Extracranial carotid artery stenting: the Puerto Rico medical center endovascular neurosurgery service experience.

OBJECTIVE: Extracranial carotid artery stenting (CAS) represents a viable alternative for high-risk surgical patients. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical features and outcome of 25 patients that underwent CAS at the Puerto Rico Medical Center. METHODS: A retrospective review of a series of 25 high-risk surgical patients that underwent CAS from June 2005 to January 2010 was performed. Patients were followed-up at clinics with computed tomography angiography and/or digital subtraction angiography. RESULTS: Patient ages ranged from 52 to 88 years. Twenty-one of the patients had severe cervical carotid stenosis (more than 80%). Those with moderate stenosis (from 50% to 80%) were treated when they were symptomatic or when stenosis recurred after carotid endarterectomy. Among the 25 patients, only 2 presented with restenosis (more than 50% luminal diameter). Both had a history of radiation-induced disease, but neither required retreatment. Five patients required post-stenting angioplasty due to a less than 50% improvement in luminal diameter. There was 1 death, and 1 patient presented delayed neurocognitive deterioration. The combined long-term morbidity and mortality in the subgroup with at least two years of follow-up was 8.3%. There were no intracerebral hemorrhages or recurrent strokes/transient ischemic attacks. CONCLUSION: The restriction of post-stenting angioplasty to only those cases without significant revascularization appears to help reduce restenosis rates while ensuring a gradual increase in intracranial blood flow. The latter may not apply to patients with a prior history of radiotherapy.

A proposal for a new arteriovenous malformation grading scale for neuroendovascular procedures and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, decisions regarding treatment and outcomes for patients with cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVM) have made use of the Spetzler-Martin grading scale. The latter has withstood the test of time in clinical practice for AVM patients managed surgically and even when comparing studies involving other modalities of treatment. Recent awareness on the applicability of the grading system for risk assessment and outcome determination in cases of treatment by neuroendovascular means has emerged. We propose a preliminary grading system for neuroendovascular procedures based on a revision of the available literature. METHODS: A literature search using the keywords 'arteriovenous malformation', 'embolization' and 'outcome' was done. Articles studying the factors involved in complications and outcome determination for endovascular cerebral AVM patients were reviewed. These were tabulated and those dealing with anatomical, radiological and hemodynamic descriptions that were noted as significant determinants of risk or clinical outcome were used for development of a preliminary grading system to be used in a follow-up validation study. RESULTS: A grading system similar to the Spetzler-Martin grading scale was developed using factors deemed in the literature as significant determinants of outcome. The classification includes the number of feeding vessels into the AVM, the eloquence of adjacent areas, and the presence of fistulous components. Follow-up study is underway at our institution to validate our proposal. Yet, significant evidence exists in the literature validating those factors as stand alone determinants of outcome and risk, suggesting that this grading scale may well be applicable to endovascular embolization procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A grading scale similar to the Spetzler-Martin grading system for use in risk assessment and outcome determination in brain AVM patients treated by endovascular techniques seems adequate and clinically feasible. Studies on applicability and validation are underway.