Search

Introduction: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program., Areas Covered: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates., Expert Opinion: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

Objective: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear., Methods: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response., Results: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence., Conclusions: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research., Competing Interests: Disclosures D.P.M. has given talks, acted as a consultant or attended conferences sponsored by Amgen and Novo Nordisk. J.F.M. receives funding from the United States National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke for work related to running the CREST-2 clinical trial (U01NS080168) and the CREST-2 Long-term Observational Extension study (U01NS119169). E.A.S. has received research grants from the United States Food and Drug Administration, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Laminate Medical, Medtronic and Philips; has received consulting/speaking fees from Abbott, Bayer, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, Cordis, CSI, Inari, Infraredx, Medtronic, Philips, Shockwave and VentureMed. H.-H.E. is a local Principal Investigator for the ROADSTER 2 trial and a scientific committee member of SPACE-1, SPACE-2 and ACST-2. T.R. is funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01 MD012467, R01 NS029993, R01NS040807, 1U24NS107267), and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002736, KL2 TR002737). J.S.M. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Cook, Endologix, Gore and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Currently, evidence is lacking for disease specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis (either symptomatic or asymptomatic) submitted to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study aimed to obtain expert consensus on the most important items to include in a PROM designed to capture the impact of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis and its treatment on health related quality of life., Methods: A three round modified Delphi consensus study was performed. A mixed expert Delphi panel of doctors (international panel of dedicated vascular surgeons and neurologists) and patients (either symptomatic or asymptomatic patients meeting criteria for carotid artery revascularisation) was implemented. The aim was to obtain pre-defined consensus on items in four pre-defined domains: generic, quality of life, symptom related, and treatment related. Consensus was reached in rounds two and three with > 70% overall expert agreement., Results: The experts agreed on 23 items (out of 49) which were distributed as follows: five in the generic, six in the quality of life, six in the symptom, and six in the treatment related domain. Interestingly, comparing the items that reached consensus in this study, with the generic and disease specific PROMs previously used in carotid artery disease investigation, the only constant items were "difficulty with walking" and "ability to perform daily activities" included in the symptom domain. Considering the items that reached expert consensus in the additional domains, emphasis was given to the impact of the diagnosis, treatment and follow up, and to fear or concern "about the future" and "about severe stroke". In the treatment domain emphasis was also attained on the side effects, long term patient satisfaction, and on the information provided regarding treatment options., Discussion: As hard clinical outcomes become increasingly rare, assessment of the impact of CEA becomes increasingly difficult. The consensus reached provides a newly defined disease specific PROM that warrants independent validation in specific populations in the future., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended., Methods: A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS., Results: Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification., Conclusions: Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors are members of the Faculty Advocating Collaborative and Thoughtful Carotid Artery Treatments (FACTCATS; available at www.FACTCATS.org) with the shared goal of optimizing stroke prevention. The views of particular FACTCATS do not necessarily reflect the views of other FACTCATS., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Introduction: Frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was developed as an alternative to the conventional elephant trunk (cET) procedure for the repair of complex aortic arch pathology. However, short term results between these different procedures are sparsely described. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare short term outcomes between FET and cET in the repair of aortic arch pathology., Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases were searched for studies comparing performance of FET and cET procedures in patients with aortic arch pathology. The primary outcome of interest was early mortality, defined as 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4., Evidence Synthesis: Ten studies, comprising 1481 patients with aortic arch pathology, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant reduction of early mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97) in the FET group. For neurologic outcomes, no significant differences were noted in stroke risk between both groups (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.83-1.75), but an increased risk of SCI was present in FET patients (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.10)., Conclusions: FET appears to be associated with a significant lower early mortality, at costs of greater SCI risk. Larger studies are needed to provide confident recommendations towards preferential use of either procedure.

Background: The optimal antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatment of patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions is a subject of debate. The aim of this multidisciplinary document was to critically review the recommendations of current guidelines, taking into consideration the results of recently published studies., Methods: The various antithrombotic strategies reported were evaluated for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions (endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS] or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). Based on a critical review, a series of recommendations were formulated by an international expert panel., Results: For asymptomatic patients, we recommend low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/day) or clopidogrel (75 mg/day) with the primary goal to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular event rates rather than to reduce the risk of stroke. For symptomatic patients, we recommend dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) initiated within 24 h of the index event to reduce the risk of recurrent events. We suggest that following transfemoral CAS or TCAR, patients continue DAPT for 1 month after which a single antiplatelet agent is used. High level of evidence to support anticoagulant treatment for patients with carotid artery disease is lacking., Conclusions: The antithrombotic treatment offered to carotid patients should be individualized, taking into account the presence of symptoms, the type of intervention and the goal of the treatment. The duration and type of DAPT (ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel) should be evaluated in future trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Mikhailidis has given talks, acted as a consultant or attended conferences sponsored by Amgen and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chaturvedi reports consulting for Astra Zeneca and BrainGate and serving as an Associate Editor for Stroke, and as an Editorial Board Member of Neurology and Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. The other authors report no conflicts., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objective: Mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting are surprisingly underresearched. However, understanding the underlying mechanism could (1) assist in balancing the choice for revascularization vs conservative therapy, (2) assist in choosing either open or endovascular techniques, and (3) assist in taking appropriate periprocedural measures to further decrease procedural stroke rate. The purpose of this study was to overview mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid revascularization and establish reporting standards to facilitate more granular investigation and individual patient data meta-analysis in the future., Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement., Results: The limited evidence in the literature was heterogeneous and of low quality. Thus, no formal data meta-analysis could be performed. Procedural stroke was classified as hemorrhagic or ischemic; the latter was subclassified as hemodynamic, embolic (carotid embolic or cardioembolic) or carotid occlusion derived, using a combination of clinical inference and imaging data. Most events occurred in the first 24 hours after the procedure and were related to hypoperfusion (pooled incidence 10.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.0-17.5] vs 13.9% [95% CI, 0.0-60.9] after CEA vs carotid artery stenting events, respectively) or atheroembolism (28.9% [95% CI, 10.9-47.0]) vs 34.3 [95% CI, 0.0-91.5]). After the first 24 hours, hemorrhagic stroke (11.6 [95% CI, 5.7-17.4] vs 9.0 [95% CI, 1.3-16.7]) or thrombotic occlusion (18.4 [95% CI, 0.9-35.8] vs 14.8 [95% CI, 0.0-30.5]) became more likely., Conclusions: Although procedural stroke incidence and etiology may have changed over the last decades owing to technical improvements and improvements in perioperative monitoring and quality control, the lack of literature data limits further statements. To simplify and enhance future reporting, procedural stroke analysis and classification should be documented preemptively in research settings. We propose a standardized form enclosing reporting standards for procedural stroke with a systematic approach to inference of the most likely etiology, for prospective use in registries and randomized controlled trials on carotid revascularization., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS). Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 – 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 – 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 – 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 – 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 – 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 – 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 – 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 – 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 – 5.50). At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Carotid cross-clamping during endarterectomy exposes the patient to intraoperative neurological deficits due to embolism or cerebral hypoperfusion. To prevent further cerebrovascular incidents, resorting to shunt is frequently recommended. However, since this method is also considered a stroke risk factor, the use is still controversial. This study aims to shed some light on the best approach regarding the use of shunt in symptomatic cerebral malperfusion after carotid artery cross-clamping.Methods: From January 2012 to January 2018, 79 patients from a tertiary referral hospital who underwent carotid endarterectomy with regional anesthesia for carotid artery stenosis and manifested post-clamping neurologic deficits were prospectively gathered. Shunt use was left to the decision of the surgeon and performed in 31.6% (25) of the patients. Demographics, comorbidities, imaging tests, and clinical/intraoperative features were evaluated. For data assessment, univariate analysis was performed.Results: Regarding 30-day stroke, 30-day postoperative complications (stroke, surgical hematoma, hyperperfusion syndrome), and cranial nerve injury, no significant differences were found (P = 0.301, P = 0.460, and P = 0.301, respectively) between resource to shunt and non-shunt. Clamping and surgery times were significantly higher in the shunt group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.0001, respectively).Conclusions: Selective-shunting did not demonstrate superiority for patients who developed focal deficits regarding stroke or other postoperative complications. However, due to the limitations of this study, the benefit of shunting cannot be excluded. Further randomized trials are recommended for precise results on this matter with current sparse clinical evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]