Management Of Carotid Stenosis Research Articles

A Prosthetic Conduit can be Used Safely for TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Under Local Anesthesia in High-Risk Patients.

Surgical management of carotid stenosis has evolved from open carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to include multiple alternative procedures including transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) and transcarotid artery stenting. In recent years, Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as a third option, combining open cut down to the common carotid artery (CCA) with endovascular stenting and neuroprotection via reversal of cerebral blood flow. In this case series, a modified TCAR procedure using a prosthetic conduit was successfully performed exclusively under local anesthesia in a total of 10 patients with carotid artery stenosis, high cardiac risk, and anatomical contraindications to a traditional TCAR.

Evolution of Medical and Surgical Management of Carotid Disease from Carotid Endarterectomy to Transfemoral Carotid Stenting to TCAR

Patients with carotid stenosis can be broadly classified into two categories: symptomatic and asymptomatic. While there is little disagreement about surgical management of symptomatic carotid stenosis, the optimal management strategy for the patients with asymptomatic carotid disease has undergone significant evolution over past five decades. With increasing focus on role of plaque morphology on the etiology of symptoms, there has been an increased focus on optimizing the medical management targeted at plaque stabilization, especially for the patients with asymptomatic carotid disease, while reserving the most aggressive surgical treatment options for the patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. This review summarizes the scientific evidence based on multiple large clinical studies showing how the modern-day management of carotid stenosis has evolved. Multiple, large randomized clinical trials have established carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the treatment of choice for symptomatic patients with symptomatic, >50% stenosis of carotid artery or those who have asymptomatic high grade carotid stenosis. With the advancements in endovascular techniques, the technique of Trans Femoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TF-CAS) was popularized, but after multiple, large randomized controlled trials demonstrated superiority of CEA, the indications for TF-CAS as the initial operation of choice for carotid disease for all patients have been reduced. In the past five years, the introduction of the newer technique of Trans Carotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has shown promising results with significant reduction in the incidence of perioperative complications as compared to CEA and TF-CAS, however, there have been no randomized controlled trials comparing TCAR to either CEA or TF-CAS. Moreover, with the developments in the medical field with introduction of several new medications which have been demonstrated to successfully change the plaque morphology, there has been a renewed interest in exploring if the indications for surgical management for the asymptomatic carotid disease should be revisited.

International cross-sectional survey on attitudes and practices regarding use of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound in VASCular surgery: The I-ULTRA-VASC study.

The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to gather attitudes and practices of physicians from different countries regarding the implementation of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound (CEUS) for vascular diseases in clinical practice as well as in academic research. A web-based survey was developed in English, including 35 questions. Two-hundred sixty physicians were invited by email to fill in the survey anonymously on Google Forms using a dedicated link. The survey started on 25th February 2024 and was closed on 13th March 2024 (17days). A reminder was sent after the first 10days. In addition to descriptive statistics, sub-analyses of answers according to country of origin (Italy vs other States), years of experience (≤20years vs > 20years), and type of institution (Academic/University vs Non-Academic/Private) were also established a priori. A total of 121 practitioners from 20 countries completed our survey (response rate 121/260, 46%). Most responders were males (95/121, 78.5%). Most participants were vascular surgeons (118/121, 97.5%). CEUS was available in 87/121, 70.2% of the centers involved, even though a standardized protocol was present in 54/121, and 44% of surveyed institutions. Italian institutions presented greater CEUS availability (62/72, 86.1% vs 25/49, 51.0%; p = .001) and higher presence of standardized protocols (38/72, 52.8% vs 16/49, 32.6%; p = .022) than foreign institutions. The diagnostic tool was thought to be more useful for carotid artery stenosis in the postoperative phase, while for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the preoperative phase. For diagnosis and/or preoperative management of carotid stenosis 53/121, 44% of physicians believed that CEUS should be performed only in selected cases, while for AAA 42/121, 35% of them believed that it could be useful only for scientific purposes. Similarly, 99/121, 82% of participants answered that CEUS was usually prescribed in 0%-20% of the cases during the preoperative diagnostic pathway of patients with peripheral arterial disease. No differences between country of origin, years of experience, and type of institution were found for the reported items. There was also 106/121, 88% of respondents agreed upon the need for better integration of CEUS in current guidelines and 114/121, 94% of them upon the need for further studies. This ULTRA-VASC survey has demonstrated that CEUS is still rarely used in current practice for many vascular diseases despite the availability of this tool in most centers Future studies are needed, as well as enhanced guidance on the proper implementation of CEUS from guidelines.

Contemporary open surgical approaches for the management of carotid stenosis: a comprehensive review.

This study aims to provide an overview on contemporary open surgical approaches for the management of carotid artery stenosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify and categorize open surgery intervention techniques for the management of carotid artery stenosis, focusing on the benefits and drawbacks of each technique. Five surgical techniques for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have been described: CEA with primary closure, CEA with patch closure, CEA by eversion technique, CEA by modified eversion technique and CEA by partial eversion. Evidence has reported significantly higher rates of perioperative complications after CEA with primary closure, including 30-days stroke rate and late restenosis. Although more recent techniques have been reported to provide superior outcomes, electing the best surgical technique is still a matter of debate. Also, CEA using a mini-skin incision has been associated to lower risk of cranial/cervical nerve injury and shorter length of hospital stay. The selection of the surgical intervention should be tailored and have into consideration individual patient characteristics, clinical considerations, surgeon preference and surgical team expertise. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to support more robust decisions on the choice of contemporary open surgical approaches to manage carotid stenosis.

708 Trends in Carotid Stenosis Literature Between 2012-2022: Applications of Endarterectomy and Translational Research

INTRODUCTION: Carotid stenosis causes 10-20% of cases with ischemic stroke. Research in this clinical domain continues to progress in improving possible treatment modalities, imaging modalities, mechanistic understandings, and risk factors. METHODS: The WebOfScience database was investigated for 6,639 publication items between 2012-2022 pertaining to neurosurgical management of carotid stenosis. Networks were constructed analyzing keywords, key terms, and countries of publication. Subsequently, items within each network were organized into clusters and average publication date was measured for each term. Relevant items were tracked over time to compare their representation and utility in literature. Additionally, relevant key terms and connections were isolated from the network. RESULTS: For each network, the top 1,000 terms were selected for analysis. Terms were arranged into six major clusters (treatments, imaging, risk factors, prognostic markers, plaque characteristics, and basic science research). The most recent terms were observed in the treatment cluster (average publication year 2021.24) and basic science cluster (average publication year 2018.4). While terms within basic science have remained consistent over time, analysis of treatments elucidated that “carotid endarterectomy” surpassed “carotid artery stenting” in popularity after 2019. Additionally, the term “mouse” in the basic science cluster was connected to all clusters with a link strength of 18,084 (average 427.6). CONCLUSIONS: Modern research in carotid stenosis is characterized by two developments: advancements in basic science and increasing publication focus on carotid endarterectomy. Despite recent advancements in endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis, open treatment continues to remain a significant focus of study. As they continue to expand into modern scientific enterprise, developing nations will continue to impact the future of carotid stenosis research.

Residual In-Stent Carotid Stenosis and Cigarette Smoking are Independent Predictors of Carotid Restenosis After Carotid Artery Stenting—Results from 738 Carotid Artery Stenting Procedures at a Single Center

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the management of carotid stenosis. Our aim was to determine the rate of radiographic restenosis after CAS and clinical, radiographic, and procedural predictors of in-stent restenosis. METHODS: Our single-center, prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for CAS procedures performed in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients over 12 years (2010-2022). Baseline demographic data, procedural characteristics, and preprocedural and postprocedural radiographic and clinical details were noted. Baseline characteristics of patients with and without carotid restenosis were compared using the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Student t-test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors associated with restenosis, defined as >70% on digital subtraction angiography. RESULTS: A total of 1017 consecutive CAS procedures were performed in 905 patients during the 12-year period, with 738 in 632 patients included in our study. Our cohort's overall restenosis rate was 17%, with a 14% restenosis rate at 2 years. On multivariate regression analysis, former or current smoking status (odds ratio [OR] = 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.1), plaque irregularity (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.91), moderate (50.1%-75%) contralateral stenosis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.2), severe (75.1%-99.9%) contralateral stenosis (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.0), and residual (>70%) in-stent stenosis after initial stenting (OR 433, 95% CI 80-2346) were significantly associated with carotid restenosis. Area under the curve for the multivariate regression model analysis was 0.78. Patients with <28.6% initial (residual) in-stent stenosis (45/517 cases) had a 9% restenosis rate, whereas those with >28.6% initial in-stent stenosis (77/221 cases) had a 35% restenosis rate. CONCLUSION: In this large, single-center study of carotid artery stenosis treated with CAS, residual in-stent carotid stenosis of approximately 30% and smoking status were independent predictors for restenosis. Maximizing treatment of initial stenosis and smoking cessation education are important steps in preventing future carotid restenosis.

Carotid endarterectomy for the management of carotid stenosis occurring concurrently with head and neck cancer.

Currently, most patients with concurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) and carotid stenosis (CS) are treated disjointedly for their oncologic and vascular lesions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate literature exploring a novel approach to these cases that poses several advantages, in which carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is performed simultaneously with surgical resection of HNC. Carotid stenosis is a common comorbidity of patients presenting with head and neck cancer as these pathologies have overlapping risk factors. Adjuvant oncologic therapy such as radiation therapy to the site of the lesion is known to increase development or progression of carotid stenosis. Performing simultaneous surgical management of CS and HNC decreases total procedures for the patient, provides a less challenging surgical field, and eliminates prioritization of treatment initiation for one pathology over the other. There has been limited reporting of simultaneous CEA with oncologic resection of HNC in the literature. However, of the 21 cases reviewed here, no perioperative strokes were reported with only one perioperative death from myocardial infarction. Available literature supports that simultaneous CEA with oncologic resection of HNC is safe and may offer several advantages, although larger studies are required.

Evaluation of Imaging Techniques for the Measurement of Extracranial Internal Carotid Stenosis: A Systematic Scoping Review. (P11-5.008)

<h3>Objective:</h3> This scoping review aims to map current literature assessing inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, or accuracy of modalities used to measure carotid stenosis in standard clinical practice. <h3>Background:</h3> High-quality measurement of carotid stenosis is an essential part of assessing candidacy for carotid endarterectomy or stenting. It is unclear how the common modalities (Doppler ultrasound (DUS), CT angiography (CTA), MR angiography (MRA), and conventional angiography) compare in terms of reliability or accuracy. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> A search strategy was applied to four databases between 2010 and 2022. Included studies described inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, and/or accuracy of DUS, CTA, MRA, and conventional angiography in the measurement of extracranial internal carotid stenosis. Studies were excluded if they only examined novel techniques, assessed patients following carotid revascularization, were published before 2010 or in a non-English language. <h3>Results:</h3> We screened 963 manuscripts and included 24 for analysis. Although conventional angiography was the most common gold standard, all four modalities were used as the comparator in different studies. Studies assessed 13 different metrics, with highly variable results: sensitivity (27.8%–100%); specificity (20%–100%); positive predictive value (17.5%–100%); negative predictive value (10%–100%); agreement (42.9%–90.3%), kappa (0.25–0.97), weighted kappa (0.45–0.94); Spearman correlation coefficient (0.49–1), accuracy (55.2%–99%), Pearson’s correlation coefficient (0.49–1), volume under receiver operating characteristics surface (0.735–0.761), interclass correlation coefficient (0.83–0.98), and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.83–0.98). Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.41–0.97 (11 studies; six metrics), intra-rater reliability from 0.59–1 (six studies; five metrics), and accuracy from 0.1–1 (22 studies; 11 metrics). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Few studies have investigated the measurement of carotid stenosis since 2010. These studies demonstrate significant heterogeneity in modality assessed, method of assessment, and results. No clear conclusion can be drawn about the superiority of one modality over another. As imaging bears major implications in carotid stenosis management, these findings serve as a call for future research to better guide decision-making. <b>Disclosure:</b> Mr. Lawrence has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sim has nothing to disclose. Brian Dewar has nothing to disclose. Robert Fahed has received personal compensation in the range of $50,000-$99,999 for serving as a Consultant for Stryker Neurovascular. Robert Fahed has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Yocan Medical Systems. Dr. Shamy has nothing to disclose.

Physician Approaches to Antithrombotic Therapies for Recently Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Whereas the beneficial effect of antiplatelet therapy for recurrent stroke prevention has been well established, uncertainties remain regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis. We sought to explore the approaches of stroke physicians to antithrombotic management of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology to explore the decision-making approaches and opinions of physicians regarding antithrombotic regimens for symptomatic carotid stenosis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 22 stroke physicians (11 neurologists, 3 geriatricians, 5 interventional-neuroradiologists, and 3 neurosurgeons) from 16 centers on four continents to discuss symptomatic carotid stenosis management. We then conducted thematic analysis on the transcripts. Important themes revealed from our analysis included limitations of existing clinical trial evidence, competing surgeon versus neurologist/internist preferences, and the choice of antiplatelet therapy while awaiting revascularization. There was a greater concern for adverse events while using multiple antiplatelet agents (e.g., dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy compared to carotid artery stenting. Regional variations included more frequent use of single antiplatelet agents among European participants. Areas of uncertainty included antithrombotic management if already on an antiplatelet agent, implications of nonstenotic features of carotid disease, the role of newer antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, platelet aggregation testing, and timing of DAPT. Our qualitative findings can help physicians critically examine the rationale underlying their own antithrombotic approaches to symptomatic carotid stenosis. Future clinical trials may wish to accommodate identified variations in practice patterns and areas of uncertainty to better inform clinical practice.

Trends in Management of Carotid Stenosis

Trends in Management of Carotid Stenosis

Carotid atherosclerotic disease: A systematic review of pathogenesis and management.

Carotid stenosis is an important contributor to ischemic stroke risk with resultant significant impact on neurological disability and death in adults and with worldwide implications. Management of carotid stenosis is impacted by whether there are associated symptoms along with the degree of stenosis. Understanding of the pathogenesis of carotid atherosclerosis or stenosis is important in management of carotid stenosis. Atherosclerotic plaque formation is a chronic insidious process with a number of potential contributors to the formation of such a plaque. The definition of atherosclerosis is not simply limited to abnormal deposition of lipid but also includes a chronic, complex, inflammatory process. Molecularly, in atherosclerosis, there is decreasing nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability, activity and/or expression of endothelial NO synthase, or increasing degradation of NO secondary to enhanced superoxide production. These above changes cause endothelial dysfunction leading to formation of foam cell followed by formation on lipid plaque. After lipid plaque formation, stable or unstable atherosclerotic plaque is formed depending on the calcium deposition over the lipid plaque. It continues to be clearly established that carotid intervention for symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis is best managed with intervention either by carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting. However, asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the subject of considerable controversy in terms of optimal management. This review of carotid atherosclerosis is an attempt to incorporate the information provided by more recent studies on pathogenesis and management which may help in the decision-making process for optimal management for protection against stroke.

Carotid Interventions for Women: The Hazards and Benefits

The goal of the current review is to examine the hazards and benefits of carotid interventions in women and to provide recommendations for the indications for carotid intervention in female patients. Stroke and cerebrovascular disease are prevalent in women. There are inherent biological and other differences in men and women, which affect the manifestations and outcome of stroke, with women experiencing worse disability and higher mortality following ischemic stroke than men. Due to the underrepresentation of female patients in most clinical trials, the ability to make firm but alternative recommendations for women specifically on the management of carotid stenosis is challenging. Although some data suggest that women might have worse periprocedural outcomes as compared to men following all carotid revascularization procedures, there is also an abundance of data to support a similar risk for carotid procedures in men and women, especially with carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization. Therefore, the indications for carotid revascularization are the same in women as they are in men. The choice of a carotid revascularization procedure in women is based upon the same factors as in men and requires careful evaluation of a particular patient's risk profile, anatomic criteria, plaque morphology, and medical comorbidities that might favor one technique over the other. When performing carotid revascularization procedures in women, tailored techniques and procedures to address the small diameter of the female artery are warranted.

Management of neurophysiological monitoring changes during carotid endarterectomy exposure

BackgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a safe and effective operation in the management of carotid stenosis. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) changes during carotid clamping has been well studied, but there is scant evidence detailing IONM changes during carotid exposure. ObjectiveWe analyzed our experience with IONM changes during CEA exposure to determine whether multimodal IONM changes during exposure predict outcomes and how best to manage this challenging clinical scenario. MethodsWe reviewed all CEAs performed at our medical center between January 2015 and June 2020 and identified patients with multimodal IONM changes during exposure of the carotid artery. Our primary outcomes were perioperative stroke and functional outcomes. Functional outcomes were measured by modified Rankin scale (mRS), with good functional outcome defined at mRS scores 0–3. We also reviewed our intraoperative IONM change management strategies. ResultsFive patients (4 males, 1 female) with an average age of 67 ± 12 years had intraoperative IONM changes during carotid exposure. Among these, three patients were discharged with good functional outcome, and four patients had a good functional outcome at last follow-up. Two patients had perioperative stroke, half of which resulted in significant disability. One patient was transferred to the neuroendovascular suite intraoperatively for evaluation for thromboembolism followed by angioplasty and stenting with distal protection. ConclusionIntraoperative IONM changes during carotid exposure predict outcomes in CEA. We propose that transition to the neuroendovascular suite following significant IONM changes during carotid exposure may be a useful strategy for management of this challenging clinical scenario. This approach provides the opportunity to evaluate and treat thromboembolism and still complete carotid revascularization when appropriate. This algorithm may be particularly useful in the era of dual trained vascular neurosurgeons.

Carotid Endarterectomy Remains Cost-effective for the Management of Carotid Stenosis

Carotid Endarterectomy Remains Cost-effective for the Management of Carotid Stenosis

Carotid endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis

ObjectiveTranscarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. MethodsIncorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. ResultsIn the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. ConclusionsAt current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.

Timing to Carotid Endarterectomy Affects Early and Long-term Outcomes of Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

The aim of this study is to evaluate early and long-term outcomes according to the timing to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on a 12-year experience of symptomatic carotid stenosis management in a single high-volume center.

Carotid stenosis management: time to address the misconceptions ('furphies').

Improper management of carotid artery disease for stroke prevention is prevalent. Accumulating misconceptions (‘furphies’) drive the overuse of carotid artery procedures and the inappropriate use of medicines. Recognition of these furphies is essential to improve disease management and optimize patient outcomes.

Advance ultrasound techniques for the assessment of plaque vulnerability in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a multimodal ultrasound study.

Advanced carotid ultrasound techniques may be useful in characterizing plaque vulnerability, but comprehensive studies are still lacking. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with vulnerable plaques using advanced ultrasound techniques. This is a prospective observational study of patients with >50% internal carotid stenosis (ICA). All patients underwent conventional ultrasound, superb microvascular imaging (SMI) and shear wave elastography (SWE) examinations. Plaque size, echogenicity, stiffness and intraplaque neovascularization (IPN) were assessed and compared between symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of SWE and SMI of the vulnerable plaques. The final analysis included 123 patients (78.9% male; mean age, 66±8 years), 65 were enrolled in the symptomatic group, and 58 were enrolled in the asymptomatic group. The mean elasticity was 78.1±25.4 kPa for asymptomatic and 51.5±18.3 kPa for symptomatic plaques. Symptomatic plaques showed higher visual IPN grades on SMI than asymptomatic plaques (P<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that plaque stiffness (PS) (OR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.919-0.974) and IPN level (OR 4.17, 95% CI, 2.008-8.664) were independently associated with symptomatic plaques. The combination of the two factors had a preferable accuracy to discriminate symptomatic plaques (AUC 0.89, 95% CI, 0.827-0.944). Advanced carotid ultrasound techniques can identify plaque characteristics that are associated with ischemic events and may be potentially indicative of plaque vulnerability. These factors may ultimately be used in the clinical management of carotid stenosis.

Management of carotid stenosis for primary and secondary prevention of stroke: state-of-the-art 2020: a critical review.

