Why the study?
Carotid stenosis contributes to cognitive impairment independently of ischemic lesions, warranting a review of the relationships between carotid narrowing, cerebral hemodynamics, cognitive decline, and potential therapeutic interventions.
Carotid stenosis is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment, highlighting the need for further trials to determine if surgical or endovascular interventions can improve cognitive outcomes in asymptomatic patients.
May warrant cognitive assessment in carotid stenosis; leaves open causal confirmation via prospective hemodynamic trials.
Carotid atherosclerosis has a relevant impact on cerebral blood flow regulation. There is accruing evidence that hemodynamic impairment related to the presence of a significant carotid lumen narrowing may predispose to the development of cerebral dysfunctions, including a reduction in cognitive abilities. In the last years an increasing number of findings showed that carotid stenosis did contribute to cognitive impairment not only in relation to the occurrence of cerebral ischemic lesions, but also as an independent risk factor. The principal mechanisms involved are chronic hypoperfusion, microembolization and cerebrovascular reactivity impairment. Moreover, more recent studies showed alterations of regional functional connectivity. In this narrative review, we analyzed the relationships between carotid stenosis, cerebral hemodynamic derangement and cognitive impairment onset and progression, and underlined that cognitive impairment is the final result of the complex interaction between different elements, including also collateral circulation, cerebral hemodynamic status, brain connectivity and pro-inflammatory state. Further, therapeutic approaches, with a specific focus on vascular risk factors correction and on the effectiveness of surgical or endovascular interventions were discussed. We particularly focused our attention on the concept of "asymptomatic carotid stenosis", and how could a cognitive impairment improve after an intervention, and how this could change the indications to surgical approach. Larger studies and randomized controlled trials are urgently required to better define time, characteristics and effectiveness of both medical and surgical/endovascular approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Viticchi et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: