well studied. We present analyses of 30-day stroke and mortality of patients aged ≥80 years using real-world data from a national surgical quality registry. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted data set for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) was queried for patients aged ≥80 years undergoing CEA and CAS between 2012 and2019. A total of 122 and 3013 patients aged ≥80 years with symptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing CAS and CEA, respectively, were identified. Patients with CAS were more likely to be older than 90 years (P= 0.006) and have diabetes (P= 0.036), were more likely to have high-risk anatomy (P < 0.001), but had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P < 0.001). An ipsilateral stroke had been experienced by 43.6% of patients with CAS and 44.7% of patients with CEA. The rate of 30-day composite outcome was 6.4% in the CAS group and 4.5% in the CEA group (P= 0.326). The f 30-day mortality was significantly higher for CAS (5.6% vs. 1.7%, P= 0.001); however, the difference between the cohorts was not significant (CAS, 2.4% vs. CEA, 3.4%, P= 0.555). On multivariable analysis, CEA was associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; P= 0.0145). Symptom presentation other than ipsilateral stroke was associated with significantly decreased odds of 30-day outcome (amaurosis fugax/transient monocular blindness, OR, 0.39, P= 0.004; transient ischemic attack, OR, 0.57, P= 0.003), whereas higher age had significantly increased odds (OR, 1.95; P= 0.0172). Real-world analyses from a surgical quality registry show that CEA may be associated with lower odds of mortality compared with CAS among octogenarians.

Clinical outcomes of radiation-induced carotid stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesClinical outcomes of radiation-induced carotid stenosis are still unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after interventions to treat radiation-induced carotid stenosis. MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1 January 2000 for relevant RCTs and observational studies which reported outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis induced by radiation. Risk of bias were assessed through different scales according to study design. I2 statistic were used to evaluate the heterogeneity, and meta-regression were performed to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Visual inspection of funnel plots was used to judge publication bias. ResultsA total of 26 studies with 1002 patients were included. CEA was performed in 364 patients and CAS in 638 patients. The overall estimated rate of short-term stroke was 0.19% (95% CI: 0–0.90%), and the rate of long-term stroke was 2.68 % (95% CI: 1.19–4.57%). The rate of cranial nerve injury in CEA group was significantly higher than that in CAS group [risk ratio (RR): 6.03, 95% CI: 1.63–22.22, P = .007]. The univariate regression analysis showed that the risk of stroke in CAS group were significantly higher than CEA group in both short- and long-term [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 3.62, 95% CI: 1.21–10.85, P = 0.22; IRR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.02–8.59, P = .046, respectively]. ConclusionsThis systematic review provided the worldwide profile of outcome of treatment for radiation-induced carotid stenosis, and also found that CEA can yield better results for these patients than CAS. Nonetheless, as large-scale studies have not yet been conducted, and there is a definite need for further studies in the future.

Usefulness of Early Stenting for Symptomatic Extracranial Carotid Stenosis

While carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) have become an established procedure, outcomes of early CAS for symptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis (SECS) remain poorly understood. The present study aimed at determining the effectiveness of early CAS in SECS. Herein, 224 SECS patients underwent elective CAS between January 2008 and June 2015. The study population was stratified based on the time from symptom onset to the procedure (early CAS group: within 14 days; delayed CAS group: later than 14 days). Subgroup analysis (chi-square test, Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, and analysis of covariance) evaluated the demographics, incidence of periprocedural thromboembolic complications, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS), intracranial bleeding, and treatment outcomes on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Symptomatic thromboembolic complications and CHS were noted in 2.68% and 0.89% of patients, respectively. The initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was significantly higher in patients who underwent early CAS than in those who underwent delayed CAS (2.50 ± 3.97 vs. 0.97 ± 2.08, P= 0.001). After adjusting for age, duration of preprocedural dual antiplatelet therapy, initial NIHSS score, and preprocedural NIHSS score, the groups did not differ significantly regarding the incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic complications (P= 0.195), incidence of CHS (P= 0.950), incidence of intracranial bleeding (P = 0.970), 30-day mRS score (P= 0.124), and mRS score at final follow-up (P= 0.132). For SECS patients who cannot undergo early carotid endarterectomy, early CAS is effective and safe if selectively indicated considering disease severity. Early and delayed CAS provide comparable mRS scores, incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic complications, CHS, and intracranial bleeding.

