CAM 70168

Extracranial Carotid Angioplasty/Stenting

Category:Surgery   Last Reviewed:January 2020
Department(s):Medical Affairs   Next Review:January 2021
Original Date:January 2012    

Description:
Carotid artery angioplasty with stenting is a treatment for carotid stenosis that is intended to prevent future stroke. It is an alternative to medical therapy and a less-invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

For individuals who have carotid artery stenosis who receive carotid artery stenting (CAS), the evidence includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, and treatment-related mortality and morbidity. A substantial body of RCT evidence compares outcomes of CAS to CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. The evidence does not support use of CAS in carotid artery disease for the average-risk patient, because early adverse events are higher with CAS and long-term outcomes are no better. Data from RCTs and large database studies have established that the risk of CAS exceeds the threshold set to indicate overall benefit from the procedure. Therefore, for patients with carotid stenosis who are suitable candidates for CEA, CAS does not improve health outcomes. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology is unlikely to improve the net health outcome.

Based on limited data, clinical input, a chain of evidence, and unmet medical need, CAS may be considered a reasonable treatment option in recently symptomatic patients when CEA cannot be performed due to anatomic reasons. For this population, CAS may be considered medically necessary. It is considered investigational for all other indications, including carotid artery dissection.

Background
Combined with optimal medical management, carotid angioplasty with or without stenting has been evaluated as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Carotid artery stenting (CAS) involves the introduction of coaxial systems of catheters, microcatheters, balloons, and other devices. The procedure is most often performed through the femoral artery, but a transcervical approach can also be used to avoid traversing the aortic arch. The procedure typically takes 20 to 40 minutes. Interventionalists almost uniformly use an embolic protection device (EPD) designed to reduce the risk of stroke caused by thromboembolic material dislodged during CAS. EPDs can be deployed proximally (with flow reversal) or distally (using a filter). Carotid angioplasty rarely is performed without stent placement.

Proposed advantages of CAS over CEA include:

  • General anesthesia is not used (although CEA can be performed under local/regional anesthesia)
  • Cranial nerve palsies are infrequent sequelae (although almost all following CEA resolve over time)
  • Simultaneous procedures may be performed on the coronary and carotid arteries.

Regulatory Status
A number of carotid artery stents and embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the premarket approval or the 510(k) process. Examples are provided in Table 1. 

Table 1. FDA-Approved Carotid Artery Stents and Embolic Protection Devices

Manufacturer Stents and Devices PMA/510(k) Date

Guidant, now Abbott Vascular

Acculink™ and RX Acculink carotid stents

Aug 2004

Guidant, now Abbott Vascular

Accunet™ and RX Accunet cerebral protection filters

Aug 2004

Abbott Vascular

Xact® RX carotid stent system

Sep 2005

Abbott Vascular

Emboshield® embolic protection system

Sep 2005

Cordis Corp.

Precise® nitinol carotid stent system

Sep 2006

Cordis Corp.

AngioGuard  XP and RX emboli capture guidewire systems

Sep 2006

EndoTex Interventional Systems

NexStent® carotid stent over-the-wire and monorail delivery systems

Oct 2006

Boston Scientific

FilterWire EZ  embolic protection system

Oct 2006

ev3, Arterial Evolution Technology

Protégé® Rx and SpideRx®

Jan 2007

Boston Scientific

Carotid Wallstent®

Oct 2008

GORE

GORE® Flow Reversal System

Feb 2009

GORE

GORE® Embolic Filter

May 2011

Medtronic/Invatec

Mo.Ma® Ultra Proximal Cerebral Protection Device

Oct 2009

Silk Road Medical

ENROUTE™ Transcarotid Stent System and ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System

May 2015

FDA: Food and Drug Administration; PMA: premarket approval.

Each FDA-approved carotid stent is indicated for combined use with an EPD to reduce risk of stroke in patients considered at increased risk for periprocedural complications from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) who are symptomatic with greater than 50% stenosis, or asymptomatic with greater than 80% stenosiswith degree of stenosis assessed by ultrasound or angiogram, with computed tomography angiography also used. Patients are considered at increased risk for complications during CEA if affected by any item from a list of anatomic features and comorbid conditions included in each stent system’s Information for Prescribers.

The RX Acculink Carotid Stent System is also approved for use in conventional risk patients (not considered at increased risk for complications during CEA) with symptoms and 70% or more stenosis by ultrasound or 50% or more stenosis by angiogram, and asymptomatic patients with 70% or more stenosis by ultrasound or 60% or more stenosis by angiogram. 

FDA-approved stents and EPDs differ in the deployment methods used once they reach the target lesion, with the rapid exchange (RX) devices designed for more rapid stent and filter expansion. FDA has mandated postmarketing studies for EPDs, including longer follow-up for patients already reported to FDA and additional registry studies, primarily to compare outcomes as a function of clinician training and facility experience. Each manufacturer’s system is available in various configurations (eg, straight or tapered) and sizes (diameters and lengths) to match the vessel lumen that will receive the stent. 

In February 2015, the ENROUTE™ Transcarotid NPS was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. ENROUTE™ is a flow-reversal device designed to be placed via direct carotid access.

FDA product codes: NIM (stents) and NTE (EPDs).

Policy:
Carotid angioplasty with associated stenting and embolic protection may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY in patients with:

  • 50–99% stenosis (NASCET measurement); AND
  • symptoms of focal cerebral ischemia (transient ischemic attack or monocular blindness) in previous 120 days, symptom duration less than 24 hours, or nondisabling stroke; AND
  • anatomic contraindication for carotid endarterectomy (such as prior radiation treatment or neck surgery, lesions surgically inaccessible, spinal immobility, or tracheostomy).

Carotid angioplasty with or without associated stenting and embolic protection is considered investigational and/or unproven and therefore NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY for all other indications, including but not limited to, patients with carotid stenosis who are suitable candidates for CEA and patients with carotid artery dissection.

Policy Guidelines
For 2015, the CPT coding for these procedures were revised to include open and percutaneous transcatheter placement, angioplasty when performed, and all associated radiological supervision and interpretation:

37215: Transcatheter placement of intravascular stent(s), cervical carotid artery, open or percutaneous, including angioplasty, when performed, and radiological supervision and interpretation; with distal embolic protection

37216: without distal embolic protection

Beginning in 2014, the following new CPT code is effective:

37217: Transcatheter placement of an intravascular stent(s), intrathoracic common carotid artery or innominate artery by retrograde treatment, via open ipsilateral cervical carotid artery exposure, including angioplasty, when performed, and radiological supervision and interpretation.

This code indicates the procedure is performed trancervically or by retrograde approach, but is considered carotid stenting.

Benefit Application
BlueCard/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not be considered investigational, and thus these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity
.

Rationale
Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are thelength of life, quality of life, and ability to function—including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients andmanaging the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of technology, two domains are examined: the relevance, and quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent one or more intended clinical uses of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.

Risk-Benefit Ratio of Invasive Carotid Procedures
Endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) and surgical endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid artery disease trades procedure-related harms of stroke and death for the benefit of reduced stroke risk over subsequent years;the balance determines whether either intervention will result in a net clinical benefit. That balance has been scrutinized for CEA but not for CAS; accordingly, results from trials of CEA must be extrapolated to assess outcomes for CAS.

A series of landmark clinical trials from the late 1980s through the 1990s compared the benefits and harms of CEA with best medical therapies then available in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with carotid artery stenosis.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Those trial results defined the magnitude of risk reduction for stroke and the periprocedural stroke and death rates for 30 days, that must be offset to achieve a net clinical benefit (benefit outweighing harm),less than 3% for asymptomatic (>60% stenosis), and less than 6% for symptomatic patients (50%-69% or 70%-99% stenosis). Furthermore, because periprocedural harms are immediate, but benefit accrues over time, a net clinical benefit is obtained only for those patients surviving long enough to counterbalance the immediate harms. The necessary life expectancy defined by the trial duration needed to demonstrate benefit, is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Acceptable Periprocedural Death or Stroke Rate in Clinical Trials of CEA

Symptoms

Stenosis, %

Acceptable Periprocedural Death/Stroke Rate, %

Anticipated Life Expectancy, y

No

60-99

<3

5

Yes

50-69

<6

5

 

70-99

<6

2

CEA: carotid endarterectomy.

As an example of the fine line between benefit and harm, Arazi et al (2008)8 performed a decision analysis of benefit for patients with asymptomatic stenosis using a base case derived from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (periprocedural death/stroke rate, 1.8%).7 Over a five-year time horizon, CEA provided four days of stroke-free survival and a net harm when periprocedural death or disabling stroke rates exceeded 2.1%.

Since the landmark trials, there has been considerable improvement in medical care resulting in a substantial decline in stroke rates among patients with asymptomatic carotid disease.8,9, Current medical therapies such as aggressive lipid-lowering medications, were inconsistently used in the landmark trials. Also, surgeons in contemporary clinical trials have achieved CEA periprocedural death and stroke rates lower than those in the pivotal trials used to establish the benchmarks. For example, in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the death or stroke rate for symptomatic patients was 3.2% and for asymptomatic patients was 1.4%.10, Accordingly, the benchmarks established decades ago may no longer be appropriate. A recent consensus document by De Rango et al (2013) has suggested benchmarks of 2.0% for asymptomatic and 4.0% for symptomatic individuals.11,

Excluded from landmark CEA trials were patients with significant comorbidities judged likely to cause death within five years that might also increase periprocedural and anesthetic risk for complications. Therefore, CAS has appeal as a treatment option for patients with potentially higher periprocedural risk due to medical (eg, severe cardiac dysfunction, requirement for combined coronary and carotid revascularization, severe renal or pulmonary dysfunction, and other characteristics associated with increased surgical risk), or anatomic reasons (eg, surgically inaccessible stenosis, prior radiation, prior neck surgery, spinal immobility, prior laryngeal nerve palsy, contralateral occlusion, prior ipsilateral CEA, restenosis after CEA).

Although the general anesthetic risk is considered a potential reason to use CAS, CEA can be safely performed under local or regional anesthesia,12, as confirmed in the 95-center General Anesthesia versus Local Anesthesia trial.13,The General Anesthesia versus Local Anesthesia trial investigators randomized 3526 patients undergoing CEA to general or local anesthesia and found no difference in 30-day death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) rates based on anesthetic approach (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.3).13,

Randomized Controlled Trials of CAS vs CEA
SAPPHIRE Trial
The first major RCT comparing CAS with CEA was the Stenting and Angioplasty, with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial reported by Yadav et al (2004).14,The relevant conclusions are summarized below:

  • For patients with symptomatic stenosis at increased risk for periprocedural complications from CEA (n=96), the sample size was small, resulting in wide CIs for estimated effects; differences between arms in 30-day and 1-year outcomes were not statistically significant.
  • For patients with asymptomatic stenosis at increased risk for periprocedural complications from CEA (n=238), differences in 30-day outcomes also had wide CIs and were not statistically significant.
  • Early study closed early due to slow recruitment as nonrandomized stent registries were established, resulting in fewer study patients than planned, which compromised the evaluation of noninferiority.
  • Variance in differential complication rates for the 2 treatments across sites might have influenced results, because 5 of 34 sites contributed 64% of randomized patients, and data were unavailable for comparison.
  • Direct comparative evidence was lacking for optimal medical management alone as an alternative to adding CAS with an embolic protection device (EPD) or CEA for patients with increased risk of surgical complications.

Long-term follow-up of SAPPHIRE was reported at three years.15,16, For asymptomatic and symptomatic patients combined, ipsilateral strokes from day 31 to day 1080 were observed in 4.4% of patients undergoing CAS and in 3.6% with CEA (estimated from digitized figure). Cumulative 3-year repeat target vessel revascularization (a proxy for restenosis) was more common after CEA but the difference was not statistically significant (7.1% vs 3.0%; p=0.26).

SPACE Trial
Ringleb et al (2006) published results from the Stent-supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial. This trial randomized 1200 patients within 180 days of neurologic symptoms, transient ischemic attack, or moderate (nondisabling) stroke, and with 50% or more stenosis of the ipsilateral carotid artery, to CAS (n=605) with or without EPD (73% of procedures performed without), or to CEA (n=595).17, The analysis (n=1183) failed to conclude that CAS was noninferior to CEA by a margin of 2.5% for the primary outcome of ipsilateral ischemic stroke or death by 30 days after randomization. Periprocedural (30-day) event rates were 6.8% for the CAS group and 6.3% for the CEA group. The absolute between-group difference favored CEA and was 0.5% (90% CI, -1.9% to 2.9%) by intention-to-treat analysis and 1.3% (90% CI, -1.1% to 3.8%) in per-protocol analysis.

Editorialists pointed to some methodologic issues raised with the SPACE trial, including the high rate of rejection for potential participating collaborators (»25%, based on their prior outcomes records, but review criteria were not reported), and the lack of a requirement to use an EPD with CAS (although 30-day event rates were 7.3% with vs 6.7% without EPD).18,19,

Long-term follow-up of the SPACE trial was reported at two years.16, Approximate annual ipsilateral stroke rates from day 31 through longest follow-up for CAS and CEA were 0.4% in each group. Following the periprocedural period (ie, 31 days to longest follow-up), stroke risk reduction in symptomatic patients not selected based on medical or anatomic comorbidities was similar for CAS and CEA. Recurrent stenosis greater than 70% was more frequent at 2 years with CAS (10.7%) than with CEA (4.6%; p=0.001).

EVA-3S Trial
The Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial was a noninferiority comparison of CAS (with EPD in 92%) to CEA in symptomatic patients at average risk for complications from CEA with 60% or more stenosis of the ipsilateral carotid artery.20, The trial was terminated prematurely (n=527 enrolled; original target,n=872), based on interim analysis of 30-day outcomes. The incidence of any stroke or death through 30 days was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0% to 7.2%) after CEA and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.4% to 14%) after CAS (RR=2.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.1; p=0.01).

Over a mean 2.1 years of follow-up, restenosis (≥50%) was more frequent following CAS (12.5%) than CEA (5.0%).21, Long-term follow-up from EVA-3S was reported at four years.22, Approximate annual ipsilateral stroke rates from day 31 through longest follow-up for CAS and CEA, respectively, were 1.1% and 0.9%. These results supported a conclusion that following the periprocedural period (ie, 31 days to longest follow-up), stroke risk reduction in symptomatic patients not selected based on medical or anatomic comorbidities was similar for CAS and CEA.

Editorialists criticized EVA-3S for recommending but not requiring antiplatelet premedication (three days of aspirin plus ticlopidine or clopidogrel) and for not requiring interventionalists to be adequately experienced with the specific stent, and EPDs used to treat trial subjects.18,19, Participating interventionalists were required to have completed 12 or more CAS procedures compared with 25 or more CEAs for vascular surgeons. EVA-3S also permitted the use of five different stents and seven different EPDs but required only two prior procedures with a new device before an investigator could use that device on a patient randomized to CAS.

Mas et al (2014) published long-term follow-up (median, 7.2 years) from the EVA-3S trial.23, Complete follow-up until death or the final telephone interview was obtained in 493 (94%) of the 527 patients. At the 5-year follow-up, the main composite endpoint (ipsilateral stroke after randomization or procedural stroke or death) occurred in 29 (11%) of 265 subjects in the CAS group and 16 (6.1%) of 262 subjects in the CEA group (5-year absolute risk reduction, 4.7%). The hazard ratio (HR) for CAS vs CEA was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.0 to 3.40; p=0.04). At the 10-year follow-up, the HR for the main composite endpoint for CAS vs CEA was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.95 to 3.06; p=0.07).

International Carotid Stenting Study
The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) enrolled 1713 symptomatic patients at 50 academic medical centers across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada between May 2001 and October 2008.24, EPDs were recommended but not required (used in 72% of procedures), and a number of different stents and EPD types were used. Based on plausible event rates, a target study sample size of 1500 was estimated to be able to define a between-group difference less than 3.3% in disabling stroke or death and a 3.0% difference in 30-day stroke, death, or MI. Only interim 30- and 120-day results were included in the initial report. From a per-protocol analysis, the 7.1% periprocedural death or stroke death rates accompanying CAS both exceeded the rate established to provide a net clinical benefit and was more than twice that following CEA (3.4%). In a subgroup analysis of 231 ICSS participants, new ischemic brain lesions were approximately 3-fold more frequent following CAS, and protective devices did not appear to mitigate their occurrence.25, Interim results were consistent with the accompanying editorialist’s conclusion that “routine stenting in symptomatic patients must now be difficult to justify….”26,

Bonati et al (2015) published longer term follow-up results from ICSS.27, The cumulative 5-year risk of fatal or disabling stroke did not differ significantly between the CAS (6.4%) and the CEA groups (6.5%; HR=1.06; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.57; p=0.77). However, the 5-year cumulative risk of any stroke was higher in the CAS group (15.2%) than in the CEA group (9.45%; HR=1.71; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.3; p<0.001). The authors noted that the difference between CEA and CAS groups in stroke risk after the procedural period was mainly attributable to strokes occurring in the contralateral carotid or vertebrobasilar territory in the CAS group. Functional outcomes, measured by modified Rankin Scale scores, did not differ significantly between groups.

Altinbas et al (2014) reported that periprocedural rates of hemodynamic instability in the ICSS differed between CEA and CAS groups.28, Hemodynamic depression occurred more commonly in CAS patients (13.8% vs 7.2%; RR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.6; p<0.000), while hypertension requiring treatment occurred less commonly in CAS patients (RR=0.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; p<0.000). Hemodynamic instability was not associated with the ICSS study’s primary composite outcome.

Featherstone et al (2016) published a health technology assessment on ICSS funded by the National Institute for Health Research.29, The assessment reviewed the data presented above, concluding that “the functional outcome after stenting is similar to endarterectomy, but stenting is associated with a small increase in the risk of nondisabling stroke. The choice between stenting and endarterectomy should take into account the procedural risks related to individual patient characteristics.”

CREST
CREST was conducted between December 2000 and July 2008, and enrolled 2522 patients at 117 centers across the U. S. and Canada.10, Of 427 interventionalists who applied to participate in CREST, only 224 (52%) were approved.30, Inclusion was initially restricted to recently symptomatic patients. Due to slow enrollment, the protocol was amended to include asymptomatic patients. A March 2004 protocol amendment excluded further enrollment of patients 80 years and older due to poor outcomes. Of the 1271 patients randomized to CAS, 65 underwent CEA and 54 neither procedure; of the 1251 patients randomized to CEA, 13 underwent CAS and 44 neither procedure. Twenty patients were excluded from one site due to reported data fabrication. A sample size of 2500 was targeted to detect a 46% reduction in the HR for the primary endpoint of any stroke, MI, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.

