Balloon-Assisted Catheterization of Occluded Carotid Artery (BOCA) Technique in Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Acute ischemic stroke from tandem occlusion of internal carotid artery (ICA) poses a technical challenge to neurointerventionalists. OBJECTIVE: To present a novel balloon-assisted catheterization of occluded carotid artery (BOCA) technique used for rapid and effective catheterization of occluded/critically stenosed ICA in tandem occlusion. METHODS: A retrospective review of 10 patients with tandem carotid occlusion, treated with BOCA technique for revascularization between July 2020 and June 2021, was performed. Clinical, radiographic, and procedural data; details of BOCA technique; complications; and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients, 8 (80%) had complete occlusion of the cervical ICA and the remaining 2 had high-grade stenosis with poor intracranial flow. The mean age was 63.2 years. The mean presenting NIH Stroke Scale was 13.4. The BOCA technique resulted in recanalization of ICA in all patients and allowed mechanical thrombectomy of middle cerebral artery. Thrombolysis in cerebral infarction grade 2b/3 was achieved in all 10 patients. The mean groin-to-reperfusion time was 41.4 minutes. The mean internal carotid artery stenosis was 99.7% preoperatively and 41.1% postoperatively. Only one patient needed stent at the end of the procedure because of dissection. CONCLUSION: The BOCA technique can be used in distal first approach for acute stroke from tandem ICA occlusion. This technique allows direct guide catheterization of occluded ICA by tracking over a partially inflated balloon.

Clopidogrel Bolus is Inferior to Sustained Clopidogrel Pretreatment in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stent Placement.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel bolus is an option used before carotid artery stent (CAS) placement when sustained clopidogrel pretreatment is not used. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of clopidogrel bolus (450 mg administered ≥4 hours) with sustained clopidogrel pretreatment (48 hours or greater) before CAS among patients recruited in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. METHODS: We compared the rates of primary end point (either any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years) between patients who received clopidogrel bolus and those who received sustained clopidogrel pretreatment using Cox proportional hazards analysis after adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status, and initial severity of stenosis (≥70% vs <70%) over 4 years. RESULTS: The rate of periprocedural stroke (7.3% vs 3.4%, P = .03) and primary end point (11.3% vs 5.9%, P = .02) was significantly higher among patients who received clopidogrel bolus. The risk of primary end point was significantly higher in patients who received clopidogrel bolus (hazards ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4, P = .02) after adjusting for potential confounders. The overall mean (±standard deviation) primary end point-free survival based on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 7.0 ± 0.2 years for patients who received clopidogrel bolus and 8.9 ± 0.1 years for those who received sustained clopidogrel pretreatment (log-rank test P = .011). CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel bolus was associated with higher rates of adverse outcomes compared with sustained clopidogrel pretreatment in patients who underwent CAS. Therefore, clopidogrel bolus may not be equivalent to sustained clopidogrel pretreatment.

Repeat Revascularization over 10 Years Following Carotid Endarterectomy or Carotid Stent Placement: An Analysis of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of and factors associated with repeat revascularization in a large cohort of patients prospectively followed over 10 years in Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. METHODS: We compared the effect of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on risk of repeat revascularization after adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status, and initial severity of stenosis (≥70% vs. <70%) using Cox proportional hazards analysis. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess repeat revascularization-free survival for the overall cohort. RESULTS: Repeat revascularization was performed in 90 (3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1%-4.8%) of 2318 patients; 6 (6.7%, 95% CI 2.5%-14.0%) patients experienced the composite end point of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days after repeat revascularization. There was no difference in risk of repeat revascularization in patients who underwent CAS (compared with CEA) as the index procedure (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.23, P = 0.5765). Patient's age (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, P < 0.0001) was associated with performance of repeat revascularization. Mean ± SD repeat revascularization-free survival was 8.2 ± 0.1 years and 8.0 ± 0.1 years for CAS and CEA, respectively (log-rank test P = 0.0823). CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of repeat revascularization was seen without any significant difference among patients who underwent CEA or CAS over 10 years. The 6.7% rate of composite end point within 30 days after procedure highlights the need for standardizing the indications for repeat revascularization.