Long term durability and outcomes of carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy

PurposeTo evaluate the long term durability and outcomes of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).MethodsUsing multiple comprehensive databases, we searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CAS...

Carotid Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: 10-Year Randomized Trial in a Community Hospital

This single-center, randomized, clinical trial was designed to determine the 10-year comparative efficacy and durability of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in preventing ipsilateral ischemic stroke in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Modern clinical trials with short-term follow-up indicate CAS and CEA are equivalent in reducing the risk for ipsilateral ischemic stroke secondary to carotid stenosis. A paucity of data exists regarding long-term outcomes. Patients of all surgical risks with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (>70%) were randomly selected for CEA or CAS and followed a minimum of 10 years. Long-term follow-up was achieved in 173 patients (91%). Eighty-seven (50.2%) died within this period, most commonly of nonvascular causes. No difference in the risk of stroke ipsilateral to the treated artery was noted among treatment groups (p > 0.05). Restenosis determined by sequential ultrasound was assessed only in the CAS group (3.3%) and remained asymptomatic. The combined risk of fatal or nonfatal heart attack over the 10-year period was highest in individuals with symptomatic versus asymptomatic stenosis (27.5% vs. 11.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.298 to 4.146, p = 0.005) and was higher in all patients treated with CEA (HR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.35 to 3.816, p = 0.002). Long-term protection against ipsilateral stroke provided by CAS and CEA did not differ in this trial. The 10-year risk of fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction was highest in all patients harboring symptomatic carotid stenosis at enrollment. The risk of fatal/nonfatal heart attack was significantly more prevalent in those symptomatic or asymptomatic patients randomized to CEA.

Age Cutoff for Carotid Artery Stenting May Fall to 65

Milwaukee – The risk for worse outcomes following carotid artery stenting may extend to even younger Medicareage patients than previously reported by such pivotal trials as CREST, a provocative population study suggests. The rate of the composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or cardiac complications was 5.2% for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and 3.6% for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among patients younger than age 65 years, and was 6.3% vs. 4.5% among patients aged 65 years or older, who made up 76% of the study cohort (both P values < .0001). Rates of the primary endpoint were similar between the carotid stenting and endarterectomy groups among asymptomatic patients aged 65 years or older (4.1% vs. 3.8%; P = .25), but were significantly higher in symptomatic patients age 65 years or older who received stenting (22.5% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). This finding was driven by significantly higher rates of all three individual components of the primary endpoint: death (5.1% vs. 2.2%), stroke (12.5% vs. 7.6%), and cardiac complications (7.5% vs. 4.2%), “which is a little bit different than what we thought, compared with the CREST trial,” lead author Dr. Jeffrey Jim said at the annual Midwestern Vascular Surgical Society meeting. In the lead-in phase of CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stent Trial), octogenarians were found to be at higher risk of in-hospital death and stroke post-CAS, but not myocardial infarction (J. Vasc. Surg. 2004;40:1106-11). Subsequent CREST analyses have identified an interaction between age and carotid stenting efficacy, with the crossover at an age of approximately 70 years (N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;363:11-23). The current results appear to move that threshold to an even younger age, just as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services starts reconsidering the national coverage decision for carotid-artery stenting. Although he did not present the data, Dr. Jim noted that hospital costs also were higher for stenting patients. “Our results show that carotid angioplasty [with] stenting was associated with a higher rate of adverse outcomes and increased charges among patients of Medicare age, and really don't support the widespread use of carotid stenting over CEA in this general population,” Dr. Jim said. Session moderator Dr. Patrick Geraghty of Barnes–Jewish Health in St. Louis, said the difference in MI rates between arms “basically turns the CREST findings on their head.” The analysis was based on 678,081 hospitalizations for CEA and CAS from 2005 to 2009, the latest available data in the NIS, a comprehensive, inpatient database developed as part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The 595,813 CEA patients were more likely to be asymptomatic, whereas the 82,268 CAS patients were more likely to be male, medically high risk, treated at a teaching hospital, and an emergent/urgent admission. The average age was 71 years in the CEA group and 70 years in the CAS group. In the entire study cohort, the composite primary endpoint occurred in 6% of the carotid stenting group and 4.3% of the endarterectomy group (P < .0001), said Dr. Jim, a vascular specialist at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Patients who underwent carotid stenting experienced significantly higher rates of each individual component of the primary endpoint: death (1.1% vs. 0.5%), stroke (2% vs. 1%), and cardiac complications (3.6% vs. 3.1%). Independent predictors of the primary endpoint were CAS, symptomatic stenosis, and medical high risk, defined as a patient age 80 years or older, or a patient who had renal failure, severe chronic lung disease, recent MI, coronary bypass/valve surgery within 30 days, unstable angina, or class III/IV heart failure. Dr. Jim and Dr. Geraghty reported having no conflict of interest.

Restenosis Is More Frequent After Carotid Stenting Than After Endarterectomy

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may be more often associated with residual or recurrent stenosis than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We compared the rates of restenosis in patients treated with CAS or CEA in the EVA-3S trial. Five hundred seven patients (242 treated by CAS and 265 by CEA) had carotid ultrasound follow-up (mean carotid ultrasound follow-up, 2.1 years) according to a predefined protocol. Carotid restenosis of 50% to 69% was diagnosed on planimetry, whereas carotid restenosis of ≥70% or occlusion was diagnosed using either planimetry or velocity criteria. The rate of carotid restenosis of ≥50% or occlusion was significantly higher after CAS (12.5%) than after CEA (5.0%; time ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.76; P=0.02). The rates of severe restenosis of ≥70% or occlusion were low and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (3-year rates are 3.3% in the CAS group and 2.8% in the CEA group). Age at baseline was the only vascular risk factor significantly associated with carotid restenosis. Our study could not detect any effect of carotid restenosis on ipsilateral stroke. The short-term rate of carotid restenosis of ≥50% or occlusion is ≈2.5-times more common after CAS than after CEA, a difference accounted for by an excess risk in moderate restenosis. More data with longer follow-up are needed to assess the rates of late severe restenosis and to determine the relation between restenosis and recurrent stroke over time.

Advances in Vascular Neurosurgery 2010

Surgery continues to play a major role in the treatment of intra- and extracranial cerebrovascular disorders. Refinements in endovascular techniques have resulted in a reappraisal of their role vis-a-vis surgery. ### Carotid Stenosis Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard for the treatment of carotid stenosis in both symptomatic patients and in appropriately selected patients who are asymptomatic. In the past decade, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proposed as a possible alternative to CEA. Landmark studies have addressed this issue in the past year. The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomized 1713 symptomatic patients with carotid stenosis of >50% to either CEA or CAS. The end point of stroke and death within 30 days was significantly higher in the CAS group (7.4% versus 4.0%; P =0.003).1 In a subgroup analysis, silent brain infarcts were significantly more common in patients undergoing CAS than in patients treated with CEA.2 The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) study randomized patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis to either CAS or CEA. Unlike other studies, CREST included myocardial infarction in the aggregate end point analysis. Importantly, serum troponin levels and electrocardiograms were mandated per protocol and myocardial infarction was defined as based on serum troponin elevation and electrocardiographic changes even in the absence of clinical symptoms. The aggregate end points were not statistically different between CAS and CEA (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; P =0.51). However, perioperative strokes were more common in the CAS group (4.1% versus 2.3%, P =0.01), whereas myocardial infarction was more common in patients undergoing CEA (1.1% versus 2.3%; P =0.03). When only symptomatic patients are considered, the incidence of perioperative stroke was 6.0% in the CAS group and 3.2% in the CEA group.3 A debate continues as to whether the composite outcome of stroke and myocardial infarction, …

Carotid angioplasty and stenting, success relies on appropriate patient selection

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is a percutaneous alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. This study sought to evaluate whether patients at increased perioperative risk for CEA may be treated with CAS while maintaining equivalent outcomes. This study was a nonblinded, retrospective analysis of data obtained from September 2002 to present in the CAS group and from January 1997 to present in the CEA group. Two hundred thirty-one CAS and 647 CEA procedures were performed. Patients were selected for CAS based on criteria that placed them at increased risk for standard CEA surgery. Except for percentage women treated, baseline demographics did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: mean age (72.0 years [range 46-94] vs 70.5 years [range 42-92], P = NS), mean follow-up (12.8 +/- 11.8 months vs 8.7 +/- 10.0 months, P = NS) and percentage women treated (41.4% vs 32.3%, P = .03). Cerebral protection devices were used in 228/231 patients treated with CAS, and each patient underwent an NIH Stroke Scale assessment 24 hours postoperatively and at 30 days follow-up by an independent observer. Preoperative neurologic symptoms did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: amaurosis fugax (6.06% vs 6.96%, P = NS), transient ischemic attacks (13.4% vs 13.9%, P = NS), strokes (19.9% vs 14.1%, P = NS) and total symptoms (27.7% vs 30.5%, P = NS). Due to the selection of patient groups based on predefined clinical characteristics, factors associated with an increased risk of complications from standard CEA surgery were generally more prevalent in patients treated with CAS: neck irradiation (6.06% vs 1.24%, P < .001), neck dissection for cancer therapy (7.8% vs 1.5%, P < .001), prior ipsilateral CEA (15.2% vs 3.4%, P </= .001), contralateral carotid artery occlusion (12.1% vs 1.1%, P < .001), modified Goldman Cardiac Risk II-moderate risk (26.0% vs 11.3%, P < .001) and modified Goldman Cardiac Risk III-high risk (16.4% vs 2.1%, P < .001) in patients treated with CAS and CEA, respectively. Perioperative outcomes did not differ between patients treated with CAS and CEA: myocardial infarction (MI) (1.7% vs 2.6%, P = NS), stroke without residual symptoms (1.3% vs 1.2%, P = NS), stroke with residual symptoms (0.4% vs 0.8%, P = NS), mortality (0.4% vs 0.6%, P = NS), and total MI/stroke/mortality rate (3.9% vs 5.3%, P = NS). The data in this study demonstrate that high-risk patients undergoing CAS had comparable outcomes to low-risk patients undergoing CEA. This study supports the use of CAS as a reasonable alternative for patients at increased perioperative risk for CEA.

Long-term outcome after angioplasty of symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis with and without stent

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has widely replaced balloon angioplasty (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, PTA) in the treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS). Here we assess whether the use of stents increases the safety and long-term efficacy of angioplasty in patients with ICAS. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that the long-term efficacy of CAS is superior to that of PTA. At the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, PTA was performed from 1990 to 1997 and CAS was performed from 1998 to 2006. All patients undergoing these procedures were symptomatic. Selection and follow-up examinations were performed by independent vascular neurologists. Follow-up terms were 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, then annually. In the PTA group (n=71), 2.8% of the patients showed severe periinterventional complications (i.e. lasting neurological deficits). Of these 71 patients, 57.7% were followed up for an average period of 51 months. Stenosis >70% was observed in 9.8% of the PTA patients, while 4.9% of the patients had ipsilateral occlusions. In the CAS group (n=354), 4.2% of the patients showed severe periinterventional complications. In total, 61% of the CAS patients were followed up for an average period of 25 months, of whom 4.6% showed stenosis of >70% and 1.9% had ipsilateral occlusions. Periprocedural complications and new symptoms that appeared during follow-up occurred at a rate of 5.6% (PTA) and 5.9% (CAS). There was no difference in the rate of annual ipsilateral events (1.1% in PTA vs. 1.3% in CAS, p=1.000) Overall, the use of stents, rather than PTA only, shows no beneficial clinical effect in the treatment of ICA stenosis. While the rate of restenosis may be significantly reduced, this merely suggests that the impact of restenosis is less apparent than expected.

Postprocedural microembolic events following carotid surgery and carotid angioplasty and stenting

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

Treatment of asymptomatic carotid artery disease: Similar early outcomes after carotid stenting for high-risk patients and endarterectomy for standard-risk patients

The role of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with carotid disease remains controversial. The purpose of this report is to compare outcomes in asymptomatic patients treated with CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This was the initial experience performing CAS for most of the surgeons. For comparison, we also report our outcomes in standard-risk patients treated concurrently with CEA during the same period of time. A retrospective, nonrandomized review of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or CAS at Washington University Medical Center in St. Louis was done. Patients with >70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis treated between September 2003 and April 2005 were identified. CEA was the first therapeutic consideration in all patients. CAS was reserved for high-risk patients. Thirty-day outcomes of stroke or death were recorded. During this time interval, 248 patients were treated including with 93 CAS and with 145 CEA. Symptomatic or clinically detected adverse outcomes such as myocardial infarction (MI), arrhythmia, renal failure, or pulmonary complications were noted but were not the primary end points of this review. This study addresses only the periprocedural outcomes of CEA and CAS in asymptomatic patients. No data >30-day follow-up are included. During this period, 93 CAS and 145 CEA procedures were done in asymptomatic patients. Patient characteristics in both groups were similar. Carotid protection devices were used in 91.4% of CAS patients. The results in the CAS group showed one death (1.1%) and one stroke (1.1%). In the CEA group, three strokes occurred (2.1%, P = 0.9999), one associated with death (0.7%, P = 0.9999). The CAS group had 1.34 +/- 0.83 risk factors vs 0.39 +/- 0.58 in the CEA group (P < .0001). Median CAS and CEA length of stay was 1 day. CAS for asymptomatic carotid stenosis demonstrated equivalent outcomes compared with CEA, despite CAS being reserved for use in a disadvantaged subset of high-risk patients owing to anatomic risk factors or medical comorbidities. These results suggest CAS should be considered a reasonable treatment option in the high-risk but asymptomatic patient. Enthusiasm for CAS should be tempered by the recognition that long-term outcomes in CAS-treated asymptomatic patients remain unknown.

Bilateral carotid angioplasty and stenting

Bilateral carotid stenosis is generally treated by staged stenting procedure and rarely simultaneously due to concerns about hemodynamic impairment from stimulation of the carotid sinus baroreflex (severe bradycardia, hypotension) and the risk of cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome. Most of the accounts of bilateral carotid stenting are of small series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of simultaneous bilateral carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in comparison with staged procedure. We retrospectively analyzed the procedural outcome and complications of bilateral CAS done between February 1995 and June 2004 in a consecutive series of 57 high-risk patients. Mean age was 64 +/- 9 years (male, 43; female 14). One hundred fifteen arteries were treated (one patient had bilateral internal carotid artery stenosis associated to an ostial common carotid artery stenosis). Thirty-nine patients were symptomatic (70%). Thirty-six patients had severe coronary artery disease. Seventeen patients underwent a simultaneous bilateral CAS (group 1), 40 in a staged manner (group 2). Among these 40 patients 10 were treated with a time interval of 24 hr, while the 30 other ones were treated with a time interval of 2 days to 2 months. A neuroprotection device was used in the last 42 patients. There was technical success in all patients and transient bradycardia and/or hypotension in 25 patients (44%). There was no prolonged bradycardia or hypotension. At 30 days, we observed in group 1 (simultaneous bilateral CAS) no transient ischemic attack (TIA), no minor stroke, one (5.8%) major stroke (hyperperfusion syndrome with brain hemorrhage leading to death in a patient under IIb/IIIa inhibitors), one myocardial infarction leading to death, and two (11.7%) death/stroke/myocardial infarction; in group 2 (staged procedure), two (5%) TIAs, no minor stroke, no major stroke, and one (2.5%) hyperperfusion syndrome with rapid recovery. Among the 10 patients treated with a time interval of 24 hr, we observed one TIA. Among carefully selected patients, bilateral CAS is feasible simultaneously or the day after, with a safety and complication rate comparable to that of large published series of CAS or endarterectomies in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, careful monitoring of the patient, blood pressure, and heart rate is mandatory to avoid complications related to hyperperfusion syndrome. Routine use of neuroprotection device and meticulous technique should improve the outcomes of bilateral CAS.

Stroke Review

The year 2004 in interventional neuroradiology has been distinguished by the steady accumulation of evidence to validate the efficacy of therapeutic procedures, such as carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for cerebrovascular atherosclerosis. There is increasing momentum to design trials that will validate the role of endovascular therapy in the treatment of acute stroke and other cerebrovascular disorders. Practice patterns continue to evolve as evidence-based principles are applied to interventional therapy. In September 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of stents for the treatment of atherosclerotic disease of the carotid bifurcation. This approval was based on data from the industry-supported Acculink for Revascularization of Carotids in High Risk patients (ARCHeR)1 registry and the Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial.2 ARCHeR showed a 10% complication rate for CAS in 581 high-risk patients compared with a 15% complication rate derived from the carotid endarterectomy (CEA) literature. SAPPHIRE was a randomized control trial (RCT) comparing CAS to CEA in 334 high-risk patients. Primary end points were the cumulative incidence of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days and death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The overall rate of primary end points was 39% lower in the CAS group, and CAS resulted in complication rates for all adverse events ≤CEA in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The authors believe they have proven their hypothesis that CAS with distal protection is not inferior to CEA in high-risk patients. Criticisms of the study include the large proportion of asymptomatic patients, bias favoring CAS due to unequal randomization, the inclusion of many patients with recurrent stenoses after prior CEA, small sample size, and controversial end points, such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve palsy.3 The evidence is also …

Comparison of angioplasty and stenting with cerebral protection versus endarterectomy for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis in elderly patients

Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is being evaluated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of severe carotid artery stenosis. Because CAS does not require general anesthesia and is less traumatic, it might be especially advantageous in older patients, but data comparing these 2 treatment methods in older patients are scarce. The periprocedural complication rates in 53 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone protected CAS between June 2001 and April 2004 were compared with those in a group of 110 patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone CEA between January 1997 and December 2001, before widespread introduction of CAS procedures at our institution. All patients were evaluated by a neurologist both before and after surgery. According to the criteria set forth by the large trials the occurrence of minor, major, or fatal stroke, and myocardial infarction within 30 days was determined. The demographic characteristics and indications for an intervention were similar in both treatment groups. Thirty patients (57%) in the CAS group had symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with 69 patients (63%) in the CEA group. In neither group was there any fatal stroke or myocardial infarction. The 30-day stroke rate was significantly higher in the CAS group (4 minor, 2 major strokes; 11.3%) than in the CEA group (no minor, 2 major strokes; 1.8%; P < .05). Although the 30-day major stroke rate between CAS and CEA groups was comparable (3.8% vs 1.8%; P = 0.6), this effect was mainly attributable to a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group (7.5% vs 0%; P < .05). Despite the use of cerebral protection devices the neurologic complication rate in patients aged 75 years and older associated with CAS was significantly higher than with CEA performed by highly skilled surgeons at our academic institution. Although this finding is mainly based on a significantly higher rate of minor stroke in the CAS group, the common practice of preferentially submitting older patients to CAS is questionable, and should be abandoned until the results of further randomized trials are available.

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

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

Controversies in carotid stenting.

Endovascular therapies are now commonly used in many vascular sites. However, the role for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) remains an unproven therapy with some potential benefits. Initial results of CAS were worse than the surgical standard of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and did not meet American Heart Association guidelines. However, recent improvements have resulted in improved stroke morbidity rate that may approach that of CEA. Specifically, the embolic problem associated with CAS has been reduced with embolic protection devices, but the ultimate effect of these protection devices remains uncertain. Initial comparison studies of CAS to CEA showed an unacceptably high stroke morbidity rate in the CAS group. As a result, multiple randomized clinical trials have been initiated to compare the results of CAS with embolic protection to that of CEA. While these studies are underway, the authors advocate a careful application of CAS to be used as a complementary tool for the carotid surgeon to use in special circumstances when CEA cannot be undertaken with acceptable morbidity. Furthermore, since the reported stroke morbidity rate of CAS exceeds the AHA recommendation for treatment of asymptomatic patients, most nonsurgical patients with asymptomatic disease should be treated with medical therapy.

Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital

OBJECTIVESThe 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.BACKGROUNDCarotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.METHODSA 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.RESULTSStenosis 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.CONCLUSIONSCarotid 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.