Evaluation of flow velocities after carotid artery stenting through split spectrum Doppler optical coherence tomography and computational fluid dynamics modeling.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vuong B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4285614 | biostudies-other | 2014 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:To decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.Procedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.Although the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.
| S-EPMC4580136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Failure of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a critical event in the development and progression of diseases such as acute ischemic stroke, chronic ischemia or small vessels disease that affect the central nervous system. It is not known whether BBB breakdown in subjects with chronic carotid artery stenosis can be restrained with postoperative recovery of cerebral perfusion. The aim of the study was to assess the short-term effect of internal carotid artery stenting on basic perfusion parameters and permeability surface area-product (PS) in such a population. Forty subjects (23 males) with stenosis of >70% within a single internal carotid artery and neurological symptoms who underwent a carotid artery stenting procedure were investigated. Differences in the following computed tomography perfusion (CTP) parameters were compared before and after surgery: global cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), mean transit time (MTT), time to peak (TTP) and PS. PS acquired by CTP is used to measure the permeability of the BBB to contrast material. In all baseline cases, the CBF and CBV values were low, while MTT and TTP were high on both the ipsi- and contralateral sides compared to reference values. PS was approximately twice the normal value. CBF was higher (+6.14%), while MTT was lower (-9.34%) on the contralateral than on the ipsilateral side. All perfusion parameters improved after stenting on both the ipsilateral (CBF +22.66%; CBV +18.98%; MTT -16.09%, TTP -7.62%) and contralateral (CBF +22.27%, CBV +19.72%, MTT -14.65%, TTP -7.46%) sides. PS decreased by almost half: ipsilateral -48.11%, contralateral -45.19%. The decline in BBB permeability was symmetrical on the ipsi- and contralateral sides to the stenosis. Augmented BBB permeability can be controlled by surgical intervention in humans.
| S-EPMC5454921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intracranial atherosclerotic disease is a significant cause of stroke in the United States. Much like coronary atherosclerosis, this disease leads to arterial stenosis secondary to the buildup of lipid-based plaques in intracranial vessels. Ischemic stroke may occur following thromboembolic events near the site of stenosis or from watershed ischemia secondary to cerebral hypoperfusion. While this disease has been treated with intracranial angioplasty and stenting and cerebrovascular bypass surgery, the current literature supports aggressive medical management with dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment of comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, and lifestyle modification. Intracranial angioplasty and stenting is reserved for cases of medical failure.
| S-EPMC4300064 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere have been inconsistent results regarding the use of carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO). This study aimed to determine the optimal revascularization technique for patients with CCO.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify eligible studies published from inception to January 2, 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.ResultsSix studies involving 6,953 patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that while CEA was not associated with an increased risk of stroke compared to CAS (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.75-1.51; P = 0.713), CEA was associated with a reduced risk of death compared to CAS (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.29-0.70; P < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between CEA and CAS for the risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.73-2.62; P = 0.319) or major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.56-1.88; P = 0.926). Finally, the risk of myocardial infarction for CEA versus CAS was affected by disease status, while the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was affected by the proportions of patients with male gender, coronary artery disease, and current or prior smoking.ConclusionThis study found that CEA and CAS resulted in similar outcomes for patients with CCO, while the risk of death was reduced in patients treated with CEA. Further high-level evidence should be collected to verify the results of this study.
| S-EPMC8136671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe internet is becoming increasingly more important in the new era of patient self-education. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recognized interventions to treat patients with carotid artery stenosis. Using the Google search platform, patients encounter many websites with conflicting information, which are sometimes difficult to understand. This lack of accessibility creates uncertainty or bias toward interventions for carotid artery disease. The quality, readability, and treatment preference of carotid artery disease (CAD) websites have not yet been evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the quality, readability, and treatment preference of CAD websites.MethodsWe searched Google Canada for 10 CAD-related keywords. Returned links were assessed for publication date, medical specialty and industry affiliation, presence of randomized controlled trial data, differentiation by symptomatic status, and favored treatment. Website quality and readability were rated by the DISCERN instrument and Gunning Fog Index.ResultsWe identified 54 unique sites: 18 (33.3%) by medical societies or individual physicians, 11 (20.4%) by government organizations, 9 (16.7%) by laypersons, and 1 (1.9%) that was industry-sponsored. Of these sites, 26 (48.1%) distinguished symptomatic from asymptomatic CAD. A majority of sites overall (57.4%) and vascular-affiliated (72.7%) favored CEA. In contrast, radiology- and cardiology-affiliated sites demonstrated the highest proportion of sites favoring CAS, though they were equally likely to favor CEA. A large proportion (21/54, 38.9%) of sites received poor quality ratings (total DISCERN score <48), and the majority (41/54, 75.9%) required a reading level greater than a high school senior.ConclusionsCAD websites are often produced by government organizations, medical societies, or physicians, especially vascular surgeons. Sites ranged in quality, readability, and differentiation by symptomatic status. Google searches of CAD-related terms are more likely to yield sites favoring CEA. Future research should determine the extent of website influence on CAD patients' treatment decisions.
| S-EPMC7671836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.ResultsFor 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85).ConclusionsAmong patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)
| S-EPMC2932446 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8836368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the aging of the general population and the availability of noninvasive imaging studies, carotid artery stenosis is a disease commonly seen in general medical practice. Differentiation between symptomatic and asymptomatic disease is critical to the treatment course because the natural history differs markedly between them. Antiplatelet therapy and aggressive treatment of vascular risk factors are the mainstays of medical therapy. Class I evidence shows that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is effective in preventing ipsilateral ischemic events in patients with symptomatic moderate- and high-grade stenosis. The procedure is also effective in selected patients with asymptomatic stenosis, but the benefit is marginal. In the past decade, carotid angioplasty and stenting has been proposed as a valid alternative to CEA. Currently, it is unclear whether carotid angioplasty and stenting is as safe as CEA in patients with carotid artery stenosis who need invasive treatment. Large clinical trials are under way to answer this question.
| S-EPMC2665982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of the prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized CABANA study was to evaluate periprocedural clinical outcomes in high surgical risk patients with carotid artery stenosis treated with the Carotid WALLSTENT plus FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System by a diverse group of clinicians.BackgroundThere is a need for additional evidence evaluating carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed by operators with various experience and training levels.MethodsThe study enrolled symptomatic (≥50% carotid artery stenosis) and asymptomatic (≥80% carotid stenosis) patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Study centers were grouped into three tiers based on previous CAS experience while individual operators were grouped by their CAS training. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite of major adverse events [MAEs; including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI)]. Individual event rates were evaluated across the overall study, and by center experience and physician training tier.ResultsOf 1,097 enrolled patients, 1,025 were evaluable for 30-day MAE rate. The stroke rate (3.3%) was a major contributing factor in the overall MAE rate (4.6%). Mortality was 1.3% and the MI rate was 0.5%. There was no statistically significant association between MAE rates among the center experience tiers (P = 0.61) nor among the operator training categories (P = 0.26).ConclusionsCAS with the Carotid WALLSTENT and FilterWire EZ yielded a low 30-day MAE rate that did not differ significantly across operator experience and training levels. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00741091.
| S-EPMC4233992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are alternative strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atherosclerotic carotid disease. CEA has been considered the first-line treatment for carotid stenosis worldwide, and the safety and efficacy of CAS compared to CEA remains in question. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to compare the practice and outcomes of CAS and CEA in a real-world setting within public university hospitals in Brazil. METHODS:This study will be a prospective 5-year analysis of treatment for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis with CEA and CAS performed at 5 centers affiliated with the Vascular Study Group at public university hospitals in Brazil. The indications for the procedures will be determined by each surgeon's individual discretion, in accordance with preoperative risk evaluation. The primary outcome measures will be (1) any in-hospital stroke or death, and (2) any per-procedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients undergoing CEA in conjunction with cardiac surgery will be excluded from the study. Multivariate logistic regression will be performed to identify predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing CEA and CAS. All tests of significance will be performed at the .05 level. This study was approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research at the University Hospital of Ribeirao Preto Medical School, and in all other participating institutions linked to National Research System and National Board of Health in Brazil (Process 15695/2011). RESULTS:This study is currently in the recruitment phase, and the final patient is expected to be enrolled by the end of 2018. We hope to recruit approximately 800 patients to the study. Analyses will focus on primary end points for patients that are allocated to each treatment group. During the per-procedural period, the occurrence of the primary end point components (stroke, MI, or death) for CAS and CEA will be analyzed for symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects. CONCLUSIONS:The analyses of the primary endpoints (and all others variables of the study) are expected to be published in 2019 in a peer reviewed journal, and results will be presented at scientific meetings, with summary results published online. This study will obtain new data related to the quality of treatment for carotid disease in Brazil at the primary training centers of future vascular surgeons, but the initial data that will be obtained and published (with the outcomes and complications) are restricted to the first 30 days postprocedure. This time restriction limits the comparison of the results that relate to the main goal of treatment, which is to decrease the risk of stroke over 5 years. The purpose of the study group is to continue the monitoring of patient records, and evaluate the follow-up data in the 5 years following the initial evaluation. This study protocol will contribute very significantly to improving the care of patients with carotid disease, in addition to qualifying the level of assistance provided in public university hospitals in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02538276; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02538276 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m7APnFLD).
| S-EPMC5143466 | biostudies-literature