Search

Background: COVID-19 confronted medical care with many challenges. During the pandemic, several resources were limited resulting in renouncing or postponing medical care like carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Although according to international guidelines CEA is the first choice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) could potentially be a reasonable alternative especially during logistical restraints., Purpose: To evaluate outcomes of CAS versus CEA before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our hypothesis was that a CAS first approach yielded comparable outcomes compared to a CEA first approach., Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with significant carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS between September 2018 and March 2023. Each consecutive period of 1.5 year marked a new (treatment) period: pre-COVID (CEA first strategy), during COVID (CAS first strategy) and post-COVID (patient-tailored approach). Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack or death within 30 days. Secondary outcome consisted of the rate of technical success, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction or other cardiac complications needing intervention, bleeding of the surgical site needing intervention, nerve palsy, unintended IC admission, pseudoaneurysm, restenosis, or occlusion., Results: A total of 318 patients were included. Out of 137 patients treated with CEA, 55, 36 and 46 were treated pre-COVID, during COVID and post-COVID, respectively. Out of 181 CAS procedures, 38, 59 and 84, respectively, were performed in each time period. Primary outcome occurred in 5.5%, 0% and 2.2% in the CEA group and 0%, 1.7% and 3.6% in the CAS group (P = 0.27; P = 1.00; P = 1.00, respectively). Overall technical success was 100% for CEA and 99.4% for CAS (P = 1.00). Rate of restenosis was the only secondary outcome measure which was significantly better after CAS compared to CEA in the pre- and post-COVID period (CEA vs. CAS, 12.7% vs. 7.9%, and 23.9% vs. 4.8% with a P-value of 0.03 and 0.03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic., Conclusions: Outcomes were comparable between CAS versus CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CAS showed better results in terms of other complications (i.e., restenosis rate) in the pre- and post-COVID period compared to CEA. Our results may support a CAS first approach when no relevant contra-indications exist without exposing the patient to complications associated with an open surgical approach. Discussion in a multidisciplinary team is advised., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a noninvasive tool to monitor cerebral regional oxygen saturation. Impairment of microvascular circulation with subsequent cerebral hypoxia during delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) is associated with poor functional outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Therefore, NIRS could be useful to predict the risk for DCI and functional outcome. However, only limited data are available on NIRS regional cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (rSO 2 ) distribution in SAH. The aim of this study was to compare the distribution of NIRS rSO 2 values in patients with nontraumatic SAH with the occurrence of DCI and functional outcome at 2 months. In addition, the predictive value of NIRS rSO 2 was compared with the previously validated SAFIRE grade (derived from Size of the aneurysm, Age, FIsher grade, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies after REsuscitation)., Methods: In this study, the rSO 2 distribution of patients with and without DCI after SAH was compared. The optimal cutoff points to predict DCI and outcome were assessed, and its predictive value was compared with the SAFIRE grade., Results: Of 41 patients, 12 developed DCI, and 9 had unfavorable outcome at 60 days. Prediction of DCI with NIRS had an area under the curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.62-0.92; P = 0.0028) with an optimal cutoff point of 65% (sensitivity 1.00; specificity 0.45). Prediction of favorable outcome with NIRS had an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.98; P = 0.0003) with an optimal cutoff point of 63% (sensitivity 1.00; specificity 0.63). Regression analysis showed that NIRS rSO 2 score is complementary to the SAFIRE grade., Conclusions: NIRS rSO 2 monitoring in patients with SAH may improve prediction of DCI and clinical outcome after SAH., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)