RESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 confronted medical care with many challenges. During the pandemic, several resources were limited resulting in renouncing or postponing medical care like carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Although according to international guidelines CEA is the first choice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) could potentially be a reasonable alternative especially during logistical restraints. PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of CAS versus CEA before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our hypothesis was that a CAS first approach yielded comparable outcomes compared to a CEA first approach. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with significant carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS between September 2018 and March 2023. Each consecutive period of 1.5 year marked a new (treatment) period: pre-COVID (CEA first strategy), during COVID (CAS first strategy) and post COVID (patient tailored approach). Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA or death within 30 days. Secondary outcome consisted of the rate of technical success, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction or other cardiac complications needing intervention, bleeding of the surgical site needing intervention, nerve palsy, unintended IC admission, pseudoaneurysm, restenosis or occlusion. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. Out of 137 patients treated with CEA, 55, 36 and 46 were treated pre-COVID, during COVID and post-COVID, respectively. Out of 181 CAS procedures, 38, 59 and 84, respectively, were performed in each time period. Primary outcome occurred in 5.5%, 0% and 2.2% in the CEA group and 0%, 1.7% and 3.6% in the CAS group (p = .27; p = 1.00; p = 1.00, respectively). Overall technical success was 100% for CEA and 99.4% for CAS (p = 1.00). Rate of restenosis was the only secondary outcome measure which was significantly better after CAS compared to CEA in the pre- and post-COVID period (CEA vs CAS, 12.7% vs 7.9% and 23.9% vs 4.8% with a p-value of .03 and .03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Outcomes were comparable between CAS versus CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CAS showed better results in terms of other complications (i.e., restenosis rate) in the pre- and post-COVID period compared to CEA. Our results may support a CAS first approach when no relevant contra-indications exist without exposing the patient to complications associated with an open surgical approach. Discussion in a multidisciplinary team is advised.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The initial treatment of patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains undefined. The aim of this article was to compare the safety and effectiveness of catheter-driven thrombolysis (CDT) with surgical revascularization and evaluate the various fibrinolytic agents, endovascular, and pharmacochemical approaches that aim for thrombectomy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on the management of ALI by means of surgical or endovascular recanalization, returning 520 studies. All randomized, controlled trials, nonrandomized prospective, and retrospective studies were included comparing treatment of ALI. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies, investigating a total of 4689 patients, were included for meta-analysis spread across nine different comparisons. No differences were found in limb salvage between thrombectomy and thrombolysis. More major vascular events were seen in the thrombolysis group (6.5% compared with 4.4% in the surgically treated group; odds ratio [OR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.87; P = .02; I2 = 20%). Comparable limb salvage was found for high- and low-dose recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA). No significant differences were found in major vascular event between low r-tPA (14%) and high r-tPA (10.5%; P = .13). The 30-day limb salvage rate was 79.7% for r-tPA treatment and 60.4% for streptokinase (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.26-7.85; P = .01; I2 = 0%). AngioJet showed more limb salvage at 6 months compared with r-tPa (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.17-4.18; P = .01; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Both CDT and surgery have comparable limb salvage rates in patients with ALI; however, CDT is associated with a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the risk of hemorrhagic complications regarding thrombolytic therapy by means of r-tPA, streptokinase, or urokinase. Insufficient data are available to conclude the preference of using a hybrid approach, ultrasound-accelerated CDT, heated r-tPA. or novel endovascular (rheolytical) thrombectomy systems. Future trials regarding ALI need to be constructed carefully, ensuring comparable study groups, and should follow standardized practices of outcome reporting.
