Management of atherosclerotic extracranial carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerosis leading to stenosis of the internal carotid artery is the underlying cause of 8–15% of ischaemic strokes (symptomatic carotid stenosis). 1–2% of the adult population have asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Clinical trials in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis showed a higher procedural risk of non-disabling stroke with stenting versus endarterectomy, but a higher risk of myocardial infarction, cranial nerve palsy, and access site haematoma with endarterectomy. Apart from procedural complications, both treatments are equally effective in preventing stroke and recurrent severe carotid stenosis in the medium-to-long term. Endarterectomy has a modest effect in preventing stroke among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas the role of stenting remains to be established. With advances in medical therapy against atherosclerosis, benefit from invasive therapy has become uncertain. Risk modelling, with the inclusion of brain and carotid plaque imaging, will become increasingly important in selecting patients for interventions

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

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. METHODS: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). INTERPRETATION: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging after carotid revascularisation: A surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To investigate whether lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI+) after carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) might provide a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke. // Materials and Methods: Systematic MedLine® database search with selection of all studies published up to the end of 2016 in which DWI scans were obtained before and within seven days after CAS or CEA. The correlation between the underlying log odds of stroke and of DWI+ across all treatment groups (i.e. CAS or CEA groups) from included studies was estimated using a bivariate random effects logistic regression model. Relative risks of DWI+ and stroke in studies comparing CAS vs. CEA were estimated using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel models. // Results: We included data of 4871 CAS and 2099 CEA procedures (85 studies). Across all treatment groups (CAS and CEA), the log odds for DWI+ was significantly associated with the log odds for clinically manifest stroke (correlation coefficient 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.87), p = 0.0012). Across all carotid artery stenting groups, the correlation coefficient was 0.19 (p = 0.074). There were too few CEA groups to reliably estimate a correlation coefficient in this subset alone. In 19 studies comparing CAS vs. CEA, the relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of DWI+ and stroke were 3.83 (3.17-4.63, p < 0.00001) and 2.38 (1.44-3.94, p = 0.0007), respectively. // Discussion: This systematic meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the occurrence of silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging and the risk of clinically manifest stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures. // Conclusion: Our findings strengthen the evidence base for the use of DWI as a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures. Further randomised studies comparing treatment effects on DWI lesions and clinical stroke are needed to fully establish surrogacy

Predictors of Stroke, Myocardial Infarction or Death within 30 Days of Carotid Artery Stenting: Results from the International Carotid Stenting Study.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death are complications of carotid artery stenting (CAS). The effect of baseline patient demographic factors, processes of care, and technical factors during CAS on the risk of stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) were investigated. METHODS: In ICSS, suitable patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis > 50% were randomly allocated to CAS or endarterectomy. Factors influencing the risk of stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS were examined in a regression model for the 828 patients randomized to CAS in whom the procedure was initiated. RESULTS: Of the patients, 7.4% suffered stroke, MI, or death within 30 days of CAS. Independent predictors of risk were age (risk ratio [RR] 1.17 per 5 years of age, 95% CI 1.01-1.37), a right-sided procedure (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.91), aspirin and clopidogrel in combination prior to CAS (compared with any other antiplatelet regimen, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.98), smoking status, and the severity of index event. In patients in whom a stent was deployed, use of an open-cell stent conferred higher risk than use of a closed-cell stent (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.11-3.33). Cerebral protection device (CPD) use did not modify the risk. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of patients for CAS should take into account symptoms, age, and side of the procedure. The results favour the use of closed-cell stents. CPDs in ICSS did not protect against stroke

Inflammation and In-Stent Restenosis: The Role of Serum Markers and Stent Characteristics in Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may currently be recommended especially in younger patients with a high-grade carotid artery stenosis. However, evidence is accumulating that in-stent restenosis (ISR) could be an important factor endangering the long-term efficacy of CAS. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of inflammatory serum markers and procedure-related factors on ISR as diagnosed with duplex sonography. METHODS: We analyzed 210 CAS procedures in 194 patients which were done at a single university hospital between May 2003 and June 2010. Periprocedural C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count as well as stent design and geometry, and other periprocedural factors were analyzed with respect to the occurrence of an ISR as diagnosed with serial carotid duplex ultrasound investigations during clinical long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Over a median of 33.4 months follow-up (IQR: 14.9-53.7) of 210 procedures (mean age of 67.9±9.7 years, 71.9% male, 71.0% symptomatic) an ISR of ≥70% was detected in 5.7% after a median of 8.6 months (IQR: 3.4-17.3). After multiple regression analysis, leukocyte count after CAS-intervention (odds ratio (OR): 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.69; p = 0.036), as well as stent length and width were associated with the development of an ISR during follow-up (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.65, p = 0.022 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09-0.84, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ISR during long-term follow-up after CAS occur within the first year. ISR is associated with periinterventional inflammation markers and influenced by certain stent characteristics such as stent length and width. Our findings support the assumption that stent geometry leading to vessel injury as well as periprocedural inflammation during CAS plays a pivotal role in the development of carotid artery ISR

Stent Design, Restenosis and Recurrent Stroke After Carotid Artery Stenting in the International Carotid Stenting Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Open-cell carotid artery stents are associated with a higher peri-procedural stroke risk than closed-cell stents. However, the effect of stent design on long-term durability of carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unknown. We compared the medium- to long-term risk of restenosis and ipsilateral stroke between patients treated with open-cell stents versus closed-cell stents in the ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study). METHODS: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomized to CAS or endarterectomy and followed with duplex ultrasound for a median of 4.0 years. We analyzed data from patients with completed CAS procedures, known stent design, and available ultrasound follow-up. The primary outcome, moderate or higher restenosis (≥50%) was defined as a peak systolic velocity of >1.3 m/s on ultrasound or occlusion of the treated internal carotid artery and analyzed with interval-censored models. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-five patients were allocated to CAS. Seven hundred fourteen patients with completed CAS and known stent design were included in the current analysis. Of these, 352 were treated with open-cell and 362 with closed-cell stents. Moderate or higher restenosis occurred significantly less frequently in patients treated with open-cell (n=113) than closed-cell stents (n=154; 5-year risks were 35.5% versus 46.0%; unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53–0.88). There was no significant difference in the risk of severe restenosis (≥70%) after open-cell stenting (n=27) versus closed-cell stenting (n=43; 5-year risks, 8.6% versus 12.7%; unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37–1.05). The risk of ipsilateral stroke beyond 30 days after treatment was similar with open-cell and closed-cell stents (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.35–1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate or higher restenosis after CAS occurred less frequently in patients treated with open-cell stents than closed-cell stents. However, both stent designs were equally effective at preventing recurrent stroke during follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470

Absence of Consistent Sex Differences in Outcomes From Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. METHODS: Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as P≤0.10. RESULTS: Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant (P=0.065), indicating heterogeneity among trials. Contributors to this heterogeneity are primarily differences in periprocedural period. When the trials are nevertheless pooled, there were no significant sex differences in risk in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS)

Early versus late start of direct oral anticoagulants after acute ischaemic stroke linked to atrial fibrillation: an observational study and individual patient data pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing to start direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) after an acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) related to atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. We aimed to compare early (≤5 days of AIS) versus late (>5 days of AIS) DOAC-start. METHODS: This is an individual patient data pooled analysis of eight prospective European and Japanese cohort studies. We included patients with AIS related to non-valvular AF where a DOAC was started within 30 days. Primary endpoints were 30-day rates of recurrent AIS and ICH. RESULTS: A total of 2550 patients were included. DOACs were started early in 1362 (53%) patients, late in 1188 (47%). During 212 patient-years, 37 patients had a recurrent AIS (1.5%), 16 (43%) before a DOAC was started; 6 patients (0.2%) had an ICH, all after DOAC-start. In the early DOAC-start group, 23 patients (1.7%) suffered from a recurrent AIS, while 2 patients (0.1%) had an ICH. In the late DOAC-start group, 14 patients (1.2%) suffered from a recurrent AIS; 4 patients (0.3%) suffered from ICH. In the propensity score-adjusted comparison of late versus early DOAC-start groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the hazard of recurrent AIS (aHR=1.2, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.9, p=0.69), ICH (aHR=6.0, 95% CI 0.6 to 56.3, p=0.12) or any stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not corroborate concerns that an early DOAC-start might excessively increase the risk of ICH. The sevenfold higher risk of recurrent AIS than ICH suggests that an early DOAC-start might be reasonable, supporting enrolment into randomised trials comparing an early versus late DOAC-start