Key result
Prophylactic carotid intervention should be reserved for the estimated 10%-15% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis who demonstrate high-risk features for ipsilateral stroke.
Why the study?
Does prophylactic carotid intervention (CEA or CAS) prevent future cerebrovascular events in high-risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis compared to best medical treatment alone?
Does prophylactic carotid intervention (CEA or CAS) prevent future cerebrovascular events in high-risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis compared to best medical treatment alone?
Prophylactic carotid intervention should be reserved for the 10-15% of asymptomatic carotid stenosis patients who demonstrate high-risk features for ipsilateral stroke on imaging or physiological testing.
May identify candidates for intervention trials in asymptomatic stenosis; leaves open benefit over medical therapy pending RCTs.
Offering routine carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) to patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACS) is no longer considered as the optimal management of these patients. Equally suboptimal, however, is the policy of offering only best medical treatment (BMT) to all patients with ACS and not considering any of them for prophylactic CEA. In the last few years, there have been many studies aiming to identify reliable predictors of future cerebrovascular events that would allow the identification of patients with high-risk ACS and offer a prophylactic carotid intervention only to these patients to prevent them from becoming symptomatic. All patients with ACS should receive BMT. The present article will summarise the evidence suggesting ways to identify these high-risk asymptomatic individuals, namely: (1) microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, (2) plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound, (3) progression in the severity of ACS, (4) silent embolic infarcts on brain CT/MRI, (5) reduced cerebrovascular reserve, (6) increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, (7) identification of intraplaque haemorrhage using MRI and (8) carotid ulceration. The evidence suggests that approximately 10%-15% of patents with asymptomatic stenosis might benefit from intervention; this will become more clear after publication of ongoing studies comparing stenting or endarterectomy with best medical therapy. In the meantime, no patient should be offered intervention unless there is evidence of high risk of ipsilateral stroke, from modalities such as those discussed here.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paraskevas et al. (2018) conducted a review in Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACS). Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs. Best medical treatment (BMT) was evaluated. Prophylactic carotid intervention should be reserved for the estimated 10%-15% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis who demonstrate high-risk features for ipsilateral stroke.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: