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.

Misclassification of carotid stenosis severity with area stenosis-based evaluation by computed tomography angiography: impact on erroneous indication to revascularization or patient (lesion) migration to a higher guideline recommendation class as per ESC/ESVS/ESO/SVS and CMS-FDA thresholds.

Intoduction: Despite a growing understanding of the role played by plaque morphology, the degree of carotid lumen reduction remains the principle parameter in decisions on revascularization in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a widely used guideline-approved imaging modality, with "percent stenosis" commonly calculated as %area reduction (area stenosis - AS). Aim: We evaluated the impact of the non-linear relationship between diameter stenosis (DS) and AS (area = π • (diameter/2)2, so that in concentric lesions 51%AS is 30%DS and 75%AS is 50%DS) on stenosis severity misclassification using calculation of area reduction. Material and methods: CTA and catheter quantitative angiography (cQA) were performed in 300 consecutive patients referred to a tertiary vascular centre for potential carotid revascularization (age: 47-83 years, 33.7% symptomatic, 36% female; referral stenosis of ≥ "50%"). CTA-AS was determined by agreement of 2 experienced radiologists; cQA-DS (pivotal trials standard reference, NASCET method) was calculated by agreement of 2 corelab analysts. Results: For symptomatic lesion thresholds, CTA-AS-based calculation reclassified 76% of "< 50%" cQA-DS measurements to the "50-69%" group, and 58% of "50-69%" measurements to the "≥ 70%" group. For asymptomatic lesion thresholds, 78% of "< 60%" cQA-DS measurements were reclassified to the "60-79%" group, whereas 42% of "60-79%" cQA measurements crossed to the "≥ 80%" class. Overall, employing CTA-AS instead of cQA-DS enlarged the "60-79%" and "≥ 80%" lesion severity classes 1.6- and 5.8-fold, respectively, whereas the "≥ 70%" class increased 4.15-fold. Conclusions: Replacing the pivotal carotid trials reference standard cQA-DS "%stenosis" measurement with CTA-AS-based "%stenosis" results in a large-scale lesion/patient erroneous gain of an "indication" to revascularization or migration to a higher revascularization indication class. In consequence, unnecessary carotid procedures may be performed in the absence of cQA verification. Until guidelines rectify the "%stenosis" measurement methods with different guideline-approved imaging modalities (and, where needed, re-adjust decision thresholds), CTA-AS measurement should not be used as a basis for carotid revascularization.