Upper Extremity Blood Pressure Difference in Patients Undergoing Carotid Revascularisation

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure (BP) regulation is important in patients with carotid artery atherosclerotic disease. Concomitant subclavian artery stenosis (SAS) might lead to an underestimation of the true systemic BP in the monitoring of these patients. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of the inter-arm BP difference in patients undergoing carotid intervention and its association with ipsilateral significant subclavian stenosis and clinical outcome. METHODS: Bilateral BP measurements and vascular imaging (CTA and MRA) of both subclavian arteries and the innominate artery were assessed in 182 symptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing revascularisation in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Data were separately analysed according to previously described cutoff values for systolic BP (SBP) differences of ≥10 and 50% diameter reduction. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients, 39 (21%) showed an inter-arm difference in SBP >15 mmHg. The mean inter-arm SBP difference associated with ipsilateral SAS was 14 mmHg. SAS was present in 21/182 (12%) patients. Only two patients (1%) had bilateral stenotic disease. An inter-arm SBP difference of ≥20 mmHg was associated with unilateral SAS (RR 11.8; 95% CI 3.2-43.1) with a sensitivity of 23% and a specificity of 98%. Patients were followed up for a median of 4.0 years (IQR 3.0-6.0; maximum 7.5). Risk of stroke or death during follow-up was 20.0% (95% CI 11.1-28.9) in patients with, and 15.1% (95% CI 12.3-17.9) in patients without SAS (p = .561). The hospital stay was longer in patients with significant SAS (5.0 days, SD 4.9 vs. 2.7 days, SD 4.3, p = .035). CONCLUSION: The present study is the first to affirm the clinical need for the measurement of inter-arm BP differences in patients undergoing carotid revascularisation, especially in the post-operative phase in the prevention of cerebral hyperperfusion

Infarto estriatocapsular na infância: relato de quatro casos

Os autores apresentam o estudo de quatro crianças que manifestaram hemiparesia desproporcionada de instalação súbita, sem perda da consciência. O diagnóstico de infarto estriatocapsular foi confirmado pela tomografia computadorizada do crânio (TCC) e ressonância magnética (RM). Discutem os achados clínico-neurológicos e de exames complementares. História familiar de migrânea foi relatada em dois dos pacientes. Constatou-se migrânea em dois, trauma craniano, miocardite e prolapso de válvula mitral em um. Hemiparesia esquerda, com predomínio bráquio-facial em três e braquial em um. A TCC demonstrou comprometimento do núcleo lenticular e da cápsula interna nos quatro casos; da cabeça do núcleo caudado em três e da substância branca em dois. A RM foi realizada em dois e confirmou os achados da TCC. O eletrencefalograma, obtido na fase aguda em três, se mostrou alterado nos quatro casos

Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background Stents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy. Methods The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. Findings The trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3.2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.77-2.11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8.5% in the stenting group compared with 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1.69, 1.16-2.45, p=0.006), Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1.92, 1.27-2.89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2.76, 1.16-6.56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0.0197). Interpretation Completion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery