BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Small emboli arising from a friable plaque during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stent placement (CAS) constitute a potentially important cause of periprocedural ischemic complications. To evaluate the frequency and significance of cerebral ischemic lesions of embolic origin after CEA and CAS, we examined patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis by using diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging. METHODS: Twenty-four patients undergoing 26 CEAs and 20 patients undergoing 22 CAS were prospectively studied with pre- and post-treatment DW imaging of the brain within 7 days (mean, 2.3 days) before and within 7 days (mean, 3.2 days) after treatment. DW images were analyzed by two neuroradiologists blinded to the clinical results after CEA and CAS. Any new hyperintense lesion on DW image was interpreted as a post-treatment ischemic lesion. We compared post-treatment ischemic lesions with change in neurologic status, presence of plaque ulcerations, and severity of stenosis and compared the frequency of overall post-treatment complications between the two procedures. RESULTS: In 25 (96%) of 26 CEAs, post-operative brain DW images were unchanged. In one patient (4%), a new single asymptomatic hyperintensity was observed in the striatocapsule on the surgical side. In 14 (64%) of 22 CAS procedures, post-operative brain DW images were unchanged. In eight CAS cases (36%), new hyperintensities were seen on DW images. Among them, two were symptomatic with a major neurologic deficit lasting more than 7 days. Post-treatment brain or retinal major stroke rates were 4% (n = 1) for CEA and 14% (n = 3) for CAS. Overall symptomatic complication rates were 19.2% and 13.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rate of ischemic brain lesions was significantly lower after CEA than after CAS, although most of these brain lesions were silent. Also, CEA is a safer procedure carrying a lower risk of post-operative cerebral ischemia. CAS, however, may be a comparable procedure considering the total complication rate and can be a more reliable procedure with advances in neuroprotective means.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Small emboli arising from a friable plaque during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stent placement (CAS) constitute a potentially important cause of periprocedural ischemic complications. To evaluate the frequency and significance of cerebral ischemic lesions of embolic origin after CEA and CAS, we examined patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis by using diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging. METHODS: Twenty-four patients undergoing 26 CEAs and 20 patients undergoing 22 CAS were prospectively studied with pre- and post-treatment DW imaging of the brain within 7 days (mean, 2.3 days) before and within 7 days (mean, 3.2 days) after treatment. DW images were analyzed by two neuroradiologists blinded to the clinical results after CEA and CAS. Any new hyperintense lesion on DW image was interpreted as a post-treatment ischemic lesion. We compared post-treatment ischemic lesions with change in neurologic status, presence of plaque ulcerations, and severity of stenosis and compared the frequency of overall post-treatment complications between the two procedures. RESULTS: In 25 (96%) of 26 CEAs, post-operative brain DW images were unchanged. In one patient (4%), a new single asymptomatic hyperintensity was observed in the striatocapsule on the surgical side. In 14 (64%) of 22 CAS procedures, post-operative brain DW images were unchanged. In eight CAS cases (36%), new hyperintensities were seen on DW images. Among them, two were symptomatic with a major neurologic deficit lasting more than 7 days. Post-treatment brain or retinal major stroke rates were 4% (n = 1) for CEA and 14% (n = 3) for CAS. Overall symptomatic complication rates were 19.2% and 13.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rate of ischemic brain lesions was significantly lower after CEA than after CAS, although most of these brain lesions were silent. Also, CEA is a safer procedure carrying a lower risk of post-operative cerebral ischemia. CAS, however, may be a comparable procedure considering the total complication rate and can be a more reliable procedure with advances in neuroprotective means.
Authors: J Biller; W M Feinberg; J E Castaldo; A D Whittemore; R E Harbaugh; R J Dempsey; L R Caplan; T F Kresowik; D B Matchar; J f Toole; J D Easton; H P Adams; L M Brass; R W Hobson; T G Brott; L Sternau Journal: Stroke Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A Dietz; J Berkefeld; J G Theron; T Schmitz-Rixen; F E Zanella; B Turowski; H Steinmetz; M Sitzer Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: F Shawl; W Kadro; M J Domanski; F L Lapetina; A A Iqbal; K G Dougherty; D D Weisher; J F Marquez; S T Shahab Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: K O Lövblad; H J Laubach; A E Baird; F Curtin; G Schlaug; R R Edelman; S Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R du Mesnil de Rochemont; S Schneider; B Yan; A Lehr; M Sitzer; J Berkefeld Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Kastrup; K Gröschel; T Nägele; A Riecker; F Schmidt; S Schnaudigel; U Ernemann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-12-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Elke A M Hauth; Christian Jansen; Robert Drescher; Michael Schwartz; Michael Forsting; Horst J Jaeger; Klaus D Mathias Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D Stojanov; M Ilic; P Bosnjakovic; M Zivkovic; S Jolic; N Vukasinovic; A Ignjatovic; B Ilic; D Benedeto-Stojanov Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825