Risk Of Ipsilateral Stroke Research Articles

Carotid endarterectomy accompanied by radium- 224 patch angioplasty- mediated diffusing alpha-emitters radiation therapy (DaRT) for restenosis prevention

Background and Aims : Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. Diffusing alpha-emitters radiation therapy (DaRT) is a new treatment modality, which utilizes seeds embedded with a low activity of radium- 224 (224Ra). Each seed continuously emits the short-lived alpha particles, which spread over several mm around it, creating a 'apoptotic region' of high alpha-particle dose.

Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting).

Temporary interruption of cerebral blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. The shunt may improve the outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 1996 and previously updated in 2002, 2009, and 2014. To assess the effect of routine versus selective or no shunting, and to assess the best method for selective shunting on death, stroke, and other complications in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2021), Embase (1980 to April 2021), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1980 to April 2021). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and handsearched relevant journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting or selective shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Three independent review authors performed data extraction, selection, and analysis. A pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for all outcomes of interest. Best and worse case scenarios were also calculated in case of unavailable data. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and quality of evidence using GRADE. No new trials were found for this updated review. Thus, six trials involving 1270 participants are included in this latest review: three trials involving 686 participants compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial involving 200 participants compared routine shunting with selective shunting, one trial involving 253 participants compared selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, and the other trial involving 131 participants compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. Only three trials comparing routine shunting and no shunting were eligible for meta-analysis. Major findings of this comparison found that the routine shunting had less risk of stroke-related death within 30 days of surgery (best case) than no shunting (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96, I2 not applicable, P = 0.05, low-quality evidence), the routine shunting group had a lower stroke rate within 24 hours of surgery (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.78, I2 = not applicable, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of surgery (best case) (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, I2 = 52%, P = 0.04, low-quality evidence) than the no shunting group. No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative neurological deficit between selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring. However, this analysis was inadequately powered to reliably detect the effect. There was no difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in participants selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared with pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited. This review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy when performed under general anaesthesia. Large-scale randomised trials of routine shunting versus selective shunting are required. No method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.

Association of Plaque Inflammation With Stroke Recurrence in Patients With Unproven Benefit From Carotid Revascularization.

In pooled analyses of endarterectomy trials for symptomatic carotid stenosis, several subgroups experienced no net benefit from revascularization. The validated symptomatic carotid atheroma inflammation lumen-stenosis (SCAIL) score includes stenosis severity and inflammation measured by PET and improves the identification of patients with recurrent stroke compared with lumen-stenosis alone. We investigated whether the SCAIL score improves the identification of recurrent stroke in subgroups with uncertain benefit from revascularization in endarterectomy trials. We did an individual-participant data pooled analysis of 3 prospective cohort studies (Dublin Carotid Atherosclerosis Study [DUCASS], 2008-2011; Biomarkers and Imaging of Vulnerable Atherosclerosis in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Disease [BIOVASC], 2014-2018; Barcelona Plaque Study, 2015-2018). Eligible patients had a recent nonsevere (modified Rankin Scale score ≤3) anterior circulation ischemic stroke/TIA and ipsilateral mild carotid stenosis (<50%); ipsilateral moderate carotid stenosis (50%-69%) plus at least 1 of female sex, age <65 years, diabetes mellitus, TIA, or delay >14 days to revascularization; or monocular loss of vision. Patients underwent coregistered carotid 18F-fluorodeoxyglucosePET/CT angiography (≤7 days from inclusion). The primary outcome was 90-day ipsilateral ischemic stroke. Multivariable Cox regression modeling was performed. We included 135 patients. All patients started optimal modern-era medical treatment at admission, and 62 (45.9%) underwent carotid revascularization (36 within the first 14 days and 26 beyond). At 90 days, 18 (13.3%) patients had experienced at least 1 stroke recurrence. The risk of recurrence increased progressively according to the SCAIL score (0.0% in patients scoring 0-1, 15.1% scoring 2-3, and 26.7% scoring 4-5; p = 0.04). The adjusted (age, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, carotid revascularization, antiplatelets and statins) hazard ratio for ipsilateral recurrent stroke per 1-point SCAIL increase was 2.16 (95% CI 1.32-3.53; p = 0.002). A score ≥2 had a sensitivity of 100% for recurrence. The SCAIL score improved the identification of early recurrent stroke in subgroups who did not experience benefit in endarterectomy trials. Randomized trials are needed to test whether a combined stenosis-inflammation strategy will improve selection for carotid revascularization when benefit is currently uncertain. This study provides Class II evidence that, in patients with recent anterior circulation ischemic stroke who do not benefit from carotid revascularization, the SCAIL score accurately distinguishes those at risk for recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Low Incidence of Late Ipsilateral Ischaemic Stroke After Treatment for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis in Sweden 2008–2017: Increased Risk in the Elderly and After Carotid Stenting

