Lutsep, Helmi L.

Historically, the management of carotid artery disease has primarily focused on the degree of stenosis as the main indicator for assessing stroke etiology, risk, and need for intervention. However, accumulating evidence suggests that structural and biological features within the arterial wall, such as intraplaque hemorrhage, may have superior diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic values. Under current guidelines, unless an atheroma results in ≥50% stenosis, it is not considered the cause of a cerebrovascular event. This results in extensive and often unproductive diagnostic workup, prescription of ineffective medical therapy, and preclusion of patients from receiving revascularization procedures that have been shown to prevent recurrent cerebrovascular events in cases of ≥50% stenosis. A subset of embolic strokes of undetermined source, which account for up to 25% of all ischemic cerebrovascular events, are thought to be due to thromboembolic phenomena from undiagnosed plaque disruptions in nonstenotic arteries (<50% stenosis). Recently, it has been proposed to reclassify this subgroup of patients as symptomatic nonstenotic carotid if the carotid plaque ipsilateral to the cerebrovascular event presents with high-risk features including intraplaque hemorrhage, lipid-rich necrotic core, thinning/rupture of the fibrous cap, and ulceration. In this review, we first provide a historical overview of the chain of events and circumstances that resulted in the present management of carotid artery disease. Second, we embed the contemporary biomarkers of plaque vulnerability in a modern mechanistic paradigm of carotid plaque disruption and thromboembolization. Third, we review the clinically available imaging tools to detect these biomarkers, and how their use has started to shed light on the prevalence and natural history of this underdiagnosed condition. Fourth, we review recent clinical studies employing a contemporary definition of symptomatic nonstenotic carotid and discuss targeted treatments for this condition. Finally, we make a case to generate the much-needed high-level evidence to align the clinical management of patients with symptomatic nonstenotic carotid with a contemporary understanding of plaque disruption and thromboembolization.

Background: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was among factors considered in a post-hoc assessment of the risk of revascularization by carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in women enrolled in CREST. Methods: Of the 872 women in CREST, 775 (89%) were post-menopausal and current HRT status was known in 739 (95%). The study composite outcome was defined as any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke over a 4-year follow-up period. Treatment groups were combined and differences in the composite outcome were assessed by current HRT at baseline. Results: There were 77/739 (10%) current HRT users. HRT users were more likely to be symptomatic at baseline than non-users (65% vs. 52%; p = 0.027), and were less likely to be diabetic (19% vs. 32%; p = 0.024). However, they were similar in most other factors including age, race, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and length of follow-up (p > 0.10). There were no (0) periprocedural events among the 77 HRT users while there were 43 (6.5%) events among the 662 non-users (p = 0.017). Among those event-free at the end of the periprocedural period, there was little evidence of an impact of baseline HRT on the risk of ipsilateral stroke with 2 (2.6%) post-procedural events among 77 HRT users and 12 (1.9%) among 619 non-users. Conclusion: We found that women on current HRT have lower periprocedural risk associated with CAS or CEA than non-users, but little difference in risk after the procedural period. The mechanism for this unexpected finding is elusive. We urge caution in the interpretation of this post-hoc observation and encourage replication or refutation by other revascularization studies with similar data.

Objectives The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) showed no difference in the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS). We compared restenosis or occlusion, and repeat revascularization, between CAS and CEA over 2 years of follow-up. Methods Restenosis, occlusion, and repeat revascularization were assessed at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months post-randomization. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70% diameter reduction) was defined by a peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥300 cm/second on standardized duplex ultrasonography (DUS), occlusion by an absence of flow within the target artery on DUS, and repeat revascularization by any additional procedure (CEA, angioplasty or CAS) performed on the index artery. Studies were performed in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted in the CREST Ultrasound Core Lab. Patients included in this report were those who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization and had an ultrasound reviewed at the Core Lab (n=2191). Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results In the analytic cohort, 1086 patients received CAS and 1105 received CEA. Over 2 years 113 patients developed restenosis, 56 (rate 5.8%) in the CAS group and 57 (rate 5.8%) in the CEA group; and 8 developed an occlusion, 3 (rate 0.3 %) in the CAS group and 5 (rate 0.5%) in the CEA group. The combined restenosis-occlusion rate was 6.0% (n=58) for CAS and 6.3% (n=62) for CEA (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.63-1.29, p=0.58). Forty-three patients of the 2191 underwent repeat revascularization (20 CAS, 23 CEA, p=0.69) of which 28 had restenosis by our criteria and so were included ( Figure ). Stroke occurred in 13 (4 CAS; 9 CEA) of the 120 patients with restenosis or occlusion; 1 of the 4 CAS strokes occurred after restenosis was detected, and 5 of 9 CEA strokes occurred after restenosis was detected. Conclusions This analysis of carotid restenosis is the largest reported to date from any randomized clinical trial. Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and similar up to 2 years following CAS or CEA among 2191 patients. The rates of revascularization likewise did not differ between CAS and CEA. Follow-up out to 10 years is ongoing. Figure. Kaplan-Meier curves of restenosis and occlusion over 2 years.