Management of carotid artery stenosis in patients with coexistent unruptured intracranial aneurysms

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Tallarita ◽  
Thomas J. Sorenson ◽  
Lorenzo Rinaldo ◽  
Gustavo S. Oderich ◽  
Thomas C. Bower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Aneurysm Rupture ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Risk Of Rupture

OBJECTIVEConcomitant unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are present in patients with carotid artery stenosis not infrequently and result in unique management challenges. Thus, we investigated the risk of rupture of an aneurysm after revascularization of a carotid artery in a contemporary consecutive series of patients seen at our institution.METHODSData from patients who underwent a carotid revascularization in the presence of at least one concomitant UIA at our institution from 1991 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated for the incidence of aneurysm rupture within 30 days (early period) and after 30 days (late period) of carotid revascularization, as well as for the incidence of periprocedural complications from the treatment of carotid stenosis and/or UIA.RESULTSOur study included 53 patients with 63 concomitant UIAs. There was no rupture within 30 days of carotid revascularization. The overall risk of rupture was 0.87% per patient-year. Treatment (coiling or clipping) of a concomitant UIA, if pursued, could be performed successfully after carotid revascularization.CONCLUSIONSCarotid artery revascularization in the setting of a concomitant UIA can be performed safely without an increased 30-day or late-term risk of rupture. If indicated, treatment of the UIA can take place after the patient recovers from the carotid procedure.

scholarly journals Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients With Coexistent Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 2001
Author(s):  
T. Tallarita ◽  
T.J. Sorenson ◽  
L. Rinaldo ◽  
G.S. Oderich ◽  
T.C. Bower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

Abstract WP167: Changing Face of Carotid Revascularization Procedures in the United States

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saqib A Chaudhry ◽  
Iqra N Akhtar ◽  
Wei Huang ◽  
Ameer E Hassan ◽  
Mohammad Rauf A Chaudhry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Trend Test ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Revascularization Procedures

Background: Carotid revascularization procedure, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stent placement (CAS), are some of the most common procedures performed in United States and expected to change due to wider adoption of CAS. We performed this study to determine the changes in utilization of CEA and CAS in United States using nationally representative data. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2005 to 2014 to assess the changes in utilization of CEA and CAS over last 10 years in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. NIS is the largest all payer dataset that includes diagnoses, admissions and discharge, demographics, and outcomes data of patients admitted to short stay non-Federal hospitals in the United States. We analyzed patterns of changes in utilization in various subsets of patients with carotid artery stenosis. Results: A total of 1,186,182 patients underwent carotid revascularization procedures during study period; 1,032,148 (87.1%) and 154,035 (12.9%) were CEA and CAS, respectively. The overall carotid revascularization procedures decreased over last 10 years (11.1% in 2005 to 8.4%in 2014, trend test p <.0001). Carotid revascularization in symptomatic patients increased (7.64% in 2005 to 11.01% in 2014, trend test p <.0001) while it decreased in asymptomatic patients (92.36% in 2006 to 88.99% in 2014, trend test p <.0001). There was an overall decrease in CEA (11.6% in 2005 to 8.3% in 2014, trend test <.0001) while in CAS remained unchanged (8.1% in 2005 to 8.9% in 2014, p=NS). There was an increase in carotid revascularization in teaching hospitals (40.9% in 2005 to 67.1% in 2014, trend test p <.0001) while decrease in non-teaching hospitals (50.9% in 2006 to 27.1% in 2014, trend test p <.0001). There was a decrease in carotid revascularization procedures in patients aged ≥80 years (19.8% in 2005 to 18.7% in 2014, trend test p <.0001) and CEA (19.6% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2014, trend test P<.0001) and CAS (21.2% in 2006 to 18.6% in 2014, trend test p=<.0001). Conclusion: Although CAS is increasing in a disproportionate manner within patient subgroups in United States, overall carotid revascularization procedures have decreased for unclear reasons.

Cost-effectiveness of carotid artery stent placement versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif A. Khan ◽  
Saqib A. Chaudhry ◽  
Kamesh Sivagnanam ◽  
Ameer E. Hassan ◽  
M. Fareed K. Suri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Surgical Risk ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Broad Applicability ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Object The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated that the risk of the primary composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death did not differ significantly in patients with an average surgical risk undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and those undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the cost associated with CAS may limit its broad applicability. The authors' goal in this paper was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CAS with an embolic-protection device versus CEA in patients with moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis who are at average surgical risk. Methods The probability of the primary outcome was obtained from the results of the CREST trial. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each treatment modality were estimated by adjusting for the incidence of each quality-adjusted outcome (QALY weights of ipsilateral stroke, MI, death, and postprocedure QALYs). The total cost associated with each intervention was derived from hospitalization cost and cost associated with primary outcomes including stroke, MI, and death in each group. Costs are expressed in US dollars accounting for inflation up to October 2010. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for the 4-year period after the procedure. All values are expressed as means and 95% confidence intervals. Results The estimated net costs for patients after treatment with CAS and CEA after consideration of the primary outcome were $18,335 and $13,276, respectively, from the definitive presimulation analysis. Postsimulation values were $19,210 (range $18,264–$20,156) and $14,080 (range $13,076–$15,084), respectively. Overall, QALYs for the CAS and CEA groups were 0.712 and 0.702, respectively (ranging from 0.0 [death] to 0.815 [no adverse events]). The estimated ICER for CAS versus CEA treatment was $229,429. Conclusions Although the CREST demonstrated equivalent results with CAS (compared with CEA) in patients at average surgical risk with severe carotid artery stenosis, broad applicability of CAS might be limited by the higher cost associated with this procedure.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Urgent, Early, or Late Revascularization for Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Cui ◽  
Hanaa Dakour-Aridi ◽  
Jinny J. Lu ◽  
Kevin S. Yei ◽  
Marc L. Schermerhorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Stenting ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Hospital Outcomes ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
Revascularization Procedures ◽  
Stroke Death