Carotid stenosis is a major risk factor for stroke and surgical treatment is key in preventing recurrent ischaemic events. Previous randomised trials have demonstrated the net benefit of surgery for significant symptomatic carotid stenosis but, with present day medical treatment, there is limited evidence on the risk of late ipsilateral ischaemic stroke (IS) and its main risk factors.

Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS. All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures. A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P= .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P= .004). At 1year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P= .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P= .027). At 1year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P= .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P= .033). In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR.

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement.

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement was to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients <75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.

Low Incidence of Late Ipsilateral Ischaemic Stroke After Treatment for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis in Sweden 2008–2017: Increased Risk in the Elderly and After Carotid Stenting

Carotid stenosis is a major risk factor for stroke and surgical treatment is key in preventing recurrent ischaemic events. Previous randomised trials have demonstrated the net benefit of surgery for significant symptomatic carotid stenosis but, with present day medical treatment, there is limited evidence on the risk of late ipsilateral ischaemic stroke (IS) and its main risk factors. Ipsilateral IS after the peri-operative period (≤ 30 days) was investigated in a nationwide, registry based cohort study of patients treated for symptomatic carotid stenosis in Sweden between 2008 - 2017. The Swedish National Registry for Vascular Surgery (Swedvasc) was used to establish the cohort, and the Swedish stroke registry (Riksstroke), combined with hospital records, was used to determine outcome. Stroke of any type and all cause mortality after the peri-operative period were studied as secondary outcomes. Cox regression was used to analyse associations between clinical factors and outcomes. In total, 7 589 patients (mean age 72 ± 8 years, 68% men) were followed for 4.2 ± 2.6 years. Ipsilateral IS occurred in 232 patients corresponding to a yearly incidence of 0.73%. Age above 80 years compared with 65 - 79 years was associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral IS (adjusted HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.43 - 2.65). Carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was also associated with increased risk (adjusted HR 3.20, 95% CI 2.03 - 5.03). Stroke of any type occurred in 7.7% of patients, and 19.6% of patients died during the follow up period. The incidence of ipsilateral IS after treatment for symptomatic carotid stenosis in Sweden 2008-2017 was low, demonstrating the effectiveness and durability of surgery in a real world setting. Only age above 80 years and CAS compared with CEA were associated with increased risk of ipsilateral IS.

Stroke Prevention with Extracranial Carotid Artery Disease.

Carotid artery stenosis is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke. Although effective treatment options exist, careful assessment of benefits and risks for individual patients is needed in clinical decision-making. This article reviews contemporary treatments for carotid artery stenosis, the underlying evidence, and areas of uncertainties. Specific recommendations are available to guide the standard of care of carotid artery stenosis. Nonetheless, significant uncertainties are noted in patient selection for surgical treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis and in optimal treatment targets for pharmacological therapies. Advanced imaging has been used to predict future risk of ipsilateral stroke and clarify mechanisms of actions of pharmacological therapies, primarily in observational studies. Pharmacological and surgical treatments for extracranial carotid artery stenosis continue to evolve with many relevant clinical trials completed and clinical guidelines updated in recent years. Future clinical trials to tackle the areas of uncertainties are warranted.

Long Term Restenosis Rate After Carotid Endarterectomy: Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques and Intra-Operative Shunt Use

Closure of the artery during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be done with or without a patch, or performed with the eversion technique, while the use of intra-operative shunts is optional. The influence of these techniques on subsequent restenosis is uncertain. Long term carotid restenosis rates and risk of future ipsilateral stroke with these techniques were compared. Patients who underwent CEA in the International Carotid Stenting Study were divided into patch angioplasty, primary closure, or eversion endarterectomy. Intra-operative shunt use was reported. Carotid duplex ultrasound was performed at each follow up. Primary outcomes were restenosis of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70%, and ipsilateral stroke after the procedure to the end of follow up. In total, 790 CEA patients had restenosis data at one and five years. Altogether, 511 (64.7%) had patch angioplasty, 232 (29.4%) primary closure, and 47 (5.9%) eversion endarterectomy. The cumulative incidence of ≥ 50% restenosis at one year was 18.9%, 26.1%, and 17.7%, respectively, and at five years it was 25.9%, 37.2%, and 30.0%, respectively. There was no difference in risk between the eversion and patch angioplasty group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 - 1.81; p= .77). Primary closure had a higher risk of restenosis than patch angioplasty (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 - 1.98; p= .019). The cumulative incidence of ≥ 70% restenosis did not differ between primary closure and patch angioplasty (12.1% vs. 7.1%, HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 - 2.89; p= .12) or between patch angioplasty and eversion endarterectomy (4.7%, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 - 3.35; p= .44). There was no effect of shunt use on the cumulative incidence of restenosis. Post-procedural ipsilateral stroke was not more common in either of the surgical techniques or shunt use. Restenosis was more common after primary closure than conventionally with a patch closure. Shunt use had no effect on restenosis. Patch closure is the treatment of choice to avoid restenosis.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Is Associated With Favorable Outcomes in the Treatment of Restenosis After Prior Carotid Endarterectomy

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke. Redo-CEA has a significantly higher rate of stroke and cranial nerve injury compared with primary CEA. Carotid artery stenting might provide a safer treatment option for restenosis. However, the optimal treatment modality for this pathology has yet to be determined. Here, we evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), redo-carotid CEA, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in a large contemporary cohort of patients who underwent treatment for restenosis after CEA.

Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in the Treatment of Restenosis After Prior Carotid Endarterectomy.

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral stroke. The optimal procedural modality for this indication has yet to be determined. Here, we evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), redo-CEA, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in a large contemporary cohort of patients who underwent treatment for restenosis after CEA. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients in the vascular quality initiative database who underwent TCAR, redo-CEA, or TFCAS after ipsilateral CEA between September 2016 and April 2020. Patients with prior ipsilateral CAS were excluded from this analysis. In-hospital outcomes following TCAR versus CEA and TCAR versus TFCAS were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. A total of 4425 patients were available for this analysis. There were 963 (21.8%) redo-CEA, 1786 (40.4%) TFCAS, and 1676 (37.9%) TCAR. TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24–0.70], P=0.021), stroke (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23–0.93], P=0.03), myocardial infarction (MI; OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.14–0.73], P=0.007), stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.24–0.74], P=0.002), and stroke/death/MI (OR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24–0.70], P=0.001) when compared with redo-CEA. There was no significant difference in the odds of death between the 2 groups (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.28–3.5], P=0.995). TCAR was also associated with lower odds of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.18–0.74], P=0.005) when compared with TFCAS. There was no significant difference in the odds of stroke, death, MI, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI between TCAR and TFCAS. TCAR was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital stroke, MI, stroke/transient ischemic attack, stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI when compared with redo-CEA and lower odds of in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack when compared with TFCAS. Additional long-term studies are warranted to establish the role of TCAR for the treatment of restenosis after CEA.

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action.

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Risk of Stroke in Relation to Degree of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Population-based Cohort Study, Systemic Review, and Meta-analysis

Prospective, population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study) between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, and a systematic review using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between January 1, 1980, and October 1, 2020. In the population-based study, patients with 70% to 99% asymptomatic stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk (15% [6/53]) than those with 50% to 69% stenosis (0% [0/154]), as did patients with 80% to 99% asymptomatic stenosis (18% [6/34]) compared with those with 50% to 79% stenosis (1.0% [2/173]). In the systemic review, the ipsilateral stroke risk in asymptomatic patients was significantly higher in patients with 70% to 99% stenosis (10% [386/3778]) than in patients with 50% to 69% stenosis (5% [181/3,806 patients]), and in patients with 80% to 99% stenosis (11% [77/727]) compared with those with 50% to 79% stenosis (5% [167/3272]). The stroke risk reported in cohort studies was highly dependent on the degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, suggesting that the benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) might be underestimated in patients with severe stenosis. Conversely, the 5-year stroke risk was low for patients with moderate stenosis with contemporary medical treatment, calling into question any benefit from revascularization for patients with less than 70% to 80% stenosis.

