Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 11538  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (2,087 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Patients and Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded56    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Table of Contents    
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 94-101

Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: An Experience of a Hybrid Neurosurgeon in a Developing Nation

Department of Neurosurgery, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and Sion Hospital, Sulochana shetty marg, Sion West, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission10-Aug-2020
Date of Decision21-Sep-2020
Date of Acceptance30-Mar-2021
Date of Web Publication24-Jan-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Batuk Diyora
904, Krishna Co-Op Society, CD Burfiwala Road, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 058, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.336326

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Background: Stenosis of the ICA is an important cause of ischemic stroke and associated morbidity and mortality. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) help to prevent impending or subsequent ischemic stroke in such patients.
Aim and Objective:

  • To study the outcome and adverse events associated with CEA and CAS.
  • To determine the generalization of results obtained with multicentric trials such as CREST, etc., by comparing the results obtained by a single neurosurgeon in a community setting.

Material and Methods: From Jan 2014–Dec 2017, 80 patients presented with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Out of these 80 patients, 65 underwent intervention; 34 patients underwent CEA and 31 patients underwent CAS. Pre-defined variables like age, sex, and degree of stenosis were assessed as potential risk factors, and the patients' clinical features, radiological imaging, and procedural complications were documented.
Results: The primary outcome of procedure-related stroke, major adverse events (MAEs), and death at 30 days follow-up and long-term outcomes of restenosis at 1 year were analyzed. Peri-procedural stroke occurred in 2 cases (6.4%) of CAS; one suffered an ischemic stroke and other suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. Three cases of CEA suffered procedure-related events; one (2.9%) suffered TIA while the other two developed postoperative local hematoma without neurological deficit; one was treated conservatively while the other required re-exploration due to pressure symptoms. Restenosis occurred in one case that underwent CAS.
Conclusion: CAS and CEA are complementary approaches in treating symptomatic carotid stenosis even when performed by a single hybrid neurosurgeon as results obtained are commensurable to major studies like CREST.

Keywords: Carotid artery stenting, carotid endarterectomy, CAS, CEA, dual-trained neurosurgeon, hybrid neurosurgeon, symptomatic carotid stenosis
Key Message:A Hybrid Neurosurgeon can provide cafeteria approach for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis and can judiciously use CAS and CEA as complementary approaches for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.

How to cite this article:
Diyora B, Chheda RM, Dhall G, Gupta P, Dewani K, Mulla M, Gaud D. Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: An Experience of a Hybrid Neurosurgeon in a Developing Nation. Neurol India 2022;70:94-101

How to cite this URL:
Diyora B, Chheda RM, Dhall G, Gupta P, Dewani K, Mulla M, Gaud D. Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: An Experience of a Hybrid Neurosurgeon in a Developing Nation. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 7];70:94-101. Available from:

Internal carotid artery (ICA) atherosclerosis is a major risk factor for stroke,[1] especially in patients with amaurosis fugax or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and leads to approximately 30% of all ischemic strokes.[2] 2%–6% annual risk of stroke is observed in patients with asymptomatic stenosis of >50%[3] while symptomatic carotid stenosis accounts for an even higher annual risk of stroke. Treatment modalities include medical management (treatment of vascular risk factors), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and carotid artery stenting (CAS), which have shown to decrease the risk of subsequent stroke and reduces stroke-related morbidity and mortality.

The advent of statins and multiple antiplatelet drugs revolutionized the medical management of carotid stenosis. However, carotid endarterectomy has prevailed as ”gold standard” treatment for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis proven by multicentric trials like The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET),[4],[5],[6] European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST),[7] and Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST).[8],[9]

In the 1990s, endovascular treatments (first balloon angioplasty and then stenting) emerged as a safer and less invasive alternative to endarterectomy, especially in high-risk cases. However, trials such as Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE),[10] Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE),[11],[12] and Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)[13],[14] have failed to demonstrate significant short or long term differences between the 2 cohorts receiving CEA or CAS with distal protection with respect to the combined primary endpoint of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI).

Because most of these trials were performed in academic centers, a vigorous training course was required for the surgeons and interventionists selected to enroll in these trials.[15] This has raised a concern regarding the generalization of these results and has made it necessary to determine whether similar results can be obtained in community settings by a single hybrid neurosurgeon.

This study puts forward a single “dual-trained” neurosurgeon's experience with CAS and CEA performed in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and compares the result of this study with the multicenter trials such as CREST, SPACE, etc., so as to prove the generalizability of these trials in a community setting.

 » Patients and Methods Top

During a 4-year period, i.e., from January 2014-December 2017, 80 patients presented with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Out of these 80 patients, 65 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were identified from operation registers and medical records and were included in this analysis, which was approved by our institutional review board and was compliant with the ethical norms. Among these 65 patients, 34 patients underwent CEA and 31 patients underwent carotid stenting operated upon by a single neurosurgeon. Patients underwent CAS if they were at high surgical risk or conditions favorable for CAS.

The high surgical risk observed in our study was defined based on anatomic criteria (stenosis extending cavernous carotid, high bifurcation, previous ipsilateral neck surgery or radiation, and contralateral laryngeal nerve paralysis) and physiological criteria (Age ≥75 years, decompensated liver disease, compromised cardiopulmonary reserve and valvular heart disease, NYHA CHF Class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, coronary artery disease involving ≥2 vessels, unstable angina, recent MI (within 6 weeks), and chronic renal insufficiency).

Inclusion criteria

  1. Patients >18 years of age.
  2. Patient with >60% stenosis (as determined by ultrasound or angiogram as per NASCET[5],[6] criteria) of the common carotid artery (CCA) or internal carotid artery (ICA) and is clinically symptomatic defined as:

    • one or more TIAs, or episodic amaurosis fugax, or
    • one or more completed strokes with the persistence of symptoms or signs for more than 24 h (qualifying event within the previous 180 days experiencing symptoms in ipsilateral distribution),

  3. Females, if of childbearing potential, should have tested negative for pregnancy.
  4. Patients should have been able to consent and comply with protocol-specified follow-up requirements for the respective procedure.

Exclusion criteria

  1. The patient has an intracranial SOL (i.e., abscess, tumor, or infection)
  2. The patient has known vascular anomaly, supra-aortic, or ICA tortuosity which precludes the use of catheter-based techniques
  3. The patient has an intracranial aneurysm (>9 mm)
  4. Spinal deformity or degenerative spinal disease
  5. Allergy or sensitivity to aspirin, heparin, or clopidogrel and other sulphur/iodine containing drugs.

All the patients underwent a screening Duplex scan of extracranial neck vessels to assess the carotid bifurcation stenosis, followed by confirmatory imaging—a carotid angiogram or a noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All the cases underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) to estimate the grade of stenosis and to rule out any intracranial vessel cut-off or abnormality. In patients undergoing CEA, clopidogrel was withheld preoperatively while aspirin (150 mg) was continued. In patients undergoing CAS, pre-procedural doses of aspirin (150 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) were continued.

Follow-up clinical assessment was done on a monthly basis for the first 3 months and thereafter patients were followed up quarterly till 1 year. Duplex scan was employed for check imaging to assess residual stenosis or post procedural restenosis. We assessed these patients for procedure-related morbidity and mortality, ipsilateral cerebral events, and long-term patency of the ICA.

Surgical protocol [Figure 1]
Figure 1: Steps of CEA: (a) Detection of carotid artery stenosis on MRI Angio. (b) Confirmation of carotid stenosis on DSA. (c) An incision along the anterior border of sternocleidomastoid muscles (SCLM). (d) The common carotid artery encircled with No 1 silk loop for control and dissection continued to reach the carotid bifurcation and its branches. (e) Arteriotomy begins on the ICA distal to the plaque gradually extending to the CCA and the tip of the plaque separated until normal endothelium was seen. (f) The arteriotomy was closed using two 6/0 polypropylene sutures. (g) Demonstration of the plaque removed

Click here to view

For all the patients who underwent CEA, procedures were performed under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. [Figure 1] describes the procedure followed during carotid endarterectomy by the lead surgeon. Arteriotomy site was covered with Nu Knit surgicel. A closed drainage system was instituted for 24 h.

Stenting protocol [Figure 2]
Figure 2: Steps of CAS: (a) Via right femoral artery puncture, selective carotid angiography was performed and ICA stenosis was confirmed. (b) With a lateral view of the neck, using double length 0.035 Terumo wire which was positioned in the CCA and appropriate size distal protection device was passed through the stenosis and positioned into distal cervical ICA. (c) Balloon angioplasty was then performed. After ensuring a good opening of artery post angioplasty, an appropriate size stent is deployed across the lesion. (d) The distal protection device was removed. Final ICA runs were taken again to confirm flow across the ICA and its intracranial branches

Click here to view

For all patients undergoing CAS, the procedure was performed under local anesthesia. [Figure 2] describes the procedure followed during carotid artery stenting by the lead surgeon.

Post-procedure, all patients were shifted to ICU for neurological monitoring. Oral sips started by evening and mobilized the next day. On discharge, 150 mg aspirin and Statin (Rosuvastatin 10mg/day or Atorvastatin 20-40mg/day) started in those undergoing CEA and Aspirin 150 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and statins in patients undergoing CAS.

 » Results Top

A total of 65 patients, included in the study, underwent definitive treatment for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The data was computed and analyzed. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Z-test. Of all these 65 patients included in the study, 31 patients (47.7%) underwent carotid artery stenting while the remaining 34 (52.3%) underwent carotid endarterectomy and 50 were male (76.9%) while 15 were females (23.07%).

Mean age in the CEA group was lower compared with the CAS group: 58.5 years (median age: 57 years; age range 37–74 years) v/s 66.29 years (median age: 66 years; age range 55–80 years) [Table 1]. In both groups, the side of the lesion (49.23% right vs 50.76% left) was similar.
Table 1: General characteristics of patients in this study

Click here to view

Risk factors for carotid stenosis included hypertension, smoking, elevated cholesterol level, diabetes, etc. Of all the 65 patients, hypertension and diabetes were seen to be present in the majority of the patients, one female had a history of malignancy, and one had a history of neck irradiation. More than two risk factors were observed in >45% (30/65) of patients [Table 1].

[Figure 3] denotes the grade of stenosis and the corresponding procedure done in all patients who met the inclusion criteria.
Figure 3: Number of procedure (CAS v/s CEA) for the corresponding grade of stenosis

Click here to view

The primary outcome of stroke, other major adverse events (MAEs), and death at 30-day follow-up are given in [Table 2]. The outcome in both the groups was found not to be statistically significant (P = 0.9077) at 30-day follow-up. Two strokes (6.4%) occurred in the CAS group, both in patients who had distal embolic protection. One of these patients developed a right-sided neuro deficit during the procedure. The patient was treated conservatively and was discharged with an mRs of 2. However, symptoms partially resolved at 30-day follow-up.
Table 2: Complications encountered with patients in this study undergoing CEA or CAS

Click here to view

In the other patient, left-sided hemiplegia with altered sensorium was detected on postoperative day 1. An NCCT brain revealed right-sided intracranial hematoma. Patient underwent a decompressive hemicraniectomy. However, the patient succumbed to multi-organ dysfunction syndrome. Thus, the primary outcome of perioperative stroke rate in CAS cohort is 6.4% and perioperative death rate secondary to perioperative stroke was 3.2%.

A single case of TIA (2.9%) occurred in the CEA group. This patient was noted to have a mild deviation of face and slurring of speech on postoperative day 1 which recovered with conservative management within 24 h. Two patients in the CEA group experienced operative site hematoma formation (5.8%) of which one of these patients was re-explored due to pressure symptoms and the hematoma was evacuated. The other patient was treated conservatively.

No deaths or cranial or peripheral nerve injuries were observed in the CEA group. Restenosis was seen in a single case (3.2%) who underwent CAS, whereas no restenosis was seen in patients undergoing CEA. The mean length of stay after the procedure was similar in both the groups, i.e., 5.1 days for the CEA group and 4.8 days in the CAS group.

 » Discussion Top

The patients included in this study are representative of patients routinely treated for symptomatic carotid stenosis in western India. The mean age of patients undergoing the treatment in our study was 62.2 years. The earlier presentation of carotid stenosis could be attributed to various factors such as genetic predisposition, geographical prevalence, and presence of more than two risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia as well as increased use of tobacco in all its forms. This has been supported by Kaul et al.[16],[17] who reported a mean age of patients presenting with carotid stenosis as 58.1 (±10.6 years) in their study. Hypertension (76.9%) was the most common risk factor associated with patients with carotid stenosis.[18]

In our study, the primary outcome has been the incidence of 30-day stroke, major adverse events, and death rate. Perioperative stroke or MAEs rates in CEA limb (2.9%) were lower than those in CAS limb (6.4%); however, this was not statistically significant. The overall 30-day rate of disabling stroke and death was 3% in our study. A single death (3.2%) occurred in the CAS group. Our data is consistent with the findings of various multicentric studies [Table 3].
Table 3: Comparison of rate of perioperative stroke in different trials with the current study

Click here to view

Another complication encountered in various studies was restenosis of the carotid artery. CAVATAS[20] and SPACE[10] study showed an excessive risk of restenosis or occlusion after endovascular treatment. By contrast, the rates of severe restenosis during long-term analysis did not differ between stenting and endarterectomy with other studies including our study [Table 4].
Table 4: Comparison of rate of restenosis in different trials with the current study

Click here to view

There has been a major debate over more suitable mode of treatment as well as sanctioned speciality authorized for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Nevertheless, it is established that high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis should be considered for CAS. CAS and CEA have been performed across a wide range of specialities including interventional neurologist (IN), interventional radiologist (IR), cardiologist (IC), cardiothoracic surgeons (CT), vascular surgeons (VS), general surgeons (GS), and neurosurgeons (NS).

CREST[13],[14] was a landmark study investigating the efficacy and safety of CAS with CEA. During the lead-in phase of CREST, periprocedural event rate occurring in patients undergoing CAS was lower when performed by a neuroradiologist (1.6%) in comparison to a cardiologist (3.9%) or a surgeon (7.7%). However, a substudy analysis of CREST could not identify significant differences in a composite outcome rate occurring with CAS performed by expert vascular surgeons compared to other listed operators.[15]

With the results from CREST scrutinized and deliberated by experts in all these specialties,[15] there is a continuing debate as to whether operator specialty and experience affect outcomes when CEA and CAS are performed. Also, owing to arduous training norms in CREST, the relevancy of these findings has been probed while deducing these results across a distinct cadre of specialists performing CEA and CAS.[15]

This is a vital topic. Hence, due consideration is given in the literature gauging the outcomes of these procedures, and comparisons have been made between various specialties. These studies have ventured in to determine which specialty and which setting offers the best outcomes and the least complications.

AbuRahma et al.[22] showed the perioperative stroke rates for symptomatic patients undergoing CEA were 5.3%, 2.3%, and 2.2% for GS, CT, and VS, respectively. Vascular surgeons had the lowest stroke and/or death rates (3.9%) when Ruby et al.[23] compared VS, GS, CT, and NS; however, results were not statistically significant. Similarly, Kempczinski et al.[24] found no statistical difference with different surgical specialties. Hannan et al.[25] and Mattos et al.[26] found cumulative stroke rates and combined stroke/mortality rates substantially lower for VS.

