Carotid angioplasty and stenting: Treatment of postcarotid endarterectomy restenosis is at least as safe as primary stenosis treatment

ObjectivesThis study compared transcranial Doppler (TCD) imaging and outcomes of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in stenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs primary atherosclerotic stenoses.MethodsA prospectively accumulated database of 812 CAS procedures was analyzed retrospectively. Two groups were created. Group 1 had 72 restenoses at a mean of 71 months (range, 5-245 months) after initial CEA. Group 2 had 740 primary stenoses. Clinical end points were cerebral ischemic events and death. TCD end points were numbers of isolated microemboli and microembolic showers during five procedural phases.ResultsGroups 1 and 2 were evenly matched for demographic data: median age, 70 vs 71 years; 44 (61%) vs 525 men (71%); 14 (19%) vs 147 symptomatic (20%). Seven (0.9%) deaths and 10 major (1.2%) and 21 minor (2.6%) strokes occurred in group 2 (P = .049). Mean (standard deviation) numbers of isolated microemboli for groups 1 vs 2 were wiring, 37.0 (31.1) vs 50.4 (52.6); predilation, 14.8 (18.7) vs 21.7 (21.8); stent placement, 58.6 (31.1) vs 64.7 (38.8); postdilation, 20.4 (16.5) vs 27.2 (34.9), cerebral protection device (CPD) use, 44.2 (30.2) vs 37.5 (36.8); total, 134.8 (68.7) vs 175.3 (113.8). Microembolic showers: wiring, 1.7 (4.5) vs 2.2 (6.4); predilation, 2.1 (4.1) vs 3.3 (5.8); stent placement, 21.5 (22.0) vs 26.9 (25.1); postdilation, 5.3 (15.7) vs 5.0 (8.1); CPD use, 5.8 (6.9) vs 6.2 (8.9); total, 30.4 (36.0) vs 39.6 (35.0). TCD data for CPD use vs without for isolated emboli: wiring, 53.2 (45.1) vs 44.3 (51.7); predilation, 24.7 (20.2) vs 18.2 (22.5); stent placement, 77.5 (34.8) vs 53.5 (37.3); postdilation, 33.6 (36.6) vs 20.7 (21.8); CPD use, 38.3 (36.6) vs 0; total, 222.5 (113.8) vs 132.3 (89.1). Showers: wiring, 2.4 (6.6) vs 1.9 (5.8); predilation, 4.2 (6.4) vs 2.4 (5.0); stent placement, 38.9 (25.8) vs 16.2 (18.7); post-dilation, 7.0 (11.2) vs 3.4 (6.4); CPD use, 6.3 (8.9) vs 0; total, 58.4 (37.7) vs 23.3 (23.1). P = .01 for showers during wiring and P < .001 for all other variables. After correction for the difference in CPD use between groups 1 and 2 (17 out of 72 [24%] vs 369 out of 740 [50%]), no statistically significant differences remained in numbers of isolated emboli and embolic showers in the procedural phases or for the entire procedure. No statistically significant differences were found when TCD-detected microembolic load for early (<3 years between CEA and CAS) and late (>5 years) restenoses were compared.ConclusionsCAS for restenosis after CEA has a complication rate lower than primary CAS. The time interval between CEA and CAS did not influence micro embolic load