Carotid atherosclerotic plaque is encountered frequently in patients at high cardiovascular risk, especially in the elderly. When plaque reaches 50% of carotid lumen, it induces haemodynamically significant carotid stenosis, for which management is currently at a turning point. Improved control of blood pressure, smoking ban campaigns, and the widespread use of statins have reduced the risk of cerebral infarction to <1% per year. However, about 15% of strokes are still secondary to a carotid stenosis, which can potentially be detected by effective imaging techniques. For symptomatic carotid stenosis, current ESC guidelines put a threshold of 70% for formal indication for revascularization. A revascularization should be discussed for symptomatic stenosis over 50% and for asymptomatic carotid stenosis over 60%. This evaluation should be performed by ultrasound as a first-line examination. As a complement, computed tomography angiography (CTA) and/or magnetic resonance angiography are recommended for evaluating the extent and severity of extracranial carotid stenosis. In perspective, new high-risk markers are currently being developed using markers of plaque neovascularization, plaque inflammation, or plaque tissue stiffness. Medical management of patient with carotid stenosis is always warranted and applied to any patient with atheromatous lesions. Best medical therapy is based on cardiovascular risk factors correction, including lifestyle intervention and a pharmacological treatment. It is based on the tri-therapy strategy with antiplatelet, statins, and ACE inhibitors. The indications for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are similar: for symptomatic patients (recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack ) if stenosis >50%; for asymptomatic patients: tight stenosis (>60%) and a perceived high long-term risk of stroke (determined mainly by imaging criteria). Choice of procedure may be influenced by anatomy (high stenosis, difficult CAS or CEA access, incomplete circle of Willis), prior illness or treatment (radiotherapy, other neck surgery), or patient risk (unable to lie flat, poor AHA assessment). In conclusion, neither systematic nor abandoned, the place of carotid revascularization must necessarily be limited to the plaques at highest risk, leaving a large place for optimized medical treatment as first line management. An evaluation of the value of performing endarterectomy on plaques considered to be at high risk is currently underway in the ACTRIS and CREST 2 studies. These studies, along with the next result of ACST-2 trial, will provide us a more precise strategy in case of carotid stenosis.

Endarterectomy with "systematized" resection anastomosis of carotid bulb, about 240 cases.

Carotid endarterectomy has traditionally been the strategy for the surgical management of carotid stenosis. Alongside the usual techniques, this study presents another technique: endarterectomy with systematized resection-anastomosis. A retrospective study from January 2006 to December 2018, included all patients managed for carotid stenosis at Meaux hospital with the "endarterectomy with systematized resection-anastomosis" technique. The perioperative death and stroke rate were evaluated according to the judgment criterion "homolateral ischemic stroke and any stroke or perioperative death". Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS software. For 415 carotids operated, we identified 240 managed with this technique. The average age was 71.7±9.6 years, 70% men and 30% women. The main cardiovascular risk factor was hypertension (76.7%), 24.2% of patients had an ischemic heart disease history, 43.7% homolateral ischemic stroke and 29% transient ischemic attack. Bilateral lesions were diagnosed in 6.2% of patients and 7.5% had contralateral occlusion. Carotid stenosis was symptomatic in 52.9% of patients. The average stenosis rate observed was 82.9±8.1% on computed tomography angiogram and 83.7±7.7% on magnetic resonance angiogram. The shunt was used in 45.4% of procedures. The average length of stay was 5.9±2.3 days. All patients had satisfactory results in terms of patency and anatomical appearance on the 1st check. In the post-operative period during the first month, complications occurred in 12.5% of patients (1.6% acute coronary syndrome, 0.8% neurological event, 0.8% death, 0.4% infection, 12.1% hematoma, 1.6% recovery for bleeding). The overall perioperative death and stroke rate was 2.6%. Myocardial infarction and sepsis were the causes of death for the 2 patients in the peri operative period. The mean duration of follow-up was 21.2 months, without any restenosis or occurrence of neurological complications. One patient died beyond the 1st month of follow-up without established cause, and the overall mortality rate was 1.3%. Thromboendarterectomy with "systematized" anastomosis resection represents an angioplasty method for carotid stenosis surgical management under visual control.