Contemporary prevalence of carotid stenosis in patients presenting with ischaemic stroke. BJS 2019; 106: 872-878.
Published: 2nd April 2019
Authors: S. F. Cheng, M. M. Brown, R. J. Simister, T. Richards
Carotid stenosis is a common cause of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Despite rising recognition and centralization of stroke services there has been a decline in interventions for carotid stenosis in recent years. The aim of this study was to determine the current prevalence and management of carotid stenosis in the UK.
This was a 1‐year prospective observational study of consecutive patients presenting with ischaemic stroke, TIA or ischaemic retinal artery occlusion to a central London hyperacute stroke unit. Patients with significant carotid stenosis, defined as atherosclerotic narrowing of 50 per cent or greater, underwent multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion to determine the cause of stroke/TIA and classify carotid stenosis as symptomatic or incidental.
In total, 2707 patients were seen; half had an ischaemic event and the majority had carotid imaging (1252 of 1444). Carotid stenosis of at least 50 per cent was seen in 238 (prevalence 19·0 (95 per cent c.i. 16·6 to 21·4) per cent). Patients with significant carotid stenosis were more likely to have hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes and ischaemic heart disease. Carotid stenosis was deemed symptomatic in 99 patients (7·9 (6·3 to 9·5) per cent); of these, 17 had carotid occlusion, 17 were unfit for surgery and 58 patients were referred for carotid intervention. Among 139 patients with asymptomatic stenosis, 75 had carotid stenosis ipsilateral to the stroke but, after MDT discussion, the cause was deemed to be atrial fibrillation (32), small‐vessel disease (15), another determined cause (5), or not determined owing to atypical imaging or clinical presentation.
Carotid stenosis is common, affecting one in five patients presenting with stroke or TIA. Careful MDT discussion may avoid unnecessary intervention and should be the standard of care.Full text
You may also be interested in
Predicting reamputation risk in patients undergoing lower extremity amputation due to the complications of peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes.
Authors: J. M. Czerniecki, M. L. Thompson, A. J. Littman, E. J. Boyko, G. J. Landry, W. G. Henderson et al.
Health gains, costs and cost‐effectiveness of a population‐based screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Authors: N. Nair, G. Kvizhinadze, G. T. Jones, R. Rush, M. Khashram, J. Roake et al.
Development and validation of a gene expression test to identify hard‐to‐heal chronic venous leg ulcers.
Authors: D. C. Bosanquet, A. J. Sanders, F. Ruge, J. Lane, C. A. Morris, W. G. Jiang et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of endovenous laser ablation versus direct and indirect radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins.
Authors: S. A. S. Hamann, L. Timmer‐de Mik, W. M. Fritschy, G. R. R. Kuiters, T. E. C. Nijsten, R. R. Bos et al.
Meta‐analysis of the outcomes of treatment of internal carotid artery near occlusion. BJS 2019; 106: 665-671.
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, E. E. Vries, D. Veen, H. M. Ruijter, G. J. Borst, A. Garcia‐Pastor et al.
Baseline findings of the population‐based, randomized, multifaceted Danish cardiovascular screening trial (DANCAVAS) of men aged 65–74 years. BJS 2019; 106: 862-871.
Authors: J. S. Lindholt, L. M. Rasmussen, R. Søgaard, J. Lambrechtsen, F. H. Steffensen, L. Frost et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of mechanochemical and endovenous thermal ablation of great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2019; 106: 548-554.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, O. Mahmoud, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, K. Noronen, P. Vikatmaa et al.
Meta‐analysis of long‐term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2019; 106: 523-533.
Authors: R. M. A. Bulder, E. Bastiaannet, J. F. Hamming, J. H. N. Lindeman
Mortality prediction following non‐traumatic amputation of the lower extremity. BJS 2019; 106: 879-888.
Authors: D. C. Norvell, M. L. Thompson, E. J. Boyko, G. Landry, A. J. Littman, W. G. Henderson et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials examining the benefit of structured home exercise in patients with peripheral artery disease. BJS 2019; 106: 319-331.
Authors: J. Golledge, T. P. Singh, C. Alahakoon, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, J. V. Moxon et al.
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a randomized clinical trial of early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration. BJS 2019; 106: 555-562.
Authors: D. M. Epstein, M. S. Gohel, F. Heatley, X. Liu, A. Bradbury, R. Bulbulia et al.
Meta‐analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 310-318.
Authors: R. Svensson‐Björk, M. Zarrouk, G. Asciutto, J. Hasselmann, S. Acosta