Search

Background: Significant atherosclerotic stenosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) origin is common (5-10% at ≥ 60 years). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables high-resolution (120 µm) plaque imaging, and IVUS-elucidated features of the coronary plaque were recently shown to be associated with its symptomatic rupture/thrombosis risk. Safety of the significant carotid plaque IVUS imaging in a large unselected population is unknown., Material/methods: We prospectively evaluated the safety of embolic protection device (EPD)-assisted vs. unprotected ICA-IVUS in a series of consecutive subjects with ≥ 50% ICA stenosis referred for carotid artery stenting (CAS), including 104 asymptomatic (aS) and 187 symptomatic (S) subjects (age 47-83 y, 187 men). EPD use was optional for IVUS, but mandatory for CAS., Results: Evaluation was performed of 107 ICAs (36.8%) without EPD and 184 with EPD. Lesions imaged under EPD were overall more severe (peak-systolic velocity 2.97 ± 0.08 vs. 2.20 ± 0.08 m/s, end-diastolic velocity 1.0 ± 0.04 vs. 0.7 ± 0.03 m/s, stenosis severity of 85.7 ± 0.5% vs. 77.7 ± 0.6% by catheter angiography; mean ± SEM; p<0.01 for all comparisons) and more frequently S (50.0% vs. 34.6%, p=0.01). No ICA perforation or dissection, and no major stroke or death occurred. There was no IVUS-triggered cerebral embolization. In the procedures of (i) unprotected IVUS and no CAS, (ii) unprotected IVUS followed by CAS (filters - 39, flow reversal/blockade - 3), (iii) EPD-protected (filters - 135, flow reversal/blockade - 48) IVUS + CAS, TIA occurred in 1.5% vs. 4.8% vs. 2.7%, respectively, and minor stroke in 0% vs. 2.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively. EPD intolerance (on-filter ICA spasm or flow reversal/blockade intolerance) occurred in 9/225 (4.0%). IVUS increased the procedure duration by 7.27 ± 0.19 min., Conclusions: Carotid IVUS is safe and, for the less severe lesions in particular, it may not require mandatory EPD use. High-risk lesions can be safely evaluated with IVUS under flow reversal/blockade.

Coexistent carotid artery stenosis (CS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is not infrequent. One in 5 patients with multivessel CAD has a severe CS, and CAD incidence reaches 80% in those referred for carotid revascularization. We reviewed treatment strategies for concomitant severe CS and CAD. We performed a literature search (MEDLINE) with terms including carotid artery stenting (CAS), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). The main therapeutic option for CS-CAD has been (simultaneous or staged) CEA-CABG. This, however, is associated with a high risk of MI (in those with CEA prior to CABG) or stroke (CABG prior to CEA), and the cumulative major adverse event rate (MAE - death, stroke or MI) reaches 10-12%. With increasing adoption of CAS, a sequential strategy of CAS followed by CABG has emerged. Registries (usually single-centre) indicate an MAE rate of ≈7% for CAS followed by CABG (frequently after >30 days, due to double antiplatelet therapy). Recently, 1-stage CAS-CABG has been introduced. This involves different antiplatelet regimens and, in some centers, preferred off-pump CABG, with a cumulative MAE of 1.4-4.5%. No randomized trial comparing different treatment strategies in CS-CAD has been conducted, and thus far reported series are prone to selection/reporting bias. In addition to the established surgical treatment (CEA-CABG, sequential/simultaneous), hybrid revascularization (CAS-CABG) is emerging as a viable therapeutic option. Larger, preferably multi-centre, studies are required before this can become widely applied.