Dataset Information

Ipsilateral internal carotid artery web and acute ischemic stroke: A cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The carotid web is a compelling potential mechanism of embolic ischemic stroke. In this study, we aim to determine the prevalence of ipsilateral carotid web in a cohort of ischemic stroke patients and to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of similar cohorts.

Patients & methods

We performed a retrospective, observational, cohort study of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center from June 2012 to September 2017. Carotid web was defined on computed tomography angiography (CTA) as a thin shelf of non-calcified tissue immediately distal to the carotid bifurcation. We described the prevalence of carotid artery webs in our cohort, then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of similar cohorts in the published literature.

Results

We identified 1,435 potentially eligible patients of whom 879 met criteria for inclusion in our analysis. An ipsilateral carotid web was detected in 4 out of 879 (0.45%) patients, of which 4/4 (1.6%) were in 244 patients with cryptogenic stroke and 3/4 were in 66 (4.5%) patients <60 years old with cryptogenic stroke. Our systematic review yielded 3,192 patients. On meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of ipsilateral carotid web in cryptogenic stroke patients <60 was 13% (95% CI: 7%-22%; I2 = 66.1%). The relative risk (RR) of ipsilateral versus contralateral carotid web in all patients was 2.5 (95% CI 1.5-4.2, p = 0.0009) whereas in patients less than 60 with cryptogenic stroke it was 3.0 (95% CI 1.6-5.8, p = 0.0011).

Discussion

Carotid webs are more common in young patients with cryptogenic stroke than in other stroke subtypes. Future studies concerning the diagnosis and secondary prevention of stroke associated with carotid web should focus on this population.

SUBMITTER: Mac Grory B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448368 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study (2001-2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8-72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0-76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics.ResultsNeurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.60; P = 0.070).ConclusionIntra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.