Search

There has been no effective method to predict ischemic intolerance to temporary internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion during carotid artery reconstruction. Pencil beam presaturation (BeamSAT) pulse suppresses the flow signal of the target vessel in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Applying this method, we constructed ICA-selective MRA images. The aim of this study was to identify patients at risk for ischemic intolerance by ICA-selective MRA. By evaluating flow of anterior communicating artery (Acom) and A1 portion of anterior cerebral artery with ICA-selective MRA and posterior communicating artery (Pcom) with conventional MRA, we investigated associations of these collateral flow patterns with ischemic intolerance and decrease of regional cerebral oxygen saturation. The study included 58 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. Six of 7 patients without Acom flow and Pcom flow demonstrated ischemic intolerance, whereas all patients (n = 51) with Acom and/or Pcom flow demonstrated tolerance. The accuracy of this prediction model according to Acom and Pcom flow patterns for ischemic intolerance was 0.98 (P = 0.01, binomial test). Regional cerebral oxygen saturation decrease after ICA occlusion was significantly larger in patients without Acom flow and Pcom flow (12.0% ± 6.0%) than in patients with Acom flow and Pcom flow (3.0% ± 3.1%, P < 0.01) and in patients with Acom flow but no Pcom flow (2.4% ± 5.2%, P < 0.01). These findings support the importance of Acom flow as a collateral route. ICA-selective MRA enables prediction of ischemic intolerance to temporary ICA occlusion during carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. This method provides valuable information regarding probability of an ischemic complication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study. Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, −0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.054 to −0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285–0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483–0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228–0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS. Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Artery stenting is an effective therapy for carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. We aimed to identify and analyze the 100 top-cited reports on carotid artery stenting (CAS) to review the achievements and developments in this field. Methods The Web of Knowledge database was searched from its inception up to May 3, 2018, using the terms "carotid artery stenting" and "CAS." The 100 most-cited reports were extracted to analyze their characteristics. Results The number of citations for the 100 most-cited reports ranged from 120 to 1813, with an accumulated citation number of 26,265. These reports were from 13 countries, with the most publications from the United States (n = 62), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 11), Germany (n = 6), and Italy (n = 6). Stroke (n = 21) was the lead-producing journal, followed by the Journal of Vascular Surgery (n = 11) and Journal of the American College of Cardiology (n = 10). Those reports with a greater impact factor were likely to be cited more often (P < 0.0001). These reports were categorized as clinical trial (n = 74), review (n = 13), basic study (n = 5), guideline (n = 5), commentary (n = 1), expert consensus (n = 1), and protocol (n = 1). Conclusions The results of the present study provide scientific data for CAS. The United States contributed the most reports. Stroke was the lead productive journal. Those reports with a greater impact factor were likely to be cited more often. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Symptomatic innominate artery stenosis presenting as hemodynamic bilateral cerebral ischemia is uncommon. We present a rare case of the severe stenosis of the origin of an innominate artery and severe stenosis of bilateral internal carotid artery that induced hemodynamic cerebral ischemia after ipsilateral axillary artery-bilateral femoral artery bypass and was treated with stent replacement of the innominate artery and right internal carotid artery. Case Report A 64-year-old woman who previously had undergone right axillary artery-bilateral femoral artery anastomosis for abdominal aorta high obstruction had been suffering from chronic dizziness and so visited our department. Findings of the examination included the severe stenosis of the origin of an innominate artery and severe stenosis of bilateral internal carotid artery, causing hemodynamic cerebral ischemia. She underwent stent replacement of the innominate artery and right carotid artery stenting via a right transbrachial approach. Her symptoms were relieved postoperatively. Discussion For the sake of improving the hemodynamic cerebral ischemia, we performed stent replacement for innominate artery stenosis and right carotid artery stenting. Endovascular treatment of subclavian and innominate artery disease is a safe procedure. In addition, for the protection of thromboembolic migration, we performed balloon protection of the external carotid artery and filter protection of the internal carotid artery. Conclusions Stent replacement for these lesions can be performed safely with the right approach and protection methods, even when the only accessible route is the right brachial artery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]