Procedural Stroke after Carotid Revascularization - Critical Analysis of the Literature and Standards of Reporting.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nMechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) are surprisingly underresearched. However, understanding the underlying mechanism could: (1) assist in balancing the choice for revascularization versus conservative therapy; (2) assist in choosing either open or endo techniques; and (3) assist in taking appropriate periprocedural measures to further reduce procedural stroke rate. The purpose of this study was to overview mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid revascularization and establish reporting standards to facilitate more granular investigation and individual patient data meta-analysis in the future.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe limited evidence in literature was heterogeneous and of low quality and hence no formal data meta-analysis could be performed. Procedural stroke was classified as haemorrhagic or ischemic; the latter was subclassified as haemodynamic, embolic (carotid- or cardio-embolic) or carotid occlusion-derived, using a combination of clinical inference and imaging data. Most events occurred in the first 24h after the procedure and were related to hypoperfusion (pooled incidence 10.2% (95% c.i. 3.0-17.5) versus 13.9% (95% c.i. 0.0-60.9) post-CEA vs CAS events, respectively) or atheroembolism (28.9% (95% c.i. 10.9-47.0) versus 34.3 (95% c.i. 0.0-91.5)) After the first 24 hours, haemorrhagic stroke (11.6 (95% c.i. 5.7-17.4) versus 9.0 (95% c.i. 1.3-16.7)) or thrombotic occlusion (18.4 (95% c.i. 0.9-35.8) versus 14.8 (95% c.i. 0.0-30.5)) became more likely.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAlthough procedural stroke incidence and aetiology may have changed over the last decades due to technical improvements and improvement in perioperative monitoring and quality control, the lack of literature data limits further statements. To simplify and enhance future reporting, procedural stroke analysis and classification should be documented pre-emptively in research settings. We propose a standardized form enclosing reporting standards for procedural stroke with a systematic approach to inference of the most likely aetiology, for prospective use in registries and RCTs on carotid revascularization.