| Literature DB >> 31872191 |
Mario Zanaty1, Jorge A Roa1,2, Pascal M Jabbour3, Edgar A Samaniego1,2,4, David M Hasan1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We reviewed the literature on interventions for patients with medically refractory chronically occluded internal carotid artery (COICA) to assess the risks and/or benefits after recanalization via an endovascular technique (ET) or hybrid surgery (HS, i.e., ET plus carotid endarterectomy).Entities:
Keywords: COICA, Chronically occluded internal carotid artery; ET, Endovascular technique; HS, Hybrid surgery; ICA, Internal carotid artery; Internal Carotid Artery; MCA, Middle cerebral artery; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Occlusion; Recanalization; SBP, Systolic blood pressure; Stroke; TIA, Transient ischemic attack
Year: 2019 PMID: 31872191 PMCID: PMC6920090 DOI: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2019.100067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World Neurosurg X ISSN: 2590-1397
Combined Demographics, Technical Success, and Complication Rates
| Author (Year) | Patients | Age (Years) | Male | Occlusion Duration (Months) | Successful Recanalization, N (%) | Complications | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major | Minor | ||||||
| Ishihara et al (2006) | 1 | 70s | 0 | 0.75 | 1 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Thomas et al (2007) | 2 | 65.0 ± 7.0 | 2 | 3.5 ± 3.5 | 2 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Kao et al (2007) | 30 | 72.1 ± 8 | 27 | NA | 22 (73) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Lin at el (2008) | 54 | 69.2 ± 9.8 | 48 | 7.9 ± 10.9 | 35 (65) | 2 (4) | 3 (6) |
| Bhatt et al (2009) | 1 | 50s | 0 | 9 | 1 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Terada et al (2010) | 15 | 66.1 ± 6.4 | 13 | 5.1 ± 3.6 | 14 (93) | 1 | 1 |
| Kim et al (2010) | 1 | 60s | 1 | NA | 1 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Shojima et al (2010) | 8 | 68 (50–78) | 8 | 19.4 ± 7.3 | 7 (88) | 0 | 1 (13) |
| Yue et al (2011) | 17 | 63.6 ± 9.6 | 12 | 1.1 ± 1.0 | 12 (71) | 0 | 0 |
| Iwata et al (2012) | 4 | 75.5 ± 6.6 | 4 | 4 ± 0.8 | 4 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Namba et al (2012) | 11 | 63.9 ± 9.5 | 11 | 4.3 ± 4.2 | 8 (77.2) | 0 | 0 |
| Rostambeigi et al (2013) | 1 | 50s | 0 | 1 | 1 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Shih et al (2013) | 3 | 63.3 | 3 | NA | 3 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Fan et al (2014) | 18 | 65.2 ± 4.2 | 16 | 21 ± 6.7 | 16 (89) | 2 (11) | 0 |
| Chen et al (2016) | 138 | 66.7 ± 9.8 | 115 | NA | 85 (62) | 6 (4) | 0 |
| Bigliardi et al (2016) | 1 | 60s | 1 | 3 | 1 (100) | 0 | 0 |
| Hasan et al (2018) | 37 | 65.8 ± 8.7 | 26 | 2.4 ± 3 | 22 (69) | 2 (6) | 4 (13) |
| Liu et al (2018) | 21 | 56 | 19 | NA | 15 (71.4) | 2 (9.5) | 4 (19) |
| Zhang et al (2019) | 30 | 54.5 ± 7.4 | 26 | 0.5–4 | 30 (100) | 1 (3.3) | 1 (3.3) |
| Li et al (2019) | 32 | 65.8 ± 8.0 | 25 | NA | 71.9 | 7 (21.8) | NA |
| Aggregate | 389 | 67.2 ± 9.3 | 354 (91) | 0.5–27.7 | 349 (89.4) | 24 (6.7) | 14 (3.9) |
Counts listed as number (percent); continuous variables listed as mean ± standard deviation.
NA, not available.
Excluded from aggregate statistics for age due to no standard deviation.
Bayesian Meta-Analysis with the Inference of the 95% Credibility Interval
| Mean Probability (%) | 95% CI Probability (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall success | 90.6 | 87.7–93.3 |
| Major complications | 6.5 | 4.0–8.7 |
| Minor complications | 3.9 | 2.2–5.7 |
| Total complications | 10.1 | 7.4–13.1 |
| Mortality | 2.6 | 1.2–4.2 |
| Reperfusion | 2.6 | 1.2–4.2 |
| Postoperative ischemic stroke | 3.6 | 2.0–5.5 |
| Hemorrhagic complication | 2.8 | 1.3–4.4 |
| Dissection | 1.5 | 0.4–2.7 |
| Perforation | 1.8 | 0.7–3.1 |
| Pseudoaneurysm | 0.5 | 0.0–1.2 |
| CCF | 0.8 | 0.1–1.5 |
| Restenosis | 1.6 | 0.5–2.7 |
| Bradycardia | 68.4 | 56.5–79.5 |
CCF, carotid-cavernous fistula; CI, confidence interval.
Outcomes of Intervention in COICA According to Type of Occlusion
| Mean Probability (%) | 95% CI Probability (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Success for A and B using ET | 95.4 | 86.5–100 |
| Success for C using ET | 45.7 | 17.8–70.7 |
| Success for C using HS | 87.6 | 80.9–94.4 |
| Success for D using HS | 29.8 | 7.8–52.8 |
| Complications for A and B using ET | 13.7 | 2.3–27.4 |
| Complications for C using ET | 46.0 | 20.0–71.4 |
| Complications for C using HS | 14.0 | 7.0–21.8 |
| Complications for D using HS | 29.8 | 6.1–56.3 |
CI, confidence interval; ET, endovascular therapy; HS, hybrid surgery.
Figure 1Bayesian inference of preop MoCA, postop MoCA, and improvement (Postop MoCA − Preop MoCA). The mean preop MoCA score was 15.44 (95% CI: 14.05–16.79), whereas the postop MoCA score after recanalization was 25.24 (95% CI: 23.32–27.34). For reference, a normal MoCA score is >25, whereas Alzheimer's mean score is <20. The 95% CI do not intersect as shown in the graph. In addition, the mean improvement score was 9.80 (95% CI: 7.37–12.38). CI, confidence interval; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Figure 2A 66-year-old man with symptomatic R COICA underwent successful revascularization using the STA-MCA bypass procedure. The yellow dashed box in (A) demonstrates the anastomosis of STA to MCA and improved blood flow in a small region of the MCA territory. (B) The marked increase in MTT in the entire R hemisphere on CTP pre-procedure. (C) Significant improvement in the MTT compared with pre-op, but it is not normalized when compared to the left hemisphere. COICA, chronically occluded internal carotid artery; CTP, computed tomography perfusion; MCA, middle cerebral artery; MTT, middle cerebral artery; STA, superficial temporal artery.