Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 7, 2026

A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting
Isibor J Arhuidese1, Besma Nejim2, Susruth Chavali2
1Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md; Division of Vascular Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, Fla.
Insights
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and repeat carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) show similar outcomes for in-stent restenosis after prior CAS. However, CEA is associated with higher mortality, particularly in asymptomatic patients with severe systemic disease.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Neurology
Background:
- In-stent restenosis following carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is a known complication, increasing stroke risk.
- Limited data exists comparing outcomes of repeat CAS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for this condition.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of redo-CAS compared to CEA in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS.
- To analyze short-term (30-day) and long-term (1-year) outcomes, including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database from 2003-2016.
- Inclusion of patients who underwent CEA or CAS for in-stent restenosis after a prior ipsilateral CAS.
- Statistical analysis included univariate methods, Kaplan-Meier, logistic, and Cox regression, adjusting for patient characteristics.
Main Results:
- 645 interventions were analyzed: 134 CEA and 511 redo-CAS.
- No significant difference in 30-day stroke rates (1.5% vs. 1.4%) or 1-year stroke/death rates (91% vs. 92%) between CEA and redo-CAS.
- Redo-CAS showed significantly lower 30-day mortality (0.9% vs. 3.7%) compared to CEA.
Conclusions:
- Both CEA and redo-CAS demonstrate comparable perioperative and 1-year outcomes for treating in-stent restenosis after prior CAS.
- CEA is associated with higher absolute mortality, suggesting it should be avoided in asymptomatic patients with significant comorbidities.
- Optimizing diabetes management and smoking cessation are crucial for improving outcomes in redo-CAS patients.
Objective:
In-stent restenosis is a recognized complication of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), and it is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Few case series have reported outcomes separately following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. In this study, we perform an evaluation of redo-CAS vs CEA in a large contemporary cohort of patients who underwent prior ipsilateral CAS.
Methods:
We studied all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database, who underwent CEA or CAS between January 1, 2003, and April 30, 2016, after prior ipsilateral CAS. Univariate methods (χ2, t-test), Kaplan-Meier, logistic, and Cox regression analyses adjusting for patient characteristics were employed to evaluate stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI within 30 days and up to 1 year following the procedure.
Results:
There were 645 carotid interventions (CEA, 134 [21%] and redo-CAS, 511 [79%]) performed in this cohort of patients with prior ipsilateral CAS. Postoperative stroke within 30 days comparing CEA vs CAS was 0% vs 0.3% (P = .61) for asymptomatic patients and 4.4% vs 3.5% (P = .79) for symptomatic patients for an overall stroke rate of 1.5% vs 1.4%. MI was 2.3% vs 1.2% (P = .35), 30-day mortality was 3.7% vs 0.9% (P = .02) following CEA vs CAS, whereas the composite of perioperative stroke/death was 4.5% vs 1.9% (P = .09). Freedom from stroke/death at 1 year was 91% for CEA and 92% for redo-CAS (P = .76). After risk adjustment, there was no significant difference in 30-day stroke (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-4.48; P = .82), mortality (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 0.54-9.11; P = .27), or stroke/death (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.26-3.84; P = .99) as well as 1-year stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.13-2.85; P = .52), mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.42-1.65; P = .60), or stroke/death (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43-1.49; P = .48) comparing CEA with CAS. The significant predictors of perioperative stroke/death were older age, diabetes, active smoking, and preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV status (all P < .05).
Conclusions:
We have reported adverse event rates for CEA and CAS after prior CAS and shown no significant difference in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between both groups. However, CEA is offered to patients who are more severely ill than redo-CAS, resulting in significantly higher absolute mortality. We recommend avoidance of CEA especially in asymptomatic patients with serious systemic disease. Tight management of diabetes and smoking cessation remain potent targets for outcomes improvement in redo-CAS patients.
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
