Carotid Artery Stenting–Induced Hemodynamic Instability

Department of Vascular Surgery, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Journal of Endovascular Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.35). 02/2013; 20(1):48-60. DOI: 10.1583/12-4015.1
Source: PubMed


To present a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the incidence of carotid artery stenting (CAS)-induced hemodynamic instability (HI) and to explore differences in periprocedural risk among patients with and without CAS-associated HI.

Multiple electronic health databases were searched for all articles published between January 2000 and December 2011 describing CAS-associated hemodynamic instability. Twenty-seven studies with a total of 4204 patients were analyzed, placing emphasis on the HI incidence and its correlation with postprocedure morbidity and mortality. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to investigate the role of potential meaningful modifiers upon HI.

The meta-analysis for overall HI rate showed a pooled proportion of 39.4%. The pooled estimate for hypotension was 12.1%, 12.2% for bradycardia, and 12.5% for both hypotension and bradycardia. Persistent HI was found to occur in a pooled rate of 19.2%. No statistically significant differences were found between patients with and without HI after CAS with respect to death, stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or major adverse events. The meta-regression analysis revealed statistically significant associations of mean age with HI, of ≤10-mm distance between the carotid bifurcation and the site of minimum lumen diameter with bradycardia, and of prior ipsilateral CEA with persistent HI.

CAS-induced HI occurs in a considerable percentage of patients without increasing the perioperative risk. However, applying the appropriate prophylactic measures and strictly monitoring blood pressure and heart rate during the procedure and immediately after should be encouraged for early recognition and correction of these hemodynamic disturbances.

6 Reads

  • No preview · Article · Feb 2013 · Journal of Endovascular Therapy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While patient eligibility for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is well established, the intraoperative technique remains widely varied. The decision to perform poststent ballooning (PSB) is operator-dependent and often influenced by the interpretation of poststent angiography. While visually creating a greater luminal diameter, it is unclear whether PSB has immediate risks or long-term benefits. The purpose of this report is to determine whether PSB has any effects on periprocedural hemodynamic stability. A retrospective analysis of all patients that underwent CAS between 2005 and 2012 at a tertiary care center was performed. The primary end point was hemodynamic instability, defined as bradycardia (a heart rate of <60 beats/min) or hypotension (systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg) during the intraoperative or postoperative period. Binary logistic regression model was performed to determine the effect of PSB on the occurrence of hemodynamic instability, adjusting for patient's age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, recent myocardial infarction, previous carotid endarterectomy, high-risk status, and symptomatic status. A total of 103 (51 men and 52 women) patients underwent placement of a unilateral carotid stent between 2005 and 2012 at our institution. All patients underwent prestent dilatation. However, 70% (n = 72) underwent PSB whereas 30% (n = 31) did not. PSB was a significant predictor of hemodynamic depression (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-11; P < .01). Symptomatic status, recent myocardial infarction, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease were associated with a length of stay exceeding 24 hours postoperatively (OR, 6.6; P < .01, OR, 6.1; P < .01, OR, 5.4; P = .04, and OR, 9.3; P < .01, respectively). At follow-up, 97% (83/86) stents were patent. Two stent stenoses occurred in the group that received PSB, while one stent stenosis occurred in the group that did not receive PSB. PSB increases the risk of intra- or postoperative hemodynamic depression in CAS and might increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Given the added complications and the lack of evidence supporting long term patency, PSB should be only selectively used.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2013 · Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the era of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) are unclear. We compared perioperative results and durability of CAS vs CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic restenosis after prior CEA and investigated the risk of reintervention compared with primary procedures. Methods Patients undergoing CAS and CEA for restenosis between January 2003 and March 2012 were identified within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database. End points included any stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days, cranial nerve injury at discharge, and restenosis ≥70% at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify whether prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for adverse outcome. Results Out of 9305 CEA procedures, 212 patients (2.3%) underwent redo CEA (36% symptomatic). Of 663 CAS procedures, 220 patients (33%) underwent CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA (31% symptomatic). Demographics of patients undergoing redo CEA were comparable to patients undergoing CAS after prior CEA. Stroke/death/MI rates were statistically similar between redo CEA vs CAS after prior CEA in both asymptomatic (4.4% vs 3.3%; P = .8) and symptomatic patients (6.6% vs 5.8%; P = 1.0). No significant difference in restenosis ≥70% was identified between redo CEA and CAS after prior CEA (5.2% vs 3.0%; P = .5). Redo CEA vs primary CEA had increased stroke/death/MI rate in both symptomatic (6.6% vs 2.3%; P = .05) and asymptomatic patients 4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .03). Prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for stroke/death/MI among all patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5). No difference in cranial nerve injury was identified between redo CEA and primary CEA (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .8). Conclusions In the VSGNE, CEA and CAS showed statistically equivalent outcomes in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients treated for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA. However, regardless of symptom status, the risk of reintervention was increased compared with patients undergoing primary CEA.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2014 · Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter
Show more