Carotid Artery Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Terms of Neuroprotection DW-MRI Detected and Neuropsychological Assessment Impairment

Abstract

Background: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is well issue known, but the purpose of this study is to compare CAS versus CEA in terms of asymptomatic Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction and neuropsychological assessment impairment.

Methods: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study on 211 consecutive carotid revascularizations at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 different cohorts: CEA was performed in n = 116 patients (Group A); CAS was performed in n = 95 (Group B). Adverse events were collected at 30 days and 6 months postoperative. Differences in terms of DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction were analyzed and considered significative for P ≤ 0.05. Secondary objectives were: major and minor stroke, neuropsychological assessment impairment, death, myocardial infarction (MI).

Results: CEA was associated with a significative decreased rate of asymptomatic DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction (13.8% vs. 51%; P = 0.0001) and of 6 months neuropsychological assessments impairment (0.8 vs. 7.4) (P = 0.04) in asymptomatic patients. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of comorbidities. Stroke rates were similar at 30 days (1.7% CEA vs. 4.1% CAS) and 6 months (2.6% CEA vs. 5.3% CAS P = 0.32). There were no differences in terms of central neurological events, death, transient ischemic attack, MI between the groups. The composite end point of stroke/death/MI at 6 months postoperatively was 2.6% vs. 6.3% (P = 0.19).

Conclusions: According to these results, CEA achieved better outcomes compared to patients treated by CAS with distal filter in terms of asymptomatic microembolic event and impairment National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scale and neuropsychological assessments. Limitations of the study lead to limited conclusions only in the specific population and not generalized. Further, comparative randomized studies are warranted.