Why the study?
Does identifying high-risk features in asymptomatic carotid stenosis help select patients for carotid endarterectomy or stenting over medical therapy?
Does identifying high-risk features in asymptomatic carotid stenosis help select patients for carotid endarterectomy or stenting over medical therapy?
Routine intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is not recommended; instead, advanced imaging and Doppler should be used to identify the ~10% of high-risk patients who may benefit from revascularization.
Intensive medical therapy should remain standard for most asymptomatic carotid stenosis; leaves open the need for RCTs validating imaging-selected revascularization.
INTRODUCTION: With more intensive medical therapy, the risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is now below the risk of carotid endarterectomy or stenting (intervention); ∼ 90% of patients would be better with only medical therapy. It is important, therefore, to have methods to identify the ∼ 10% of patients who stand to benefit from intervention. AREAS COVERED: We review the evidence that the risk of asymptomatic stenosis is now below the risk of intervention, and evidence for several approaches to identifying high-risk ACS: transcranial Doppler embolus detection, echolucency and neovascularity on ultrasound, ulceration on three-dimensional ultrasound, plaque composition on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), plaque inflammation on positron emission tomography and assessment of cerebral blood flow reserve. EXPERT OPINION: Carotid endarterectomy or stenting should be performed only in patients with ACS if they have microemboli on transcranial Doppler, three or more ulcers detected on three-dimensional ultrasound or other features of unstable plaque such as plaque echolucency on ultrasound, intraplaque hemorrhage detected on MRI, inflamed plaques detected on PET/CT or reduced cerebral blood flow reserve. Most patients with ACS (∼ 90%) would be better off with intensive medical therapy than with intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogiatzi et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: