Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increasingly emerged as an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Optimal timing for CAS after symptoms onset remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS when performed in an emergency setting.

Patients and methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of CAS patients admitted to our CSC with symptomatic extracranial carotid occlusion or significant stenosis from January 2014-September 2019. Emergency CAS was defined as CAS performed during the same hospitalization from TIA/stroke onset, whereas elective CAS as CAS performed on a subsequent admission. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death related to the procedure at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications and the rate of restenosis/occlusion at follow-up. Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to compare outcomes and restenosis at follow-up.

Results

We identified 75 emergency and 104 elective CAS patients. Emergency CAS patients had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral carotid occlusion (17% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and use of general anesthesia (19% vs. 4%, p = 0.001) than elective CAS. There were no significant differences between emergency and elective CAS in the primary (5.7% vs. 1%, p = 0.161) and secondary (9% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.232) outcomes. We did not find differences in the rate of restenosis/occlusion (7% vs. 11.6%; log-rank test p = 0.3) at a median of 13 months follow-up.

Conclusion

In our study, emergency CAS in symptomatic patients might have a similar safety and efficacy profile to elective CAS at 3 months and long-term follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Quispe-Orozco D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190945 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting.

Quispe-Orozco Darko D Limaye Kaustubh K Zevallos Cynthia B CB Farooqui Mudassir M Mendez-Ruiz Alan A Ansari Sameer S Dajles Andres A Samaniego Edgar A EA Derdeyn Colin C Ortega-Gutierrez Santiago S

Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences 20201206 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increasingly emerged as an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Optimal timing for CAS after symptoms onset remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS when performed in an emergency setting.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We performed a retrospective analysis of CAS patients admitted to our CSC with symptomatic extracranial carotid occlusion or s ...[more]

PMID: 33283595

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClopidogrel resistance is associated with increased periprocedural neurologic events after carotid artery stenting (CAS). Ticagrelor offers an improved resistance profile; however, its bleeding risk has not been assessed with CAS. Therefore, we examined the efficacy and safety of perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin/ticagrelor vs aspirin/clopidogrel in patients undergoing transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent tfCAS or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to March 2021. We stratified patients by procedure and assessed outcomes using 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received perioperative aspirin/ticagrelor vs aspirin/clopidogrel. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke/death, and the primary safety outcome was access-related bleeding. As a secondary analysis, we assessed these outcomes after stratifying each cohort by intraoperative protamine use.ResultsAmong 17,731 tfCAS patients, 593 (3.3%) received aspirin/ticagrelor and 11,404 (64%) received aspirin/clopidogrel. For the 2065 matched patients, no significant differences were found in the composite endpoint of stroke/death (aspirin/ticagrelor, 4.1%; vs aspirin/clopidogrel, 2.6%; relative risk [RR],1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-2.7) or in the individual endpoints of stroke (2.9% vs 1.8%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.87-3.0) or death (1.7% vs 1.1%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.71-3.5). However, aspirin/ticagrelor was associated with a higher risk of bleeding (5.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2). In a subgroup analysis of 297 tfCAS patients (14%) who received intraoperative protamine, no differences remained in stroke/death (1.5% vs 3.9%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-3.0), and there was no longer a difference in bleeding (3.0% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.24-5.5). Among 17,946 TCAR patients, 453 (2.5%) received aspirin/ticagrelor and 13,696 (76%) received aspirin/clopidogrel. For the 1618 matched patients, no differences were found in stroke/death (0.7% vs 1.4%; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.16-1.8), stroke (0.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-1.5), death (0.5% vs 0.2%; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.42-21), or bleeding (1.2% vs 1.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.28-2.0). For the 1429 TCAR patients (88%) who received protamine, no differences were found in stroke/death (0.8% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.20-2.4) or bleeding (0.6% vs 1.4%; RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09-1.7).ConclusionsCompared with aspirin/clopidogrel, aspirin/ticagrelor was associated with a potentially lower risk of stroke/death and bleeding complications after CAS in cases in which protamine was used but a higher risk of these outcomes in the absence of protamine. Given our limited sample size, our analysis should be repeated when more patients are available for study. However, our findings suggest that aspirin/ticagrelor could be a reasonable alternative to aspirin/clopidogrel for both tfCAS and TCAR when protamine is used.

Project description:Background: Stroke is currently the second-leading cause of death just behind ischaemic heart disease. Drug therapy is currently the standard of care for patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis (sICAS). Stenting is an important treatment for the prevention and treatment of ischemic stroke. It has been suggested that vertebral artery stenting might reduce this risk, but operation-related complications limit the application of stenting in the treatment of ischemic stroke. The differences in the safety and efficacy of stenting combined with drugs and drugs alone in the treatment of sICAS are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of both treatment modalities on the prognosis of patients with sICAS through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, DUXIU) and English databases (Pubmed, Embase, Ovid_medline, Cochrane library, Web of science)were searched to identify all studies describing sICAS. The "Risk of Bias Assessment" tool and the "Jadad Scale" provided by the Cochrane Collaboration were used to evaluate the risk of bias and quality of the collected literature. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined using Stata statistical software version 14.0. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, comprising a total of 1,915 patients. The combined results of the study showed no significant difference between the incidence of transient cerebral ischemia (TIA)and stroke in patients with sICAS treated with drugs in combination with stents versus drugs alone. The incidence of death or stroke, cerebral haemorrhage, disabling stroke or death was significantly higher in patients receiving stent-combined drug therapy versus drug therapy alone for sICAS. Conclusion: Studies suggest that stenting combined with medication for patients with sICAS may increase the incidence of death or stroke, cerebral haemorrhage, stroke or death, but has no significant effect on the incidence of TIA and stroke. The studies report inadequate and conflicting data and therefore the safety and efficacy of stenting for sICAS should be interpreted with caution. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022377090, identifier CRD42022377090.

Project description:BackgroundRemote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) can inhibit recurrent ischemic events effectively in patients with acute or chronic cerebral ischemia. However, it is still unclear whether RIPC can impede ischemic injury after carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis.MethodsSubjects with severe carotid artery stenosis were recruited in this randomized controlled study, and assigned to RIPC, sham, and no intervention (control) groups. All subjects received standard medical therapy. Subjects in the RIPC and sham groups underwent RIPC and sham RIPC twice daily, respectively, for 2 weeks before CAS. Plasma neuron-specific enolase and S-100B were used to evaluate safety, hypersensitive C-reactive protein, and new ischemic diffusion-weighted imaging lesions were used to determine treatment efficacy. The primary outcomes were the presence of ≥1 newly ischemic brain lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging within 48 hours after stenting and clinical events within 6 months after stenting.ResultsWe randomly assigned 189 subjects in this study (63 subjects in each group). Both RIPC and sham RIPC procedures were well tolerated and completed with high compliance (98.41% and 95.24%, respectively). Neither plasma neuron-specific enolase levels nor S-100B levels changed significantly before and after treatment. No severe adverse event was attributed to RIPC and sham RIPC procedures. The incidence of new diffusion-weighted imaging lesions in the RIPC group (15.87%) was significantly lower than in the sham group (36.51%; relative risk, 0.44; 96% confidence interval, 0.20-0.91; P<0.01) and the control group (41.27%; relative risk, 0.39; 96% confidence interval, 0.21-0.82; P<0.01). The volumes of lesions were smaller in the RIPC group than in the control and sham groups (P<0.01 each). Ischemic events that occurred after CAS were 1 transient ischemic attack in the RIPC group, 2 strokes in the control group, and 2 strokes and 1 transient ischemic attack in the sham group, but these results were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P=0.597).ConclusionsRIPC is safe in patients undergoing CAS, which may be able to decrease ischemic brain injury secondary to CAS. However, the mechanisms and effects of RIPC on clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients need further investigation.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01654666.

Project description:BackgroundMany recent trials have investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of endarterectomy versus stenting in treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. We aimed to determine the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of both procedures by pooling this evidence in a meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published until May 6, 2016. Randomized controlled trials, which reported outcomes of interest with a median follow-up of at least 4-year, were included.ResultsEight trials involving 7005 patients and 41824 patient-years of follow-up were included. In terms of the periprocedural outcomes, stenting was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80; P = 0.003) but a higher risk of death or stroke (the composite endpoint, OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.25; P < 0.0001), a result that was primarily driven by minor stroke (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.01; P < 0.0001), less so by periprocedural death (OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.44; P = 0.16) and major stroke (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.09; P = 0.09). In terms of the long-term outcomes, stenting was associated with a higher risk of stroke (OR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.73; P < 0.0001) and the composite outcome of death or stroke (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.48; P = 0.01). No difference was found in long-term all-cause mortality between stenting and endarterectomy (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.26; P = 0.21) and restenosis (OR: 1.48 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.35; P = 0.10). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was found in any of the analyses.ConclusionsCarotid endarterectomy was found to be superior to stenting for short- and long-term outcomes, although endarterectomy was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. Carotid endarterectomy should be offered as the first choice for carotid stenosis at present, however, more evidence is needed because rapid progress in concurrent devices and medical treatments is being made.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting.

Introduction

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets