An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear. METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response. RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

Endovascular carotid revascularization under open-chest extracorporeal circulation combined with cardiac surgery in unstable patients at increased risk of carotid-related stroke: SIMultaneous urgent cardiac surgery and MicroNet-covered stent carotid revascularization in extreme-risk patients-SIMGUARD Study.

BACKGROUND: In patients at urgent need for cardiac surgery coexisting with increased-stroke-risk carotid stenosis, any staged intervention increases the risk of complications from the primarily unaddressed pathology. In this challenging cohort, we assessed safety and feasibility of endovascular carotid revascularization under open-chest extracorporeal circulation (ECC) combined with cardiac surgery (hybrid-room true simultaneous treatment). METHODS: Per-protocol (PP), after general anesthesia induction, chest-opening and ECC stand-by installation, carotid stenting (CAS) was performed (femoral/radial or direct carotid access) with ad-hoc/on-hand switch to ECC cardiac surgery. RESULTS: Over 78 months, 60 patients (70.7±6.9years, 85% male, all American Society of Anesthesiology grade IV) were enrolled. All were at increased carotid-related stroke risk (ipsilateral recent stroke/transient ischemick attack, asymptomatic cerebral infarct, increased-risk lesion morphology, bilateral severe stenosis). Majority of study procedures involved CAS+coronary bypass surgery or CAS+valve replacement±coronary bypass. 45 (75%) patients were PP- and 15 (25%) not-PP (NPP-) managed (context therapy). CAS was 100% neuroprotected (transient flow reversal-64.4%, filters-35.6%) and employed micronet-covered plaque-sequestrating stents with routine post-dilatation optimization/embedding. 4 deaths (6.7%) and 7 strokes (11.7%) occurred by 30-days. Despite CAS+surgery performed on aspirin and unfractionated heparin-only (delayed clopidogrel-loading), no thrombosis occurred in the stented arteries, and 30-days stent patency was 100%. NPP-management significantly increased the risk of death/ipsilateral stroke (OR 38.5; P<0.001) and death/any stroke (OR 12.3; P=0.002) by 30-days. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac unstable patients at increased carotid-related stroke risk who require urgent cardiac surgery, simultaneous cardiac surgery and CAS with micronet-covered stent lesion sequestration is feasible and safe and shows efficacy in minimizing stroke risk. Larger-scale, multicentric evaluation is warranted. (SIMGUARD NCT04973579).

Stroke risk management in carotid atherosclerotic disease: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the ESC Council on Stroke and the ESC Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases.

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (1) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (2) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailores personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management encompassing statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multimorbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for interdisciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making.

Imaging modality-dependent carotid stenosis severity variations against intravascular ultrasound as a reference: Carotid Artery intravasculaR Ultrasound Study (CARUS).

PURPOSE: Different non-invasive and invasive imaging modalities are used to determine carotid artery stenosis severity that remains a principal parameter in clinical decision-making. We compared stenosis degree obtained with different modalities against vascular imaging gold standard, intravascular ultrasound, IVUS. METHODS: 300 consecutive patients (age 47-83 years, 192 men, 64% asymptomatic) with carotid artery stenosis of " ≥ 50%" referred for potential revascularization received as per study protocol (i) duplex ultrasound (DUS), (ii) computed tomography angiography (CTA), (iii) intraarterial quantitative angiography (iQA) and (iv) and (iv) IVUS. Correlation of measurements with IVUS (r), proportion of those concordant (within 10%) and proportion of under/overestimated were calculated along with recipient-operating-characteristics (ROC). RESULTS: For IVUS area stenosis (AS) and IVUS minimal lumen area (MLA), there was only a moderate correlation with DUS velocities (peak-systolic, PSV; end-diastolic, EDV; r values of 0.42-0.51, p < 0.001 for all). CTA systematically underestimated both reference area and MLA (80.4% and 92.3% cases) but CTA error was lesser for AS (proportion concordant-57.4%; CTA under/overestimation-12.5%/30.1%). iQA diameter stenosis (DS) was found concordant with IVUS in 41.1% measurements (iQA under/overestimation 7.9%/51.0%). By univariate model, PSV (ROC area-under-the-curve, AUC, 0.77, cutoff 2.6 m/s), EDV (AUC 0.72, cutoff 0.71 m/s) and CTA-DS (AUC 0.83, cutoff 59.6%) were predictors of ≥ 50% DS by IVUS (p < 0.001 for all). Best predictor, however, of ≥ 50% DS by IVUS was stenosis severity evaluation by automated contrast column density measurement on iQA (AUC 0.87, cutoff 68%, p < 0.001). Regarding non-invasive techniques, CTA was the only independent diagnostic modality against IVUS on multivariate model (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: IVUS validation shows significant imaging modality-dependent variations in carotid stenosis severity determination.

World Federation for Interventional Stroke Treatment (WIST) Multispecialty Training Guidelines for Endovascular Stroke Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Today, endovascular treatment (EVT) is the therapy of choice for strokes due to acute large vessel occlusion, irrespective of prior thrombolysis. This necessitates fast, coordinated multi-specialty collaboration. Currently, in most countries, the number of physicians and centres with expertise in EVT is limited. Thus, only a small proportion of eligible patients receive this potentially life-saving therapy, often after significant delays. Hence, there is an unmet need to train a sufficient number of physicians and centres in acute stroke intervention in order to allow widespread and timely access to EVT. AIM: To provide multi-specialty training guidelines for competency, accreditation and certification of centres and physicians in EVT for acute large vessel occlusion strokes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The World Federation for Interventional Stroke Treatment (WIST) consists of experts in the field of endovascular stroke treatment. This interdisciplinary working group developed competency - rather than time-based - guidelines for operator training, taking into consideration trainees' previous skillsets and experience. Existing training concepts from mostly single specialty organizations were analysed and incorporated. RESULTS: The WIST establishes an individualized approach to acquiring clinical knowledge and procedural skills to meet the competency requirements for certification of interventionalists of various disciplines and stroke centres in EVT. WIST guidelines encourage acquisition of skills using innovative training methods such as structured supervised high-fidelity simulation and procedural performance on human perfused cadaveric models. CONCLUSIONS: WIST multispecialty guidelines outline competency and quality standards for physicians and centres to perform safe and effective EVT. The role of quality control and quality assurance is highlighted. SUMMARY: The World Federation for Interventional Stroke Treatment (WIST) establishes an individualized approach to acquiring clinical knowledge and procedural skills to meet the competency requirements for certification of interventionalists of various disciplines and stroke centres in endovascular treatment (EVT). WIST guidelines encourage acquisition of skills using innovative training methods such as structured supervised high-fidelity simulation and procedural performance on human perfused cadaveric models. WIST multispecialty guidelines outline competency and quality standards for physicians and centers to perform safe and effective EVT. The role of quality control and quality assurance is highlighted. SIMULTANEOUS PUBLICATION: The WIST 2023 Guidelines are published simultaneously in Europe (Adv Interv Cardiol 2023).

World Federation for Interventional Stroke Treatment (WIST) multispecialty training guidelines for endovascular stroke intervention.

Introduction: Today, endovascular treatment (EVT) is the therapy of choice for strokes due to acute large vessel occlusion, irrespective of prior thrombolysis. This necessitates fast, coordinated multi-specialty collaboration. Currently, in most countries, the number of physicians and centres with expertise in EVT is limited. Thus, only a small proportion of eligible patients receive this potentially life-saving therapy, often after significant delays. Hence, there is an unmet need to train a sufficient number of physicians and centres in acute stroke intervention in order to allow widespread and timely access to EVT. Aim: To provide multi-specialty training guidelines for competency, accreditation and certification of centres and physicians in EVT for acute large vessel occlusion strokes. Material and methods: The World Federation for Interventional Stroke Treatment (WIST) consists of experts in the field of endovascular stroke treatment. This interdisciplinary working group developed competency - rather than time-based - guidelines for operator training, taking into consideration trainees' previous skillsets and experience. Existing training concepts from mostly single specialty organizations were analysed and incorporated. Results: The WIST establishes an individualized approach to acquiring clinical knowledge and procedural skills to meet the competency requirements for certification of interventionalists of various disciplines and stroke centres in EVT. WIST guidelines encourage acquisition of skills using innovative training methods such as structured supervised high-fidelity simulation and procedural performance on human perfused cadaveric models. Conclusions: WIST multispecialty guidelines outline competency and quality standards for physicians and centres to perform safe and effective EVT. The role of quality control and quality assurance is highlighted.

Why do guidelines recommend screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, but not for asymptomatic carotid stenosis? A plea for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended. METHODS: A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS. RESULTS: Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification. CONCLUSIONS: Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention.

Carotid artery revascularization using second generation stents versus surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analyses and emerging randomized data indicate that second-generation ('mesh') carotid stents (SGS) may improve outcomes versus conventional (single-layer) stents but clinically-relevant differences in individual SGS-type performance have been identified. No comparisons exist for SGS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Thirty-day death (D), stroke (S), myocardial infarction (M), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke and restenosis in SGS studies were meta-analyzed (random effect model) against CEA outcomes. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed/EMBASE/COCHRANE. Forest plots were formed for absolute adverse evet risk in individual studies and for relative outcomes with each SGS deign versus contemporary CEA outcomes as reference. Meta-regression was performed to identify potential modifiers of treatment modality effect. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from 103,642 patients in 25 studies (14 SGS-treated, 41% symptomatic; nine randomized controlled trial (RCT)-CEA-treated, 37% symptomatic; and two Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-CEA-treated, 23% symptomatic). Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard significantly reduced DSM versus RCT-CEA (-2.70% and -2.95%, P<0.001 for both) and versus VQI-CEA (-1.11% and -1.36%, P<0.001 for both). Gore stent 30-day DSM was similar to RCT-CEA (P=0.581) but increased against VQI-CEA (+2.38%, P=0.033). At 12 months, Casper/Roadsaver ipsilateral stroke rate was lower than RCT-CEA (-0.75%, P=0.026) and similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.584). Restenosis with Casper/Roadsaver was +4.18% vs. RCT-CEA and +4.83% vs. VQI-CEA (P=0.005, P<0.001). CGuard 12-month ipsilateral stroke rate was similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.850) and reduced versus RCT-CEA (-0.63%, P=0.030); restenosis was reduced respectively by -0.26% and -0.63% (P=0.033, P<0.001). Twelve-month Gore stent outcomes were overall inferior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analytic integration of available clinical data indicates: 1) reduction in stroke but increased restenosis rate with Casper/Roadsaver, and 2) reduction in both stroke and restenosis with CGuard MicroNET-covered stent against contemporary CEA outcomes at 30 days and 12 months used as a reference. This may inform clinical practice in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials powered for low clinical event rates (PROSPERO-CRD42022339789).

Clinical Outcomes of Extracranial Carotid Artery-Related Stroke Eligible for Mechanical Reperfusion on Top of Per-Guidelines Thrombolytic Therapy: Analysis from a 6-Month Consecutive Patient Sample in 2 Centers.

BACKGROUND Systemic intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) are guideline-recommended reperfusion therapies in large-vessel-occlusion ischemic stroke. However, for acute ischemic stroke of extracranial carotid artery origin (AIS-CA) there have been no specific trials, resulting in a data gap. MATERIAL AND METHODS We evaluated referral/treatment pathways, serial imaging, and neurologic 90-day outcomes in consecutive patients, presenting in a real-life series in 2 stroke centers over a period of 6 months, with AIS-CA eligible for emergency mechanical reperfusion (EMR) on top of thrombolysis as per guideline criteria. RESULTS Of 30 EMR-eligible patients (33.3% in-window for thrombolysis and thrombolysed, 73.3% male, age 39-87 years, median Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) 10, pre-stroke mRS 0-1 in all, tandem lesions 26.7%), 20 (66.7%) were EMR-referred (60% - endovascular, 6.7% - surgery referrals). Only 40% received EMR, nearly exclusively in stroke centers with carotid artery stenting (CAS) expertise (100% eligible patient acceptance rate, 100% treatment delivery involving CAS±MT with culprit lesion sequestration using micronet-covered stents). The emergency surgery rate was 0%. Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics did not differ between EMR-treated and EMR-untreated patients. Ninety-day neurologic status was profoundly better in EMR-treated patients: mRS 0-2 (91.7% vs 0%; P<0.001); mRS 3-5 (8.3% vs 88.9%; P<0.001), mRS 6 (0% vs 11.1%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In a real-life AIS-CA setting, the referral rate of EMR-eligible patients for EMR was low, and the treatment rate was even lower. AIS-CA revascularization was delivered predominantly in stroke thrombectomy-capable cardioangiology centers, resulting in overwhelmingly superior patient outcome. Large vessel occlusion stroke referral and management pathways should involve centers with proximal-protected CAS expertise. AIS-CA, irrespective of any thrombolysis administration, is a hyperacute cerebral emergency and EMR-eligible patients should be immediately referred for mechanical reperfusion.

Diabetes Mellitus and Clinical Outcomes in Carotid Artery Revascularization Using Second-Generation, MicroNet-Covered Stents: Analysis from the PARADIGM Study.

Introduction: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) using conventional (single-layer) stents is associated with worse clinical outcomes in diabetes mellitus (DM) vs. non-DM patients: an effect driven largely by lesion-related adverse events. CAS outcomes with MicroNet-covered stents (MCS) in diabetic patients have not been evaluated. Aim: To compare short- and long-term clinical outcomes and restenosis rate in DM vs. non-DM patients with carotid stenosis treated using MCS. Materials and Methods: In a prospective study in all-comer symptomatic and increased-stroke-risk asymptomatic carotid stenosis, 101 consecutive patients (age 51-86 years, 41% diabetics) underwent 106 MCS-CAS. Clinical outcomes and duplex ultrasound velocities were assessed periprocedurally and at 30 days/12 months. Results: Baseline characteristics of DM vs. non-DM patients were similar except for a higher prevalence of recent cerebral symptoms in DM. Type 1 and type 1+2 plaques were more prevalent in DM patients (26.7% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.02; 62.2% vs. 37.7%, p = 0.01). Proximal embolic protection was more prevalent in DM (60% vs. 36%; p = 0.015). 30-day clinical complications were limited to a single periprocedural minor stroke in DM (2.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.22). 12-month in-stent velocities and clinical outcomes were not different (death rate 4.8% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.69; no new strokes). Restenosis rate was not different (0% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.22). Conclusions: MCS may offset the adverse impact of DM on periprocedural, 30-day, and 12-month clinical complications of CAS and minimize the risk of in-stent restenosis. In this increased-stroke-risk cohort, adverse event rate was low both in DM and non-DM. Further larger-scale clinical datasets including extended follow-ups are warranted.