Identification, risk stratification and prognostication of stroke by detection of intra-carotid plaque hemorrhage

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is present in 1% to 2% of the adult population and is the cause of 10% to 15% of ischemic strokes. Intra-plaque hemorrhage (IPH) in carotid stenosis increases the risk of cerebrovascular events. Magnetic resonance imaging can be used to detect pathologies like IPH and necrosis in carotid stenosis. Purpose : This study sought to compare the risk of stroke between patients with carotid artery disease with and without the presence of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) on magnetic resonance imaging. Methods : In this meta-analysis we gathered the data from 10 original cohort studies including 631 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and 157 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Primary outcome was the hazards of ipsilateral ischemic stroke which were compared between patients with and without IPH. Results : IPH was present in 57.1% of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and 24.7% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. During 1,334 observed person-years, 74 ipsilateral strokes occurred. Presence of IPH at baseline increased the risk of ipsilateral stroke both in symptomatic (hazard ratio [HR]: 11.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7 to 22.8) and asymptomatic (HR: 6.8; 95% CI: 0.9 to 45.4) patients. Multivariate analysis identified IPH (HR: 11.7; 95% CI: 5.3 to 26.4) and severe degree of stenosis (HR: 3.8; 95% CI: 02 to 8.2) as independent predictors of ipsilateral stroke. Conclusion : Our study concludes that IPH is common in patients with carotid artery stenosis and is a stronger predictor of stroke. Magnetic resonance imaging is the modality that can help in identification of patients with carotid disease who would benefit from revascularization.

Ultrasound Methods in the Evaluation of Atherosclerosis: From Pathophysiology to Clinic.

Atherosclerosis is a key pathological process that causes a plethora of pathologies, including coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke. The silent progression of the atherosclerotic disease prompts for new surveillance tools that can visualize, characterize, and provide a risk evaluation of the atherosclerotic plaque. Conventional ultrasound methods—bright (B)-mode US plus Doppler mode—provide a rapid, cost-efficient way to visualize an established plaque and give a rapid risk stratification of the patient through the Gray–Weale standardization—echolucent plaques with ≥50% stenosis have a significantly greater risk of ipsilateral stroke. Although rather disputed, the measurement of carotid intima-media thickness (C-IMT) may prove useful in identifying subclinical atherosclerosis. In addition, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) allows for a better image resolution and the visualization and quantification of plaque neovascularization, which has been correlated with future cardiovascular events. Newly emerging elastography techniques such as strain elastography and shear-wave elastography add a new dimension to this evaluation—the biomechanics of the arterial wall, which is altered in atherosclerosis. The invasive counterpart, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), enables an individualized assessment of the anti-atherosclerotic therapies, as well as a direct risk assessment of these lesions through virtual histology IVUS.

Abstract P563: Prognosis Driven Definition of Carotid Near-Occlusion With Full Collapse

Introduction: Carotid near-occlusion is a severe carotid stenosis causing distal artery collapse of varying degree. Near-occlusion is often divided into a “full collapse” group with a threadlike distal lumen, and the often overlooked “without full collapse” group with a normal-appearing, albeit small, distal lumen. By this division by appearance, symptomatic near-occlusion with full collapse has been reported to have worse short-term prognosis than those without full collapse, no other division has been assessed for prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess if a measurement based definition of full collapse might improve prognostic discrimination. Methods: 99 consecutive patients with symptomatic near-occlusion diagnosed on CT-angiography were included. The risk of preoperative recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke within 28 days of presenting event was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis, censoring at revascularization. We assessed residual stenosis diameter, distal ICA diameter, ICA-ratio (side-to-side), and ICA-ECA ratio as risk markers. Results: By appearance, the 28-day risk of stroke tended to be higher for full collapse (27%, 11/42) than without full collapse (11%, 6/57), p=0.054 (figure). The best new definition of full collapse was distal ICA diameter ≤2.0 mm and/or ICA ratio ≤0.47. 10 patients were reclassified by this new definition compared to appearance definition, 5 in each direction. By the new definition, 28-day risk of stroke was higher in full collapse (34%, 14/42) than without full collapse (5%, 3/57), p&lt;0.001 (fig 1B). Conclusions: Compared to the appearance based definition, our new definition of separating near-occlusions into with and without full collapse yields similar groups sizes but better prognostic discrimination. This new definition could be used as inclusion criteria in future treatment trials.

Patches of different types for carotid patch angioplasty.

Patches of different types for carotid patch angioplasty.

Risk of stroke in relation to degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis

SummaryBackgroundThere is uncertainty around which patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be offered surgical intervention. Although stroke rates were unrelated to the degree of stenosis in the medical-treatment-only groups in previous randomised trials, this could simply reflect recruitment bias and there has been no systematic analysis of a stenosis-risk association in cohort studies. We aimed to establish whether there is any association between the degree of asymptomatic stenosis and ipsilateral stroke risk in patients on contemporary medical treatment.MethodsWe did a prospective population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study; OxVasc), and a systematic review and meta-analysis. All patients in OxVasc with a recent suspected transient ischaemic attack or stroke, between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, who had asymptomatic carotid stenosis were included in these analyses. We commenced contemporary medical treatment and determined ipsilateral stroke risk in this cohort by face-to-face follow-up (to Oct 1, 2020). We also did a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies (from Jan 1, 1980, to Oct 1, 2020) reporting ipsilateral stroke risk in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and included both observational cohort studies and medical treatment groups of randomised controlled trials if the number of patients exceeded 30, ipsilateral stroke rates (or the raw data to calculate these) were provided, and were published in English.FindingsBetween April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, 2354 patients were consecutively enrolled in OxVasc and 2178 patients underwent carotid imaging, of whom 207 had 50–99% asymptomatic stenosis of at least one carotid bifurcation (mean age at imaging: 77·5 years [SD 10·3]; 88 [43%] women). The 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk increased with the degree of stenosis; patients with 70–99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk than did those with 50–69% stenosis (six [14·6%; 95% CI 3·5–25·7] of 53 patients vs none of 154; p<0·0001); and patients with 80–99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk than did those with 50–79% stenosis (five [18·3%; 7·7–29·9] of 34 patients vs one [1·0%; 0·0–2·9] of 173; p<0·0001). Of the 56 studies identified in the systematic review (comprising 13 717 patients), 23 provided data on ipsilateral stroke risk fully stratified by degree of asymptomatic stenosis (in 8419 patients). Stroke risk was linearly associated with degree of ipsilateral stenosis (p<0·0001); there was a higher risk in patients with 70–99% stenosis than in those with 50–69% stenosis (386 of 3778 patients vs 181 of 3806 patients; odds ratio [OR] 2·1 [95% CI 1·7–2·5], p<0·0001; 15 cohort studies, three trials) and a higher risk in patients with 80–99% stenosis than in those with 50–79% stenosis (77 of 727 patients vs 167 of 3272 patients; OR 2·5 [1·8–3·5], p<0·0001; 11 cohort studies). Heterogeneity in stroke risk between studies for patients with severe versus moderate stenosis (phet<0·0001) was accounted for by highly discrepant results (pdiff<0·0001) in the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy compared with cohort studies (trials: pooled OR 0·8 [95% CI 0·6–1·2], phet=0·89; cohorts: 2·9 [2·3–3·7], phet=0·54).InterpretationContrary to the assumptions of current guidelines and the findings of subgroup analyses of previous randomised controlled trials, the stroke risk reported in cohort studies was highly dependent on the degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, suggesting that the benefit of endarterectomy might be underestimated in patients with severe stenosis. Conversely, the 5-year stroke risk was low for patients with moderate stenosis on contemporary medical treatment, calling into question any benefit from revascularisation.FundingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Wolfson Foundation, and the British Heart Foundation.