Similarly, few other studies have used regional and national databases to evaluate if operator specialty affects CAS outcomes. In the study of AbuRahma et al.,[27] 30-day rates of MAEs after CAS performed by different specialties were 3.1% with interventional cardiology, 6.3% with vascular surgeons, 7.1% with interventional radiologists, and 6.7% with interventional vascular medicine. Vogel et al.[28],[29] and Steppacher et al.[30] found that the stroke rate was not significantly different between specialties (VSs, cardiologists, and radiologists). Interestingly, however, surgeons had a lower mean total hospital cost, compared with radiology and cardiology. Sgroi et al.[31] separated the operators into surgeons and interventionalists, and the study demonstrated that the 30-day stroke/MI/death rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

We juxtaposed our results following CAS and CEA performed by a single “dual-trained” neurosurgeon with those outlined in CREST and above-mentioned studies. The 30-day primary outcome rate of stroke and rate of death after perioperative stroke in addition with long-term outcomes of restenosis at 1 year were comparable with these multicentric trials [Table 3] and [Table 4]. Similar results have been previously obtained and published by Grimm et al and Rizwan et al.[32],[33] who reviewed the results by a single vascular surgeon. Simultaneously, our results obtained by a single “dual-trained” neurosurgeon were comparable with various studies comparing the outcomes of different specialities.

Thus, our study supports that there is a “clinical and statistical equilibrium” between CEA and CAS performed by a neurosurgeon and further reinforces that dual-trained/hybrid neurosurgeons with the highest expertise in both fields can offer a more proficient service for neurovascular diseases as compared to other specialties. Our study represents first of its kind data of a single “dual-trained” neurosurgeon and helps in a generalization of the result encountered with various randomized trials such as CREST or SPACE[10],[13],[14] in treating symptomatic carotid stenosis by a single “dual-trained” neurosurgeon in a community setting.

The dictum “Primum non nocere” forms the cornerstone in approaching a patient with carotid stenosis. A hybrid or a “dual-trained” neurosurgeon presents a cafeteria approach for the management of carotid stenosis, especially in a country like India. Herewith, we propose the following salient points to be considered by a “dual-trained” neurosurgeon while treating a case with carotid stenosis.

Recommendations for management of carotid stenosis by a “dual-trained” neurosurgeon [Figure 4]
Figure 4: Proposed algorithmic flowchart for management of a patient with carotid stenosis by a gdual-trainedh neurosurgeon

Click here to view

  1. Medical management alone:

  2. Optimal medical therapy alone should be commenced in:

    1. Asymptomatic patients with stenosis <60% or
    2. Symptomatic patients with stenosis <50% diameter reduction (as per the NASCET criteria).

  3. CAS preferred over CEA in:

    1. Patients with anatomical factors such as high (above C2 vertebrae) carotid bifurcation, intracranial extension (involvement of cavernous carotid artery), restenosis after CEA, tandem stenosis, complete contralateral stenosis, contralateral recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypoglossal nerve injury, previous neck dissection or irradiation, inaccessible lesion because of obesity, tracheostomy, severe neck arthritis, pseudoaneurysm, and Takayasu's arteritis are classified as high risk for CEA surgery.
    2. Patients with comorbid factors such as advanced age, NYHA class III or IV heart failure, cardiac ejection fraction <30%, class III or IV angina, unstable angina, left main or multivessel coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction (MI) within 4–6 weeks, valvular heart disease, need for cardiac surgery within 30 days, obesity, severe lung disease, compromised cardiopulmonary reserve, decompensated liver disease, and chronic renal insufficiency are classified as high risk for CEA.

  4. CEA preferred over CAS:

    1. Symptomatic patients with stenosis >50% diameter stenosis (as per NASCET criteria) with long (>15 mm) lesions, preocclusive stenosis, or soft lipid-rich plaques identified on noninvasive imaging and circumferential heavy calcification should be considered for CEA.
    2. Remote access of ICA using a stable platform to avoid the intravascular motion of sheaths, stents, and protection devices during the procedure is the basis for a successful CAS. Confounding anatomic factors include aortoiliac tortuosity, atherosclerotic lesion of aortic arch, a sharply angulated aortic arch (type III), or a carotid lesion with more than two 90° bends within a short distance of the target lesion.
    3. The placement and stabilization of a distal embolic protection device can be complicated in a case of significant distal ICA tortuosity.
    4. Patients with carotid stenosis with intra-luminal thrombosis are contraindication for CAS.

  5. Patients presenting with crescendo episodes of TIA secondary to presumptive embolic potential of bifurcation plaque unresponsive to antiplatelet therapy should be considered for urgent intervention.
  6. Constraints arising from the financial status of the patient.

Several CAS-only trials such as CAPTURE and GORE, etc., as well as randomized trials comparing CEA and CAS, are further required in refining the criteria for CAS before it is propagated as a safer alternative to CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis.[34],[35]

 » Conclusion Top

  1. This study substantially concludes that a “dual-trained” neurosurgeon can provide an effective and comprehensive treatment for carotid stenosis.
  2. This study also substantiates its claim of “clinical equipoise” between CEA and CAS with distal protection in the treatment of carotid stenosis as no clinically or statistically significant difference could be established between the two modes of treatment at 1-year follow-up. Hence, CEA and CAS should be used judiciously for symptomatic carotid stenosis.


Our study is a retrospective analysis and the best evidence to evaluate the advantage of subgroup treatment can be acquired from a meta-analysis of contemporary trials that compare stenting with endarterectomy. Our study did not evaluate the procedural outcome, hospital charges, or length of stay between specialties in our hospital, but we may consider evaluating these in the future in our patient cohort. In addition, to review the literature for the better specialty for the treatment of carotid stenosis depending on caseload was out of the purview of this article.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patients have given their consent for their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 » References Top

