Open surgery remains a valid option for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis

The choice between open surgery (OS) and transluminal carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS) for the treatment of primary carotid stenosis remains controversial. However, CAS is considered a valid option for selected cases, such as recurrent carotid stenosis (RCS). Tertiary RCS seems to be a concerning issue after CAS but few large reports focused on the durability of CAS and OS. We report our early and long-term results with OS for RCS.

From 1989 to 2006, perioperative data regarding 4245 consecutive surgical carotid reconstructions was prospectively collected. Patients whose indication was RCS were subjected to further analysis. Indications for surgery were symptomatic RCS >50% or asymptomatic RCS >80%. Freedom from neurologic event was defined as the absence of any ipsilateral symptom at any time after the procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis >50% and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event and survival.

A total of 119 patients (2.8%) with RCS underwent OS. The average time from the primary OS was 59.4 +/- 54.5 months (range, 2-204). Forty-nine patients (41%) were symptomatic. In 103 patients (87%), the technique did not differ from a primary approach. Postoperative (<30 days) combined stroke and death rate was 3.3%. Cranial nerve injury occurred in 5 cases (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 48 months (range, 1-204), 3 patients had an ipsilateral stroke (including one hemorrhagic stroke) and 7 were diagnosed with a tertiary RCS >50%. At 5 years, Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention, freedom from restenosis and occlusion, freedom from neurologic event, and survival were 99%, 91%, 89%, and 91%, respectively.

OS for RCS is not a high-risk procedure and provides excellent long-term results, with low rates of tertiary RCS and reinterventions. The comparison between OS and CAS in this indication suffers from the absence of standardized follow-up paradigms after primary OS and the lack of prospective randomized trial comparing the two techniques. Despite these limitations in the available data, we conclude that OS should remain the first line therapy when treatment of RCS is indicated.