Revascularization of carotid artery stenosis - a brief update on current evidence

Major and long-awaited trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid stenting (CAS) were published in recent years. Both, ICSS and CREST, documented a higher rate of periprocedural stroke and death in CAS, in particular in elderly patients, thereby confirming the results of prior trials and meta-analyses. In CREST, the composite endpoint included myocardial infarction (MI), which led to statistical equipoise between the treatment arms due to a higher rate of MI with CEA. However, whether MI is a relevant endpoint in trials for stroke prevention remains debatable. The stroke preventive benefit seems equally sustained after CEA and CAS, although the significance of restenoses, whose frequency is twice as high after CAS compared to CEA, is unclear in the long range. Emergent CEA in patients with clinically unstable carotid stenosis is associated with a very high complication risk, but the optimal treatment strategy for these patients remains to be elucidated. Recent evidence indicates a very low stroke risk of asymptomatic stenoses with intensive medical treatment, rendering revascularization almost unnecessary. The detection of microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler and rapid stenosis progression by duplex sonography might help to identify patients with higher stroke risk in whom revascularization is warranted.