Inzitari D, Eliasziw M, Gates P, Sharpe BL, Chan RK, Meldrum HE, et al. The causes and risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic internal-carotid-artery stenosis. North American symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial collaborators. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1693-700.  Back to cited text no. 1
Roh YN, Woo SY, Kim N, Kim S, Kim YW, Kim DI. Prevalence of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in Korea based on health screening population. J Korean Med Sci 2011;26:1173-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
Abbott AL. Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: Results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke 2009;40:e573-83.  Back to cited text no. 3
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators; Barnett HJM, Taylor DW, Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Peerless SJ, et al. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445-53.  Back to cited text no. 4
Barnett HJM, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, Fox AJ, Ferguson GG, Haynes RB, et al.Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial collaborators. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1415-25.  Back to cited text no. 5
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Steering Committee. North American symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial: Methods, patient characteristics, and progress. Stroke 1991;22:711-20.  Back to cited text no. 6
European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). The Lancet 1998;351:1379-87.  Back to cited text no. 7
Halliday A, Harrison M, Hayter E, Kong X, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al. 10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): A multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet 2010;376:1074-84.  Back to cited text no. 8
Pandian JD. Recent concepts in the management of extracranial carotid stenosis: Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting. Neurol India 2011;59:376-82.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Stingele R, Berger J, Alfke K, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Allenberg J, et al. Clinical and angiographic risk factors for stroke and death within 30 days after carotid endarterectomy and stent-protected angioplasty: A subanalysis of the SPACE study. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:216-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1493-501.  Back to cited text no. 11
Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, Bajwa TK, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1572-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
Mantese VA, Timaran CH, Chiu D, Begg RJ, Brott TG. The carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial (CREST) stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid disease. Stroke 2010;41 (10 Suppl):S31-4.  Back to cited text no. 13
Brott TG, Hobson 2nd RW, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, et al. CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010;363:11-23.  Back to cited text no. 14
Hopkins LN, Roubin GS, Chakhtoura EY, Gray WA, Ferguson RD, Katzen BT, et al. The carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial: Credentialing of interventionalists and final results of lead-in phase. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2010;19:153-62.  Back to cited text no. 15
Kaul S, Alladi S, Mridula KR, Bandaru VS, Umamashesh M, Anjanikumar D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in Indian population: An 8-year follow-up study. Neurol India 2017;65:279-85.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Kaul S, Alladi S, Mridula KR, Bandaru VC, Boddu DB, Anjanikumar D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of carotid intima-media thickness in asymptomatic individual subjects in a tertiary care center in India. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2015;18:430-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Liapis CD, Kakisis JD, Kostakis AG. Carotid stenosis: Factors affecting symptomatology. Stroke 2001;32:2782-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
Mas JL, Trinquart L, Leys D, Albucher JF, Rousseau H, Viguier A, et al. Endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis (EVA-3S) trial: Results up to 4 years from a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:885-92.  Back to cited text no. 19
Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Gaines PA, Beard JD, et al. Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid and vertebral artery transluminal angioplasty study (CAVATAS): Long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:898-907.  Back to cited text no. 20
Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Ederle J, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ, et al. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: The International carotid stenting study (ICSS) randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385:529-38.  Back to cited text no. 21
AbuRahma AF, Stone PA, Srivastava M, Hass SM, Mousa AY, Dean LS, et al. The effect of surgeon's specialty and volume on the perioperative outcome of carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 2013;58:666-72.  Back to cited text no. 22
Ruby ST, Robinson D, Lynch JT, Mark H. Outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy in connecticut: The impact of volume and specialty. Ann Vasc Surg 1996;10:22-6.  Back to cited text no. 23
Kempczinski RF, Brott TG, Labutta RJ. The influence of surgical specialty and caseload on the results of carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 1986;3:911-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Feustel P, Halm E, Bernardini G, Waldman J, et al. Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy. Stroke 2001;32:2890-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
Mattos MA, Modi JR, Mansour MA, Mortenson D, Karich T, Hodgson KJ, et al. Evolution of carotid endarterectomy in two community hospitals: Springfield revisited—Seventeen years and 2243 operations later. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:719-28.  Back to cited text no. 26
AbuRahma AF, Campbell JE, Hariri N, AbuRahma J, Dean LS, Bates MC, et al. Clinical outcome of carotid artery stenting according to provider specialty and volume. Ann Vasc Surg 2017;44:361-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
Vogel TR, Dombrovskiy VY, Graham AM. Carotid artery stenting in the nation: The influence of hospital and physician volume on outcomes. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2010;44:89-94.  Back to cited text no. 28
Vogel TR, Dombrovskiy VY, Haser PB, Graham AM. Carotid artery stenting: Impact of practitioner specialty and volume on outcomes and resource utilization. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:1166-71.  Back to cited text no. 29
Steppacher R, Csikesz N, Eslami M, Arous E, Messina L, Schanzer A. An analysis of carotid artery stenting procedures performed in New York and Florida (2005-2006): Procedure indication, stroke rate, and mortality rate are equivalent for vascular surgeons and non-vascular surgeons. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:1379-85.  Back to cited text no. 30
Sgroi MD, Darby GC, Kabutey NK, Barleben AR, Lane JS III, Fujitani RM. Experience matters more than specialty for carotid stenting outcomes. J Vasc Surg 2015;61:933-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
Grimm JC, Arhuidese I, Beaulieu RJ, Qazi U, Perler BA, Freischlag JA, et al. Surgeon's 30-day outcomes supporting the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial. JAMA Surg 2014;149:1314-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
Rizwan M, Aridi HD, Dang T, Alshwaily W, Nejim B, Malas MB. Long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting when performed by a single vascular surgeon. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2019;53:216-23.  Back to cited text no. 33
Gray WA, Yadav JS, Verta P, Scicli A, Fairman R, Wholey M, et al. The CAPTURE registry: Results of carotid stenting with embolic protection in the post approval setting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:341-8.  Back to cited text no. 34
Kassavin DS, Clair DG. An update on the role of proximal occlusion devices in carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg 2017;65:271-5.  Back to cited text no. 35


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]


Print this article  Email this article
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow