High Risk For Carotid Endarterectomy Research Articles

Intravascular lithotripsy to facilitate transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with heavily calcified carotid arteries

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an accepted and approved treatment for carotid artery stenosis in high-risk patients, and recently in standard risk patients under the guidelines of the recent CMS National Coverage Determination. However, it's applicability is limited by certain anatomic criteria, such as heavily calcified internal carotid arteries. We retrospectively reviewed two patients at our institution with heavily calcified internal carotid artery plaques who underwent intravascular lithotripsy and TCAR. These two cases demonstrate the feasibility of lithotripsy for modification of heavy, calcified plaque prior to TCAR for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Uncommon Carotid Artery Stenting Complications: A Series by Images.

To describe through emblematic images rare but clinically relevant carotid artery stenting complications that occurred at two high-volume centres for carotid artery stenting (CAS). CAS is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis in patients judged to be at high risk for CEA. CAS complications range between 1 and 9% and are higher in older patients complaining of neurological symptoms at the time of presentation. Besides periprocedural or early-after-procedure stroke, which remains the true Achilles' heel of CAS, other dramatic complications might compromise the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Five infrequent complications, out of more than 1000 CAS performed in the years 2016-2021, have been described. Among CAS complications, acute carotid stent thrombosis, rescue retrieval of a disconnected distal cerebral embolic protection device, plaque prolapse after carotid stenting, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS), and radial artery long sheath entrapment requiring surgical intervention were found to account for 0.3% of the total number of procedures performed by operators with high CAS volume. Unusual CAS complications may infrequently occur, even in hands of expert operators. To know how to deal with such complications might help interventionalists to improve CAS performance.

Carotid Artery Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: What We Need to Know for Treatment Decision.

A clinical decision on the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is challenging, unlike symptomatic carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on the finding that the efficacy and safety of CAS were comparable to CEA in randomized trials. However, in some countries, CAS is often performed more frequently than CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Moreover, it has been recently reported that CAS is not superior to the best medical treatment in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Due to these recent changes, the role of CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be revisited. When determining the treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, one should consider several clinical factors including stenosis degree, patient life expectancy, stroke risk by medical treatment, availability of a vascular surgeon, high risk for CEA or CAS, and insurance coverage. This review aimed to present and pragmatically organize the information that is necessary for a clinical decision on CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. In conclusion, although the traditional benefit of CAS is being revisited recently, it seems too early to conclude that CAS is no longer beneficial under intense and systemic medical treatment. Instead, a treatment strategy with CAS should evolve to select eligible or medically high-risk patients more precisely.

Analysis of the anatomic eligibility for transcarotid artery revascularization in Chinese patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is thought to be a promising technique and instrument for treating carotid stenosis with favorable outcomes. Since there remain several differences in anatomic characteristics among races, this study was conducted to investigate the anatomic eligibility of TCAR in Chinese patients who underwent carotid revascularization. A retrospective review of patients with carotid stenosis from 2019 to 2021 was conducted. The anatomic eligibility of TCAR was based on the instruction of the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System. The carotid artery characteristics and configuration of the circle of Willis (CoW) were evaluated by CT angiography. The demographic and clinical characteristics and procedure-related complications were recorded. Logistic regression was used to analyze the independent factors for TCAR eligibility. Of 289 consecutive patients [222 for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and 67 for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS)] identified, a total of 215 patients (74.4%) met TCAR anatomic eligibility. Specifically, 83.7% had mild common carotid artery (CCA) puncture site plaque, 95.2% had 4-9 mm internal carotid artery diameters, 95.8% had >6 mm CCA diameter, and 98.3% had >5 cm clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance. Those who were female (OR, 5.967; 95% CI: 2.545-13.987; P < 0.001), were of an older age (OR, 1.226; 95% CI: 1.157-1.299; P < 0.001), and higher body mass index (OR, 1.462; 95% CI: 1.260-1.697; P < 0.001) were prone to be associated with TCAR ineligibility. In addition, 71 patients with TCAR eligibility (33.0%) were found to combine with incomplete CoW. A high risk for CEA was found in 29 patients (17.3%) with TCAR eligibility, and a high risk for TF-CAS was noted in nine patients (19.1%) with TCAR eligibility. Overall, cranial nerve injury (CNI) was found in 22 patients after CEA, while 19 of them (11.3%) met TCAR eligibility. A significant proportion of Chinese patients meet the anatomic criteria of TCAR, making TCAR a feasible treatment option in China. Anatomic and some demographic factors play key roles in TCAR eligibility. Further analysis indicates a potential reduction of procedure-related complications in patients with high-risk carotid stenosis under the TCAR procedure.

Physiologic risk factors increase risk of myocardial infarction with transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials

ObjectivePatients can be considered at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) because of either anatomic or physiologic factors and will often undergo transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Patients with physiologic criteria will be considered to have a higher overall surgical risk because of more significant comorbidities. Our aim was to study the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and combined end points for patients who had undergone TCAR stratified by the risk factors (anatomic vs physiologic). MethodsAn analysis of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER (pivotal; safety and efficacy study for reverse flow used during carotid artery stenting procedure), ROADSTER 2 (Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket trial; postapproval study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery disease), and ROADSTER extended access TCAR trials was performed. All 851 patients were considered to be at high risk for CEA and were included and stratified using high-risk anatomic criteria (ie, contralateral occlusion, tandem stenosis, high cervical artery stenosis, restenosis after previous endarterectomy, bilateral carotid stenting, hostile neck anatomy with previous neck irradiation, neck dissection, cervical spine immobility) or high-risk physiologic criteria (ie, age >75 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, history of angina, congestive heart failure New York Heart Association class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent MI, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent contralateral cranial nerve injury, chronic renal insufficiency). For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients were required to have had ≥80% carotid stenosis and symptomatic patients to have had ≥50% stenosis. The primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and MI at 30 days. The data were statistically analyzed using the χ2 test, as appropriate. ResultsA total of 851 high surgical risk patients were categorized into two groups: those with anatomic-only risk factors (n = 372) or at least one physiologic risk factor present (n = 479). Of the 851 patients, 74.5% of those in the anatomic subset were asymptomatic, and 76.6% in the physiologic subset were asymptomatic. General anesthesia was used similarly in both groups (67.7% anatomic vs 68.1% physiologic). MI had occurred in eight patients in the physiologic group (1.7%), all of whom had been asymptomatic and in none of the anatomic patients (P = .01). The combined stroke, death, and MI rate was 2.1% in the anatomic cohort and 4.2% in the physiologic cohort (P = .10). Stratification of each group into asymptomatic and symptomatic patients did not yield any further differences. ConclusionsThe patients who had undergone TCAR in the present prospective, neurologically adjudicated trial because of high-risk physiologic factors had had a higher rate of MI compared with the patients who had qualified for TCAR using anatomic criteria only. These patients had experienced comparable rates of combined stroke, death, and MI rates. The anatomic patients represented a healthier and younger subset of patients, with notably low overall event rates.

In-hospital outcomes after upper extremity versus transfemoral and transcarotid access for carotid stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently used for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. However, there are limited data comparing transradial or transbrachial (tr/tbCAS) access with more established CAS approaches. Therefore, we examined the effect of a tr/tbCAS approach versus a transfemoral (tfCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach on outcomes after CAS. We identified all patients undergoing CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to December 2021. We compared outcomes across 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS or tr/tbCAS versus TCAR. As a secondary analysis, we assessed outcomes stratified by carotid symptom status. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. Among 40,835 CAS patients, 962 (2.4%) underwent tr/tbCAS, 18,840 (46%) underwent tfCAS, and 21,033 (52%) underwent TCAR. Among matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS, there was no significant difference in the risk of stroke/death (4.1% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-2.1), but tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of death (2.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.1% vs 3.9%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and death (3.6% vs 1.7%; RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for mRS in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.9) or death (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81-3.3) between groups. In matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (4.2% vs 2.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7) and death (2.4% vs 0.5%; RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS remained associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.2% vs 2.4%; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2) and death (3.7% vs 0.7%; RR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for Modified Rankin Scale in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.79-2.6) or death (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.95-5.7) between groups. Compared with tfCAS or TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death in symptomatic patients, which was driven primarily by a higher risk of death. These inferior outcomes were partly attributable to more severe preoperative neurologic disability in tr/tbCAS patients. In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes in asymptomatic patients. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of guideline-directed patient selection in tr/tbCAS.

Embolic protection devices for carotid artery stenting: A network meta-analysis.

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative treatment option for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has been correlated with increased risk for distal embolization and periprocedural stroke despite the use of adjunctive embolic protection devices (EPD). This study compared four types of EPDs and their intra and periprocedural related complications. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed/Medline to identify studies that investigated the outcomes of CAS with adjuvant use of EPDs, including Proximal Balloon (PB), Distal Filter (DF), and Distal Balloon (DB) strategy. Continuous flow reversal performed via transcarotid approach by a commercially available device as an embolic protection strategy was intentionally excluded based on its distinct procedural characteristics and lack of availability outside of the United States. This network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Overall, 45 studies, consisting of 7600 participants satisfied the predetermined search criteria and were included in this network meta-analysis. Overall, 13 studies provided data regarding the number of patients with new ischemic lesions detected in the DW-MRI. DF (OR: 3.15; 95% CI: 1.54-6.44; p = 0.002) and DB (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.58-3.29; p < 0.001) were associated with higher odds of new ischemic lesions compared to PB on DW-MRI imaging. No statistical difference was identified between DB versus DF groups (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.73-2.59; p = 0.317). 36 and 27 studies reported on periprocedural stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) rates, respectively, showing similar odds of neurologic adverse events between all three groups. PB deployment during CAS is superior to DF and DB in preventing distal embolization phenomena. However, no statistically significant difference in TIA and stroke rate was found among any of the analyzed EPD groups. Further research is warranted to investigate the association of embolic phenomena on imaging after CAS with clinically significant neurologic deficits.

In-Stent Restenosis after Carotid Stenting

Carotid artery stenosis is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke. Currently, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the surgical treatment of choice for carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) increases the risk of carotid artery stenosis. CAS is one of the treatment options available, particularly for high-risk CEA patients. Although CAS has the advantages of being less invasive, causing less patient discomfort, and requiring a shorter hospital stay, some patients may develop in-stent restenosis (ISR). ISR is closely related to clinical events such as transient ischemic attacks and ischemic stroke recurrence. The author examines the mechanism, influencing factors, and research progress of ISR following CAS, as well as its prevention and treatment, in order to provide clinical insights for clinicians.

One-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in the ROADSTER 2 trial

ObjectivesTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a carotid stenting technique that utilizes reversal of cerebral arterial flow to confer cerebral protection. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the search for the optimal minimally invasive option for the high-risk surgical patient continues. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the 1-year safety and efficacy of TCAR in a prospective clinical trial. MethodsROADSTER 2 is a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, post-approval registry for patients undergoing TCAR. All patients were considered high risk for CEA and underwent independent neurological assessments preoperatively, postoperatively, and had long-term clinical follow-up. The primary end point was incidence of ipsilateral stroke after treatment with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System. Secondary end points included individual/composite rates of stroke, death, and perioperative myocardial infarction. ResultsBetween June 2016 and November 2018, 155 patients at 21 centers in the United States and one in the European Union were enrolled and represented a subset of the overall trial. Asymptomatic (n = 119; 77%) and symptomatic patients (n = 36; 23%) with high-risk anatomic (ie, high lesion, restenosis, radiation injury; 43%), physiologic (32%), or combined factors (25%) were enrolled. No patient suffered a perioperative myocardial infarction or stroke. Over the year, no patient had an ipsilateral stroke, but four patients died (2.6%), all from non-neurological causes. Additionally, a technical success rate of 98.7% with a low cranial nerve deficit rate of 1.3% was achieved. ConclusionsIn patients with high risk factors, TCAR yields high technical success with a low stroke and death rate at 1 year. Further comparative studies with CEA are warranted.

Ceramides and phospholipids in plasma extracellular vesicles are associated with high risk of major cardiovascular events after carotid endarterectomy

Ceramides and phosphatidylcholines (PCs) are bioactive lipids and lipid bilayer membrane components. Distinct ceramides/PCs (ratios) predict cardiovascular outcome in patients with coronary artery disease. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are proposed biomarkers for cardiovascular disease and contain ceramides/PCs. Ceramides/PCs have not been studied in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) nor in EVs. We therefore investigated whether levels of ceramides/PCs in plasma and EVs are associated with postoperative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) following CEA. In 873 patients undergoing CEA of the Athero-Express biobank, we quantitatively measured seven ceramides/PCs in preoperative blood samples: Cer(d18:1/16:0), Cer(d18:1/18:0), Cer(d18:1/24:0), Cer(d18:1/24:1), PC(14:0/22:6), PC(16:0/16:0) and PC(16:0/22:5) in plasma and two plasma EV-subfractions (LDL and TEX). We analyzed the association of ceramides, PCs and their predefined ratios with the three-year postoperative risk of MACE (including stroke, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death). A total of 138 patients (16%) developed MACE during the three-year follow-up. In the LDL-EV subfraction, higher levels of Cer(d18:1/24:1) and Cer(d18:1/16:0)/PC(16:0/22:5) ratio were significantly associated with an increased risk of MACE (adjusted HR per SD [95% CI] 1.24 [1.01–1.53] and 1.26 [1.04–1.52], respectively). In the TEX-EV subfraction, three ratios Cer(d18:1/16:0)/Cer(d18:1/24:0), Cer(d18:1/18:0)/Cer(d18:1/24:0) and Cer(d18:1/24:1)/Cer(d18:1/24:0) were positively associated with MACE (adjusted HR per SD 1.34 [1.06–1.70], 1.24 [1.01–1.51] and 1.31 [1.08–1.58], respectively). In conclusion, distinct ceramides and PCs in plasma EVs determined in preoperative blood were independently associated with an increased 3-year risk of MACE after CEA. These lipids are therefore potential markers to identify high-risk CEA patients qualifying for secondary preventive add-on therapy.

Up to date, new stents in carotid artery treatment

The development of endovascular techniques, their diffusion around the word and the idea of less invasive techniques led to the improvement of devices involved in carotid artery stenting (CAS). Stent implantation with the concept of brain protection represented a historic advance [1-3]. It is being widely performed in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic disease, at high risk for carotid endarterectomy [1-5].

Risk Factors for and Intraoperative Management of Intolerance to Flow Reversal in TCAR

BackgroundIn patients deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) who are indicated for treatment of carotid artery stenosis (CAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective alternative to trans-femoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Compared to CEA, where approx. 12% of patients undergoing awake intervention do not tolerate internal carotid artery (ICA) clamping, only 1–2% of patients were observed to have intolerance to flow reversal during TCAR based on data from the ROADSTER1/2 trials. This study reviewed awake interventions from those trials to assess factors associated with intolerance to flow reversal and review how those cases were managed. MethodsThis is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial along with the subsequent post-approval (ROADSTER-2) trial. The subset of patients from both trials undergoing awake TCAR was analyzed to compare demographics, procedural details, and anatomic factors between patients who did and did not experience intolerance to reversal of flow to assess for predisposing factors. Patients were deemed intolerant to flow reversal at the discretion of the operator, often related to changes in completion of neurologic tasks, hemodynamic stability, or patient reported symptoms. ResultsA total of 103 patients from ROADSTER and 194 patients from ROADSTER-2 underwent TCAR under local/regional anesthesia. Of these, 8 patients had intolerance to flow reversal, though all cases were successfully completed. While intraoperative hemodynamic data was only available for 5 of the 8 intolerant patients, none experienced hypotension. 4 cases were completed under low flow reversal, 3 cases were successfully weaned from low to high flow over several minutes, and 1 case required general anesthesia. No significant association was found between intolerance to flow reversal and comorbidities including diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), congestive heart failure (CHF), prior MI or angina, pre-op CAS-related symptoms, prior stroke, prior CAS or CEA, prior neck radiation, tandem stenosis, high cervical stenosis, or hostile neck. A trend towards significance was seen with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and contralateral carotid artery occlusion (P = 0.086 and 0.139, respectively). ConclusionsDespite intolerance to flow reversal, TCAR cases were successfully completed by adjusting reversal-of-flow rate and do not typically require conversion to GETA. While factors contributing to intolerance of flow reversal during TCAR remain poorly understood, this study identified a trend towards significance with an association of preexisting COPD and contralateral carotid artery occlusion. Given the low number of patients who experienced this issue, a larger sample size is required to better elucidate these trends.

Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting.

The multicenter prospective CREST-2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access-related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity-score matched logistic regression. The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p=0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p=0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access-related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR=1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p=0.42). We found no significant differences in rates of major access-related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

Slow Medicine.

This is an opinion piece that examines the dichotomy of "fast medicine" (which involves high medical use and spending) and what I refer to as "slow medicine". It discusses ethical questions around which of these two frameworks really confers better "health" to patients - using examples from a real patient scenario of mine who was considering undergoing a relatively high-risk carotid endarterectomy. It then re-affirms the importance of primary care to conferring health and the ultimate value of primary care, or "slow medicine". I believe it is a timely discussion as we continue to advocate for more primary care resources in our health care system.

Technique for transcarotid artery revascularization of tandem lesions.

The repair of tandem carotid lesions has been described using myriad methods, often involving a hybrid approach of stenting with carotid endarterectomy. Because of the worrisome stroke rates associated with this method, we have reported an innovative technique of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for tandem lesions in a patient with high-grade stenosis of the right common and internal carotid arteries. Technical success was achieved with TCAR via retrograde and antegrade access using dynamic flow reversal for the treatment of both lesions. The patient experienced no postoperative complications, highlighting the successful repair of tandem carotid lesions using TCAR in a patient who is too high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Clinical trial of carotid artery stenting using dual-layer CASPER stent for carotid endarterectomy in patients at high and normal risk in the Japanese population

BackgroundThe dual-layer nitinol CASPER stent was designed to prevent plaque prolapse into its strut and periprocedural stroke.ObjectiveTo conduct a clinical trial for government approval of the device in patients at...

Effects of Procedure Timing on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis Undergoing Transcarotid Artery Stenting

Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive alternative for patients considered high risk for carotid endarterectomy. The Society for Vascular Surgery and European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommend performing carotid endarterectomy within 14 days of symptoms to balance perioperative risk with recurrent stroke risk. However, no studies have evaluated the association between TCAR timing and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to utilize the Vascular Quality Initiative, a national database, to evaluate the impact of timing of TCAR on perioperative risk and long-term outcomes.

Intraoperative Management and Factors Contributing to Intolerance of Reversal of Flow in Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

In patients deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) who are indicated for treatment of carotid artery stenosis (CAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective alternative to transfemoral CAS. Compared with CEA, in which approximately 12% of patients undergoing awake intervention do not tolerate internal carotid artery clamping, only 1% to 2% of patients were observed to have intolerance to flow reversal during TCAR based on data from the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) 1 and 2 trials.

Very Low Rate of New Brain Lesions After Vulnerable Carotid Artery Stenting Cases Using Only FilterWire EZ as Distal Embolic Protection

Although carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been widely acknowledged as an effective alternative option for patients at high risk of carotid endarterectomy, embolic stroke is a major complication of CAS. Several reports have emphasized that distal protection filter alone is associated with a high risk of embolic complications of CAS with vulnerable plaque. Thus, relatively complicated protection systems have recently been recommended to prevent distal embolic complications. However, those protection systems require many steps, which, themselves, can also cause complications. The FilterWire EZ embolic protection device (EPD) for use in CAS was approved for national health insurance coverage in Japan in 2010. Since then, we have been using it as an EPD in all CAS procedures, even those with vulnerable plaque. The medical records of 80 patients who had undergone CAS from February 2014 to September 2019 at Moriyama Memorial Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Emergent cases with distal mechanical thrombectomy were not included. We enrolled patients whose target lesion was vulnerable as evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging and who had undergone diffusion-weighted imaging studies the next day. Of the 80 patients, 60 had met the inclusion criteria. No symptomatic embolic complications developed, and only 5 patients (8.3%) had shown new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging after CAS. The rate of new lesions after CAS with vulnerable plaque was much lower than that in previous studies. We meticulously analyzed the data to determine the predictive factors. The FilterWire EZ as an EPD for CAS is quite safe, even for vulnerable carotid stenosis.

Carotid Endarterectomy Remains Safe in High-Risk Patients

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a proven intervention for stroke risk reduction in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. High-risk patients are often offered carotid stenting to minimize risk and to optimize outcomes. As a referral center for high-risk patients, we sought to evaluate and to analyze our experience with high-risk CEA patients.