Background and Purpose: Advancements in carotid revascularization have produced promising outcomes in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization procedures after symptomatic presentation remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of United States patients in the vascular quality initiative. All carotid revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between September 2016 and November 2019 were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0–2 days after most recent symptom), early (3–14 days), or late (15–180 days). The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital stroke and death. Secondary outcomes include in-hospital stroke, death, and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. Results: A total of 18 643 revascularizations were included: 2006 (10.8%) urgent, 7423 (39.8%) early, and 9214 (49.42%) late. Patients with TFCAS had the highest rates of stroke/death at all timing cohorts (urgent: 4.0% CEA, 6.9% TFCAS, 6.5% TCAR, P =0.018; early: 2.5% CEA, 3.8% TFCAS, 2.9% TCAR, P =0.054; late: 1.6% CEA, 2.8% TFCAS, 2.3% TCAR, P =0.003). TFCAS also had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with CEA in all 3 groups (urgent adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0–2.9] P =0.03; early aOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1–2.4] P =0.01; and late aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2–3.0] P =0.01). TCAR and CEA had comparable odds of in-hospital stroke/death in all 3 groups (urgent aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9–4], P =0.10), (early aOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7–1.7], P =0.66), (late aOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9–2.3], P =0.08). Conclusions: CEA remains the safest method of revascularization within the urgent period. Among revascularization performed outside of the 48 hours, TCAR and CEA have comparable outcomes.

Abstract TP141: Can the Human Eye Match a Computer Algorithm in Identifying Hypoperfusion in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis?

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Randolph S Marshall ◽  
Ronald M Lazar ◽  
James F Meschia ◽  
Philip M Meyers ◽  
E Sander Connolly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Computer Algorithm ◽  
Automated System ◽  
Asymptomatic Carotid ◽  
Vascular Surgeon ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

Background: Perfusion weighted imaging on MRI (MRP) and computerized tomography perfusion (CTP) are increasingly required to manage large vessel disease. Computerized algorithms can quantify perfusion data, but the programs are expensive and not widely used outside acute stroke evaluation. We aimed to determine how well human observers can identify asymmetries in cerebral perfusion images compared with an automated computer algorithm. Methods: Ten clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease (4 vascular neurologists, 3 neuroradiologists, 1 vascular surgeon, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 interventional radiologist) were given 28 post-processed, color-coded, axial-slice MRP scans from patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endovascular versus Stenting Trial - Hemodynamics (CREST-H) study. All patients had >70%, unilateral, asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and had varying degrees of time-to-peak (TTP) delay on the side of stenosis, ranging from 0 to 2 secs, quantified by a semi-automated system that computes quantitative perfusion maps, using deconvolution of tissue and arterial signals (Olea, Cambridge, MA). A minimum volume of 10cc was required for a given TTP delay. Clinicians were asked to determine asymmetry (y/n) and side of occlusion for each case. Number of correct responses that matched the computer output were tallied. Results: We averaged correct responses by the 10 clinicians for cases at each increment of TTP delay; (Figure). At TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, accuracy was ≥80%. At 1.25 sec accuracy fell to 60%, and at ≤ 1 sec, accuracy was ≤50%. For TTP=0 (no asymmetry), accuracy was 71%. Conclusions: Visual impression of hemodynamic asymmetry among experienced clinicians was reasonably accurate for TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, but declined with more subtle asymmetries. Depending on the clinical impact of TTP delays (for CREST-H: correlation with cognitive decline), experienced clinicians may perform as well as an automated algorithm.

Three-Month Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with/without Coexistent Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-387
Author(s):  
Ximeng Yang ◽  
Jun Lu ◽  
Peng Qi ◽  
Junjie Wang ◽  
Shen Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Aneurysm Rupture ◽  
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Baseline Characteristics

Introduction: Safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients having carotid stenosis with coexistent unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) is rarely reported. Thus, we studied the 3-month outcome of CAS in the presence of coexistent UIAs in our institution. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving CAS at our institution from September 2011 to December 2019 was carried out. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: group of CAS with UIAs (CAS-UIA) and group of CAS without UIAs (CAS). The main complications within 3 months after stenting were TIA, ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), rupture of UIAs, and death. The baseline characteristics and complications of the 2 groups were compared. Results: Five hundred fifty-six patients (CAS, n = 468; CAS-UIA, n = 88) were included and 604 stenting procedures were performed. More patients had hypertension in the CAS-UIA group (87.5 vs. 73.7%, p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in TIAs, ischemic stroke, sICH, and death within 3 months after stenting between the CAS and CAS-UIA groups. None of the 113 coexistent UIAs detected in 88 patients had aneurysm rupture within 3 months after CAS. Conclusions: In our large cohort of CAS patients, coexistent UIAs are not uncommon. Stenting of a carotid artery in the presence of coexistent UIAs could be conducted safely. Together with 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy, CAS did not increase the rupture risk of the coexistent UIAs within 3 months.

scholarly journals Incidental Intracranial Aneurysms in Patients With Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis

Stroke ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 1341-1346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Héman ◽  
Lisa M. Jongen ◽  
H. Bart van der Worp ◽  
Gabriel J.E. Rinkel ◽  
Jeroen Hendrikse
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Internal Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Intracranial Aneurysms ◽  
Internal Carotid ◽  
Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Artery Stenosis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document