No Evidence for Long Term Blood Pressure Differences Between Eversion and Conventional Carotid Endarterectomy in Two Independent Study Cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP) management is a vital aspect of stroke prevention and post-stroke care. Different surgical carotid endarterectomy (CEA) techniques may impact on BP control post-operatively. Specifically, the carotid sinus nerve, which innervates the carotid baroreceptors and carotid body, is commonly left intact during conventional CEA but is routinely transected as part of eversion CEA. The aim of this study was to assess long term BP control after eversion and conventional CEA. METHODS: Patients from the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS cohort) and a personal series of patients from the Stroke Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (UCL cohort) were separately analysed and divided into eversion and conventional CEA groups. Mixed effect linear models were fitted and adjusted for baseline demographic data and antihypertensive treatment to test for changes in BP from baseline over a three year follow up period after the respective procedures. RESULTS: There were no differences in changes in baseline BP readings and follow up readings between eversion and conventional CEA in the ICSS or UCL cohorts. In the ICSS cohort a mild but significant systolic (-8.6 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.6 - -6.6) and diastolic (-4.9 mmHg; 95% CI -6.0 - -3.8) BP lowering effect was evident at discharge in the conventional group but not in the eversion CEA group. BP monitoring during follow up did not reveal any consistent BP changes with either conventional or eversion CEA vs. baseline levels. CONCLUSION: Neither conventional nor eversion CEA seem to result in clinically significant long term BP changes. Potential concerns related to either short or long term alterations in BP levels with transection of the carotid sinus nerve during eversion CEA could not be substantiated.

Long Term Restenosis Rate After Carotid Endarterectomy: Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques and Intra-Operative Shunt Use.

OBJECTIVE: Closure of the artery during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be done with or without a patch, or performed with the eversion technique, while the use of intra-operative shunts is optional. The influence of these techniques on subsequent restenosis is uncertain. Long term carotid restenosis rates and risk of future ipsilateral stroke with these techniques were compared. METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA in the International Carotid Stenting Study were divided into patch angioplasty, primary closure, or eversion endarterectomy. Intra-operative shunt use was reported. Carotid duplex ultrasound was performed at each follow up. Primary outcomes were restenosis of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70%, and ipsilateral stroke after the procedure to the end of follow up. RESULTS: In total, 790 CEA patients had restenosis data at one and five years. Altogether, 511 (64.7%) had patch angioplasty, 232 (29.4%) primary closure, and 47 (5.9%) eversion endarterectomy. The cumulative incidence of ≥ 50% restenosis at one year was 18.9%, 26.1%, and 17.7%, respectively, and at five years it was 25.9%, 37.2%, and 30.0%, respectively. There was no difference in risk between the eversion and patch angioplasty group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 - 1.81; p = .77). Primary closure had a higher risk of restenosis than patch angioplasty (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 - 1.98; p = .019). The cumulative incidence of ≥ 70% restenosis did not differ between primary closure and patch angioplasty (12.1% vs. 7.1%, HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 - 2.89; p = .12) or between patch angioplasty and eversion endarterectomy (4.7%, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 - 3.35; p = .44). There was no effect of shunt use on the cumulative incidence of restenosis. Post-procedural ipsilateral stroke was not more common in either of the surgical techniques or shunt use. CONCLUSION: Restenosis was more common after primary closure than conventionally with a patch closure. Shunt use had no effect on restenosis. Patch closure is the treatment of choice to avoid restenosis.

Identification of vulnerable carotid plaque with histologically validated CT-derived plaque maps.

OBJECTIVES: Ruptured carotid plaque causes stroke, but differentiating rupture-prone necrotic core from fibrous tissue with CT is limited by overlap of X-ray attenuation. We investigated the ability of CT-derived plaque maps created from ratios of plaque/contrast attenuation to identify histologically proven vulnerable plaques. METHODS: Seventy patients underwent carotid CT angiography and carotid endarterectomy. A derivation cohort of 20 patients had CT images matched with histology and carotid plaque components attenuation defined. In a validation cohort of 50 patients, CT-derived plaque maps were compared in 43 symptomatic vs 40 asymptomatic carotid plaques and accuracy detecting vulnerable plaques calculated. RESULTS: In 250 plaque areas co-registered with histology, the median attenuation (HU) of necrotic core 43(26-63), fibrous plaque 127(110-162) and calcified plaque 964 (816-1207) created significantly different ratios of plaque/contrast attenuation. CT-derived plaque maps revealed symptomatic plaques had larger necrotic core than asymptomatic (13.5%(5.9-33.3) vs 7.4%(2.3-14.3), p = 0.004) with large necrotic core predicting symptoms (area under ROC curve 0.68, p = 0.004). Twenty-four of 47 carotid plaques were histologically classified as most vulnerable (Starry-Type VI). Plaque maps revealed Type VI plaques had a greater necrotic core volume than Type IV/V plaques and a necrotic core/fibrous plaque ratio >0.5 distinguished Type VI plaques with sensitivity 75.0% (55.1-88.0) and specificity of 39.1% (22.2-59.2). CONCLUSIONS: Carotid plaque components can be differentiated by CT using a ratio of plaque/contrast attenuation. CT-derived plaque map volumes of necrotic core help distinguished the most vulnerable plaques. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT-derived plaque maps based on plaque/contrast attenuation may provide new markers of carotid plaque vulnerability.

Contemporary medical therapies of atherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

Contemporary medical therapy consists of identification and treatment of all patient-modifiable vascular risk factors. Specific atherosclerotic disease therapies are designed to reduce the risk of thrombosis, and the disease progression in order to reduce the risk of future cardiovascular events. Contemporary medical management emphasizes the need to support the patient in achieving lifestyle modifications and to adjust medication to achieve individualized target values for specific quantifiable risk factors. Antiplatelet therapy in the form of aspirin or clopidogrel is routinely used for the prevention of ischemic stroke in patients who have had a transient ischemic attack or stroke. There is evidence from a recent trial that the use of combination antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel started within 24 hours of minor stroke or transient ischemic attack reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared to the use of aspirin alone, and therefore we use aspirin plus clopidogrel in recently symptomatic patients with carotid stenosis pending carotid revascularization. Anticoagulation with heparins or vitamin K antagonist is not recommended except in patients at risk for cardio-embolic events. Lowering blood pressure to target levels has been shown to slow down the progression of carotid artery stenosis and reduces the intima-media thickness of the carotid plaque, while lowering lipid levels with statins has become an essential element in the medical therapy of carotid artery stenosis. Diabetes management should be optimized. Lifestyle choices, including tobacco smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, obesity, and excessive alcohol intake, are all important modifiable vascular risk factors. The combination of dietary modification, physical exercise, and use of aspirin, a statin, and an antihypertensive agent can be expected to give a cumulative relative stroke risk reduction of 80%. The evidence suggests that intensive medical therapy is so effective that carotid revascularization may no longer be necessary in many of the patients in whom carotid surgery or stenting is currently performed. Two large ongoing trials are therefore comparing the risks and benefits of carotid revascularization versus intensive medical therapy alone.