In the entire sample (symptomatic and asymptomatic patients), investigators reported no difference between CAS and CEA for the primary outcome. Stroke was more frequent following CAS; MI more frequent after CEA. The periprocedural MI rate after CEA (2.3%) was considerably higher in CREST than any comparable trial (eg, in EVA-3S, 0.8%; SPACE, 0%; ICSS, 0.6%). This might be attributable to a somewhat higher prevalence of coronary artery disease among participants and routine cardiac enzyme assays, but the relative difference was large. Periprocedural CAS death or stroke rates were the lowest reported in any trial. Although participating interventionalists performing CAS were highly selected, periprocedural death or stroke rates following CAS exceeded those for CEA: in symptomatic patients, 5.6% vs 2.4%, respectively (the lowest rate for CAS reported in any trial); in asymptomatic patients, 2.6% vs 1.4%, respectively.31, The RR for periprocedural death or stroke in the symptomatic group was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.11 to 3.21) and in the asymptomatic group, it was 1.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 4.34). The trial had limited power to detect a difference between procedures in the asymptomatic group. In CREST, 2-year restenosis (>70%) or reocclusion rates were similar following CEA (6.3%) and CAS (6.0%)¾2-year restenosis alone was 5.8% with either procedure.32,

Brott et al (2016) reported on long-term follow-up from CREST. There were no significant differences in the primary composite outcome (any periprocedural stroke, MI, death, or postprocedural ipsilateral stroke) between the CEA (9.9%) and CAS (11.8%; HR=1.10) groups when measured out to 10 years.33, The second primary endpoint (postprocedural ipsilateral stroke rates) also did not differ significantly between CEA (5.6%) and CAS (6.9%; HR=0.99).

Interventionalists in CREST were the most carefully selected in any trial, and the lack of similar selection criteria has been a critique of the other trials.34, Analyses of CAS in Medicare patients between 2005 and 2007 found that few CAS operators had the experience of CREST investigators.35, Among the 11846 procedures with documented operator experience, 68% were performed by operators having performed fewer than 12 procedures.

In a follow-up analysis of CREST data, Gonzales et al (2014) reported no differences in efficacy and safety outcomes for subjects based on receiving treatment in high-, medium-, or low-volume centers.36,

Asymptomatic Carotid Trial
The Asymptomatic Carotid Trial I was a noninferiority trial reported by Rosenfield et al (2016) who compared CAS with CEA in asymptomatic individuals, not at high-risk for surgical complications.38 Enrollment began in 2005, with a target of 1658 participants; but, because of slow enrollment, the trial was halted in 2013 at 1453 participants. The primary composite endpoint (death, stroke, or MI within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year) was met by 3.8% of CAS and 3.4% of CEA patients, while the cumulative 5-year rate of stroke-free survival was 93.1% with CAS and 94.7% with CEA (p=0.44). This trial did not answer how best to treat asymptomatic patients, because it did not include a medical therapy arm. Patients treated with current best medical therapy might have had an ipsilateral stroke rate of only 0.5% to 1% per year.37,

Additional RCTs
Several other smaller trials have compared CEA with CAS. Li et al (2014) published a trial that randomized 130 subjects at high-risk of stroke due to angiographically confirmed carotid stenosis (≥50%) to CEA (n=65) or CAS (n=65).38, The authors reported a 3-month postoperative risk of mortality of 1.5% with CAS compared with 9.2% with CEA. However, “existence of complete follow-up data” was an inclusion criterion, and insufficient details were provided about enrollment and randomization procedures to permit conclusions about the trial.

Kuliha et al (2015) published results of an RCT that allocated 150 subjects with at least 70% internal carotid artery stenosis to CEA (n=73) or CAS (n=77).39,New infarctions on magnetic resonance imaging were found more frequently after CAS (49% vs 25%; p=0.002).

Section Summary: Randomized Controlled Trials of CAS vs CEA
RCTs comparing CEA with CAS enrolled a mix of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and employed different selection criteria for participating centers. Periprocedural stroke and death rates following CAS exceeded those after CEA. Following the early perioperative period (≥31 days), the rates of ipsilateral stroke and/or transient ischemic attack appear to be similar for the 2 procedures. While some trials found higher restenosis rates after CAS (SAPPHIRE, SPACE, EVA-3S), restenosis in CREST occurred at similar frequency following either procedure. The rates of early complications in SPACE, EVA-3S, and ICSS exceeded 6.0%. In CREST, periprocedural death or stroke rates with CAS were less than 6% in symptomatic and 3% in asymptomatic patients. Interventionalists in CREST were the most carefully selected in any trial, and the criteria used to credential in other trials has been a focus of criticisms, along with the inconsistent use of EPDs.40,

No RCTs have compared CAS with medical therapy. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether CAS is superior to medical therapy. Since the pivotal CEA vs medical therapy trials, there has been a marked improvement in medical therapy and declining stroke rates in asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. In 1993, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial4, reported that the annual ipsilateral stroke rate was approximately 2.0% with medical therapy.10 A meta-analysis of studies completing enrollment between 2000 and 2010 found a pooled estimate for annual ipsilateral stroke incidence of 1.13%. This decrease in stroke risk has been used to argue that medical therapy in asymptomatic patients is preferable to surgical intervention.26,41,42,

Systematic Reviews
Several TEC Assessments and meta-analyses have been published, all reporting similar findings.43,44,45,46,47,In average-risk symptomatic patients, the body of evidence has demonstrated worse periprocedural outcomes with CAS than with CEA. While data have shown secular improvement in periprocedural outcomes following CAS, there is evidence of net harm compared with CEA.31,48, A 2010 individual patient data meta-analysis of SPACE, EVA-3S, and ICSS indicated some uncertainty in comparative periprocedural death or stroke rates for younger symptomatic patients.49, Still, that subgroup result must be considered carefully given the larger body of evidence, lack of stratified randomization, as well as the evidence on restenosis. Meta-analyses have generally found that restenosis is more common following CAS than CEA. In a meta-analysis of 13 trials, among those reporting restenosis rates, Bangalore et al (2011) reported pooled relative odds for restenosis following CAS compared with CEA of 2.8 (95% CI, 2.0 to 4.0; I2=0%).47 Of note was the individual patient data meta-analysis (n=3433) of SPACE, EVA-3S, and ICSS.49, In these symptomatic patients, the 30-day death or stroke risk (per-protocol analyses) with CAS was 7.7% vs 4.4% following CEA (RR=1.74; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.30).

The Carotid Stenting Trialists’ Collaboration (2016) published an individual patient data meta-analysis (totaln=4754 patients) of SPACE, EVA-3S, and ICSS data, plus data from symptomatic patients in CREST to evaluate the association between age and risk of stroke or death with CEA and CAS.52 The periprocedural period was defined as 120 days, which is considerably longer than the conventional 30-day periprocedural definition. For symptomatic patients assigned to CEA, there was no increase in the periprocedural or postprocedural risk of death or stroke for patients older than 65 compared with those younger than 60. In contrast, for patients assigned to CAS, the risk of periprocedural events increased with age, from a 2.1% risk for patients less than 60 years, to 11% for patients over 70 years. These analyses found increased periprocedural stroke risk for CAS vs CEA in patients approximately 65 years and older, but not among those younger patients (an age threshold was not defined). Age was not significantly associated with postprocedural stroke risk. The results would suggest that the risk-benefit profile for CAS in symptomatic patients enrolled in these trials could be modified by age, but there was considerable imprecision in the age-specific CAS vs CEA comparisons for periprocedural risk. For example, among patients ages 60 to 64 years, the HR comparing CAS with CEA for the periprocedural risk of stroke or death was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.56 to 2.01).

Paraskevas et al (2014) conducted a systematic review of studies comparing cognitive outcomes after CEA with those after CAS.50, Thirteen studies were included, with heterogeneity in the types of cognitive outcome measures reported. In qualitative analysis, reviewers found that most studies did not report a significant difference between CEA and CAS regarding cognitive outcomes and that heterogeneity across outcomes reported precluded more definitive conclusions.

Galyfos et al (2014) reported on results of a meta-analysis that included 9 trials (totaln=5959 patients) with a focus on the risk of periprocedural symptomatic or asymptomatic myocardial ischemia or MI.51, Four trials did not report their definitions for myocardial ischemia, and other studies varied in their definitions. In the pooled analysis, compared with CEA, CAS was associated with decreased risk of cardiac damage (pooled RR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; p<0.000). However, reviewers provided incomplete information on the selection of studies for inclusion, which limits conclusions that can be drawn.

Vincent et al (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (totaln=7091 patients).52, Studies selected compared CAS with CEA, enrolled more than 50 patients, and reported periprocedural or long-term outcomes. Included were the CREST, ICSS, SPACE, EVA-3S, and SAPPHIRE trials (described above), along with the Carotid and Vertebral ArteryTransluminal Angioplasty Study, an RCT comparing surgical management with endovascular treatment in 504 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. CAS was associated with an increased risk of any periprocedural stroke (RR=1.49; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.01), a similar risk of a disabling or major stroke, and a decreased risk of periprocedural MI (RR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78) compared with CEA. However, in long-term follow-up (range, 2-10 years), stenting was associated with an increased risk of stroke (RR=1.36; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.61) and an increased risk of the composite endpoint of ipsilateral stroke, periprocedural stroke, or periprocedural death (RR=1.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.75) compared with CEA. This analysis supported a conclusion that CEA remains the treatment of choice for most patients due to the increase in adverse events with CAS.

Section Summary: Systematic Reviews
The systematic reviews have corroborated the results of individual RCTs that early adverse events are higher with CAS than with CEA, that long-term stroke rates following the perioperative period are similar, and that restenosis rates are higher with CAS. These data would indicate that, for the average-risk patient with carotid stenosis, CAS is associated with net harm compared with CEA.

Periprocedural Death or Stroke Rates Following CAS
Systematic Reviews
Questions of periprocedural death or stroke rates were assessed in a TEC Assessment (2010).56 Given that CAS (like CEA) trades the procedure-related risks of stroke and death for a reduced risk of stroke over subsequent years, and limits for periprocedural stroke and death rates that can be assumed to achieve a net clinical benefit outlined in current guidelines are less than 3% for asymptomatic and less than 6% for symptomatic patients, the Assessment sought evidence to address two questions: (1) Is the periprocedural rate of death or stroke with CAS less than 3% for asymptomatic and less than 6% for symptomatic patients? (2) For those subgroups defined by (a) medical comorbidities or (b) unfavorable anatomy, are periprocedural rates of death or stroke with CAS less than 3% for asymptomatic and less than 6% for symptomatic patients?

To the first question, the Assessment identified 18 multicenter prospective registries collectively enrolling 20194 patients. Eleven of those registries enrolled patients in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling and with 30-day outcomes available for analysis by symptomatic status (13783 asymptomatic, 3353 symptomatic). In 9 of those registries, 30-day death or stroke rates were either reported or obtained from investigators and in the remaining 2, death or stroke rates were estimated from 30-day death/stroke/MI and MI rates. An independent assessment of neurologic outcomes was required in all but one registry. For asymptomatic patients, the pooled periprocedural death or stroke rate was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.3% to 4.4%; I2=57%); for symptomatic patients, it was 7.4% (95% CI, 6.0% to 9.0%; I2=59%).

A subsequent systematic review, without consideration to the Food and Drug Administration labeling, reported results consistent with the TEC Assessment (pooled periprocedural death/stroke rates in asymptomatic patients of 3.3% [95% CI, 2.6% to 4.1%; 23 studies; n=8504 patients] and in symptomatic patients of 7.6% [95% CI, 6.3% to 9.1%; 42 studies; n=4910 patients]).48,

To the second question, the Assessment found that combined data from 2 registries reported periprocedural death or stroke rates for patients with unfavorable anatomy57,58 but included only 371 asymptomatic (30-day death or stroke rate, 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 4.9%) and 60 symptomatic patients (30-day death or stroke rate, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 8.9%). No other registry reported results by symptomatic status for those subgroups.

Since of the 2010 TEC Assessment, additional evidence has been published on rates of periprocedural stroke and death following CAS, particularly for subgroups defined by medical comorbidities. Spangler et al (2014) evaluated patients treated with isolated primary CEA (n=11336) or primary CAS (n=544) at 29 centers between 2003 and 2013 to assess periprocedural mortality and stroke risks for those considered at medically high-risk.53, A Cox proportional hazards model was used to generate predicted five-year mortality, and patients in the highest risk score quartile were considered high-risk. For asymptomatic patients, there were no significant differences between CEA and CAS for major periprocedural outcomes (major or minor stroke, MI, death) for either high- or low-risk patients. Periprocedural death or stroke rates with CAS were 1.1% for low-risk patients and 1.6% for high-risk patients. For symptomatic patients, periprocedural death or stroke rates were higher with CAS than with CEA for both low- and high-risk groups. For low-risk symptomatic patients, periprocedural death or stroke rates were 6.0% for CAS and 2.2% for CEA (p<0.01). For high-risk symptomatic patients, periprocedural death or stroke rates were 9.3% for CAS and 2.5% for CEA (p<0.01).

Retrospective Analyses
Salzler et al (2017) conducted a large retrospective analysis of the increased use of CAS since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid guidelines recommended CAS for high-risk patients needing carotid revascularization.54, Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample were searched for patients undergoing carotid revascularization. From 2005 (when the guidelines were published) to 2011, 20079 CEAs and 3447 CASs were performed on high-risk patients. During the study period, CAS utilization increased significantly among all high-risk patients. A subgroup analysis of symptomatic high-risk patients did not show an increase in CAS use, indicating that the increase in CAS was primarily in asymptomatic high-risk patients. The odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.6) and postoperative in-hospital stroke (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.7) were independently and significantly higher in patients undergoing CAS compared with CEA in the overall sample of high-risk patients.

CAS for Carotid Dissection
Carotid dissection is uncommon (incidence »2 per 100000/year) and generally occurs in younger individuals.55, With a frequently favorable prognosis, conservative therapy with anticoagulants to restore blood flow is typically employed while surgical intervention is reserved for patients whose symptoms fail to respond to conservative care. Some have described CAS as a potential treatment in those instances56,57,58,; however, there are no clinical trials comparing alternative strategies and interventions. Current guidelines (detailed below) rate CAS for this indication as a class IIb (level of evidence: C) recommendation.

Summary of Evidence
For individuals who have carotid artery stenosis who receive CAS, the evidence includes RCTs and systematic reviews of these trials. The relevant outcomes are overall survival, morbid events, and treatment-related mortality and morbidity. A substantial body of RCT evidence has compared outcomes of CAS with CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. The evidence does not support the use of CAS in carotid artery disease for the average-risk patient because early adverse events are higher with CAS and long-term outcomes are similar between the two procedures. Data from RCTs and large database studies have established that the risk of death or stroke with CAS exceeds the threshold considered acceptable to indicate overall benefit from the procedure. Therefore, for patients with carotid stenosis who are suitable candidates for CEA, CAS does not improve health outcomes. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology is unlikely to improve the net health outcome.

Clinical Input From Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers
While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process, through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

In response to requests, input was received from 4 physician specialty societies (6 reviewers) and 4 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2009. (Also, an unsolicited response from a specialty society was received.) Input strongly supported the use of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in recently symptomatic patients where surgical carotid endarterectomy cannot be performed due to anatomic reasons, although acknowledging the limited evidence about this subgroup. The lack of alternative treatments for recently symptomatic patients and the established increased risk of stroke were factors supporting this opinion.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
American Stroke Association
The American Stroke Association (2011), with 13 other medical societies, issued guidelines on the management of extracranial carotid and vertebral artery diseases, which are summarized in Table 3.59,60,61,

Table 3. Guidelines for Managing Patients With Extracranial Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease

Recommendation

CORa

LOEb

CAS is indicated as an alternative to CEA for symptomatic patients at average or low-risk of complications associated with endovascular intervention when the diameter of the lumen of the internal carotid artery is reduced by >70%, as documented by noninvasive imaging or >50% as documented by catheter angiography and the anticipated rate of periprocedural stroke or mortality is <6% (360)

I

B

Selection of asymptomatic patients for carotid revascularization should be guided by an assessment of comorbid conditions, life expectancy, and other individual factors and should include a thorough discussion of the risks and benefits of the procedure with an understanding of patient preferences

I

C

It is reasonable to choose CEA over CAS when revascularization is indicated in older patients, particularly when arterial pathoanatomy is unfavorable for endovascular intervention

IIa

B

It is reasonable to choose CAS over CEA when revascularization is indicated in patients with neck anatomy unfavorable for arterial surgery

IIa

B

When revascularization is indicated for patients with TIA or stroke and there are no contraindications to early revascularization, intervention within 2 wk of the index event is reasonable rather than delaying surgery

IIa

B

Prophylactic CAS might be considered in highly selected patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (minimum 60% by angiography, 70% by validated Doppler ultrasound), but its effectiveness compared with medical therapy alone in this situation is not well established

IIb

B

In symptomatic or asymptomatic patients at high-risk of complications for carotid revascularization by either CEA or CAS because of comorbidities, the effectiveness of revascularization versus medical therapy alone is not well established

IIb

B

Carotid angioplasty and stenting might be considered when ischemic neurologic symptoms have not responded to antithrombotic therapy after acute carotid dissection

IIb

C

Except in extraordinary circumstances, carotid revascularization by either CEA or CAS is not recommended when atherosclerosis narrows the lumen by <50%

III

A

Carotid revascularization is not recommended for patients with chronic total occlusion of the targeted carotid artery

III

C

Carotid revascularization is not recommended for patients with severe disability caused by cerebral infarction that precludes preservation of useful function

III

C

CAS: carotid artery angioplasty with stenting; CEA: carotid endarterectomy; COR: class of recommendation; LOE: level of evidence; TIA; transient ischemic attack.
a Class I: benefit >>> risk; class IIa benefit >> risk; class IIb benefit ≥ risk; class III: no benefit.
b Level A (data derived from multiple randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses; multiple populations evaluated); level B (data derived from a single randomized controlled trial or nonrandomized studies; limited populations evaluated); level C (only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care; very limited populations evaluated).

Society for Vascular Surgery
The Society for Vascular Surgery (2011) updated its guidelines on the management of the extracranial carotid disease.62, Recommendations from the guidelines are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Guidelines for Managing Extracranial Carotid Disease

Recommendation

GOEa

LOEb

In most patients with carotid stenosis who are candidates for intervention, CEA is preferred to CAS for reduction of all-cause and periprocedural death

I

B

CAS is preferred over CEA in symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and tracheal stoma, situations where local tissues are scarred and fibrotic from prior ipsilateral surgery or external beam radiotherapy, prior cranial nerve injury, and lesions that extend proximal to the clavicle or distal to the C2 vertebral body

II

B

CAS is preferred over CEA in symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and severe uncorrectable coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

II

C

There are insufficient data to recommend CAS as primary therapy for neurologically asymptomatic patients with 70%-99% diameter stenosis. In properly selected asymptomatic patients, CAS is equivalent to CEA in the hands of experienced interventionalists with a combined stroke and death rate <3%

II

B

CAS: carotid artery angioplasty with stenting; CEA: carotid endarterectomy; GOE: grade of evidence; LOE: level of evidence.
Grade I: benefit clearly outweighs risk; grade II: benefits and risks are more closely matched and are more dependent on specific clinical scenarios.
b Level B (moderate quality); level C (low quality).

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Not applicable.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials
Some currently unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 5. There are no ongoing or direct comparisons of CAS with CEA in patients at increased risk for CEA complications.64,65, Particularly problematic is the lack of adequate data, from either randomized or nonrandomized studies, to separately compare outcomes of the alternatives (CAS vs CEA vs current optimal medical management) in symptomatic and asymptomatic increased-risk subgroups.

Table 5. Summary of Key Trials

NCT No.

Trial Name

Planned Enrollment

Completion Date

Ongoing

     

NCT02538276

Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Brazil

500

Jul 2019

NCT00883402

Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2): an International Randomised Trial to Compare Carotid Endarterectomy With Carotid Artery Stenting to Prevent Stroke

3600

Dec 2019

ISRCTN78592017

Stent-protected angioplasty in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis vs endarterectomy: two two-arm clinical trials (SPACE-2)

5000

Jul 2020

NCT02089217

Carotid revascularization and medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis trial (CREST-2)

2480

Dec 2020

ISRCTN97744893

European Carotid Surgery Trial 2 (ECST-2): a randomized controlled trial

2000

Mar 2022

ISRCTN: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number; NCT: national clinical trial.

References: 

  1. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med. Aug 15 1991;325(7):445-453. PMID 1852179
  2. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet. May 25 1991;337(8752):1235-1243. PMID 1674060
  3. Mayberg MR, Wilson SE, Yatsu F, et al. Carotid endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral ischemia in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 309 Trialist Group. JAMA. Dec 18 1991;266(23):3289-3294. PMID 1960828
  4. Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA. May 10 1995;273(18):1421-1428. PMID 7723155
  5. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. May 9 1998;351(9113):1379-1387. PMID 9593407
  6. Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, 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. Nov 12 1998;339(20):1415-1425. PMID 9811916
  7. Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. May 8 2004;363(9420):1491-1502. PMID 15135594
  8. Arazi HC, Capparelli FJ, Linetzky B, et al. Carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a decision analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. May 2008;110(5):472-479. PMID 18374476
  9. Marquardt L, Geraghty OC, Mehta Z, et al. Low risk of ipsilateral stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis on best medical treatment: a prospective, population-based study. Stroke. Jan 2010;41(1):e11-17. PMID 19926843
  10. Naylor AR, Bell PR. Treatment of asymptomatic carotid disease with stenting: con. Semin Vasc Surg. Jun 2008;21(2):100-107. PMID 18565417
  11. Brott TG, Hobson RW, 2nd, Howard G, et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. Jul 1 2010;363(1):11-23. PMID 20505173
  12. De Rango P, Brown MM, Leys D, et al. Management of carotid stenosis in women: consensus document. Neurology. Jun 11 2013;80(24):2258-2268. PMID 23751919
  13. Jordan WD, Jr., Voellinger DC, Fisher WS, et al. A comparison of carotid angioplasty with stenting versus endarterectomy with regional anesthesia. J Vasc Surg. Sep 1998;28(3):397- 402; discussion 402-393. PMID 9737448
  14. Lewis SC, Warlow CP, Bodenham AR, et al. General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Dec 20 2008;372(9656):2132-2142. PMID 19041130
  15. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. Oct 7 2004;351(15):1493-1501. PMID 15470212
  16. Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. Apr 10 2008;358(15):1572-1579. PMID 18403765
  17. Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. Oct 2008;7(10):893-902. PMID 18774746
  18. Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Bruckmann H, et al. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent- protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. Oct 7 2006;368(9543):1239-1247. PMID 17027729
  19. Naylor AR. SPACE: not the final frontier Comment.. Lancet. Oct 7 2006;368(9543):1215- 1216. PMID 17027708
  20. Furlan AJ. Carotid-artery stenting--case open or closed? Editorial.. N Engl J Med. Oct 19 2006;355(16):1726-1729. PMID 17050898
  21. Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, et al. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. Oct 19 2006;355(16):1660-1671. PMID 17050890
  22. Arquizan C, Trinquart L, Touboul PJ, et al. Restenosis is more frequent after carotid stenting than after endarterectomy: the EVA-3S study. Stroke. Apr 2011;42(4):1015-1020. PMID 21311065
  23. Mas JL, Trinquart L, Leys D, 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. Oct 2008;7(10):885-892. PMID 18774745
  24. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Calvet D, et al. Long-term follow-up study of endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis trial. Stroke. Sep 2014;45(9):2750-2756. PMID 25082808
  25. International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators, Ederle J, Dobson J, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Mar 20 2010;375(9719):985-997. PMID 20189239
  26. Bonati LH, Jongen LM, Haller S, et al. New ischaemic brain lesions on MRI after stenting or endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a substudy of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Lancet Neurol. Apr 2010;9(4):353-362. PMID 20189458
  27. Rothwell PM. Carotid stenting: more risky than endarterectomy and often no better than medical treatment alone Comment.. Lancet. Mar 20 2010;375(9719):957-959. PMID 20304225
  28. Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, et al. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. Lancet. Feb 7 2015;385(9967):529-538. PMID 25453443
  29. Altinbas A, Algra A, Brown MM, et al. Effects of carotid endarterectomy or stenting on hemodynamic complications in the International Carotid Stenting Study: a randomized comparison. Int J Stroke. Apr 2014;9(3):284-290. PMID 23834300
  30. Featherstone RL, Dobson J, Ederle J, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. Mar 2016;20(20):1-94. PMID 26979174
  31. Hopkins LN, Roubin GS, Chakhtoura EY, et al. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial: credentialing of interventionalists and final results of lead- in phase. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. Mar 2010;19(2):153-162. PMID 20189092
  32. Silver FL, Mackey A, Clark WM, et al. Safety of stenting and endarterectomy by symptomatic status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Stroke. Mar 2011;42(3):675-680. PMID 21307169
  33. Lal BK, Beach KW, Roubin GS, et al. Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. Sep 2012;11(9):755-763. PMID 22857850
  34. Brott TG, Howard G, Roubin GS, et al. Long-term results of stenting versus endarterectomy for carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. Mar 17 2016;374(11):1021-1031. PMID 26890472
  35. Roffi M, Sievert H, Gray WA, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus surgery: adequate comparisons? Lancet Neurol. Apr 2010;9(4):339-341; author reply 341-332. PMID 20189459
  36. Nallamothu BK, Gurm HS, Ting HH, et al. Operator experience and carotid stenting outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. Sep 28 2011;306(12):1338-1343. PMID 21954477
  37. Gonzales NR, Demaerschalk BM, Voeks JH, et al. Complication rates and center enrollment volume in the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial. Stroke. Nov 2014;45(11):3320-3324. PMID 25256180
  38. Rosenfield K, Matsumura JS, Chaturvedi S, et al. Randomized trial of stent versus surgery for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. Mar 17 2016;374(11):1011-1020. PMID 26886419
  39. Spence JD, Naylor AR. Endarterectomy, stenting, or neither for asymptomatic carotid-artery stenosis editorial.. N Engl J Med. Mar 17 2016;374(11):1087-1088. PMID 26890473
  40. Li FM, Zhong JX, Jiang X, et al. Therapeutic effect of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for patients with high-risk carotid stenosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. Oct 2014;7(9):2895-2900. PMID 25356155
  41. Kuliha M, Roubec M, Prochazka V, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing neurological outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or stenting. Br J Surg. Feb 2015;102(3):194-201. PMID 25511816
  42. Gray WA. Carotid stenting or carotid surgery in average surgical-risk patients: interpreting the conflicting clinical trial data. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. Jul-Aug 2011;54(1):14-21. PMID 21722782
  43. Woo K, Garg J, Hye RJ, et al. Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. May 2010;41(5):975-979. PMID 20339122
  44. Barnett HJ, Pelz DM, Lownie SP. Reflections by contrarians on the post-CREST evaluation of carotid stenting for stroke prevention. Int J Stroke. Dec 2010;5(6):455-456. PMID 21050401
  45. Angioplasty and stenting of the cervical carotid artery with distal embolic protection of the cerebral circulation. Technol Eval Cent Assess Program Exec Summ. Feb 2005;19(15):1-4. PMID 15714698
  46. Ederle J, Featherstone RL, Brown MM. Randomized controlled trials comparing endarterectomy and endovascular treatment for carotid artery stenosis: a Cochrane systematic review. Stroke. Apr 2009;40(4):1373-1380. PMID 19228850
  47. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Wetterslev J, et al. Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. Arch Neurol. Feb 2011;68(2):172-184. PMID
  48. Murad MH, Shahrour A, Shah ND, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of carotid endarterectomy vs stenting. J Vasc Surg. Mar 2011;53(3):792-797. PMID 21216556
  49. Economopoulos KP, Sergentanis TN, Tsivgoulis G, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis of short-term and long-term outcomes. Stroke. Mar 2011;42(3):687-692. PMID 21233476
  50. Touze E, Trinquart L, Chatellier G, et al. Systematic review of the perioperative risks of stroke or death after carotid angioplasty and stenting. Stroke. Dec 2009;40(12):e683-693. PMID 19892997
  51. Carotid Stenting Trialists Collaboration, Bonati LH, Dobson J, et al. Short-term outcome after stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned meta- analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. Sep 25 2010;376(9746):1062-1073. PMID 20832852
  52. Howard G, Roubin GS, Jansen O, et al. Association between age and risk of stroke or death from carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting: a meta-analysis of pooled patient data from four randomised trials. Lancet. Mar 26 2016;387(10025):1305-1311. PMID 26880122
  53. Paraskevas KI, Lazaridis C, Andrews CM, et al. Comparison of cognitive function after carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. Mar 2014;47(3):221-231. PMID 24393665
  54. Galyfos G, Sigala F, Karanikola E, et al. Cardiac damage after carotid intervention: a meta- analysis after a decade of randomized trials. J Anesth. Dec 2014;28(6):866-872. PMID 24828849
  55. Vincent S, Eberg M, Eisenberg MJ, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the long-term outcomes of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. Oct 2015;8(6 Suppl 3):S99-108. PMID 26515216
  56. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Technology Evaluation Center. Angioplasty and stenting of the cervical carotid artery with embolic protection of the cerebral circulation. TEC Assessment. 2010;Volume 24:Tab 12. PMID 21114063
  57. Gray WA, Chaturvedi S, Verta P. Thirty-day outcomes for carotid artery stenting in 6320 patients from 2 prospective, multicenter, high-surgical-risk registries. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Jun 2009;2(3):159-166. PMID 20031712
  58. White CJ, Iyer SS, Hopkins LN, et al. Carotid stenting with distal protection in high surgical risk patients: the BEACH trial 30 day results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Apr 2006;67(4):503- 512. PMID 16548004
  59. Spangler EL, Goodney PP, Schanzer A, et al. Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in comparable medical risk patients. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2014;60(5):1227-1231, 1231 e1221. PMID 24953899
  60. Salzler GG, Farber A, Rybin DV, et al. The association of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Carotid Guideline Publication on utilization and outcomes of carotid stenting among "high-risk" patients. J Vasc Surg. Jul 2017;66(1):104-111 e101. PMID 28502543
  61. Lee VH, Brown RD, Jr., Mandrekar JN, et al. Incidence and outcome of cervical artery dissection: a population-based study. Neurology. Nov 28 2006;67(10):1809-1812. PMID 17130413
  62. Schirmer CM, Atalay B, Malek AM. Endovascular recanalization of symptomatic flow-limiting cervical carotid dissection in an isolated hemisphere. Neurosurg Focus. Jun 2011;30(6):E16. PMID 21631217
  63. Ohta H, Natarajan SK, Hauck EF, et al. Endovascular stent therapy for extracranial and intracranial carotid artery dissection: single-center experience. J Neurosurg. Jul 2011;115(1):91- 100. PMID 21417710
  64. Asif KS, Lazzaro MA, Teleb MS, et al. Endovascular reconstruction for progressively worsening carotid artery dissection. J Neurointerv Surg. Jan 2015;7(1):32-39. PMID 24391159
  65. Brott TG, Halperin JL, Abbara S, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS Guideline on the Management of Patients With Extracranial Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery Developed in Collaboration With the American Academy of Neurology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. Feb 22 2011;57(8):e16-94. PMID 21288679
  66. Brott TG, Halperin JL, Abbara S, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Society for Vascular Medicine, and Society for Vascular Surgery. Circulation. Jul 26 2011;124(4):e54-130. PMID 21282504
  67. Brott TG, Halperin JL, Abbara S, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease: executive summary. Stroke. Aug 2011;42(8):e420-463. PMID 21282494
  68. Ricotta JJ, Aburahma A, Ascher E, et al. Updated Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for management of extracranial carotid disease. J Vasc Surg. Sep 2011;54(3):e1-31. PMID 21889701
  69. Aboyans V, Ricco JB, Bartelink MEL, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS): Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteriesEndorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO)The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur Heart J. Mar 1 2018;39(9):763-816. PMID 28886620
  70. Tendera M, Aboyans V, Bartelink ML, et al. ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases: Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries: the Task Force on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Artery Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. Nov 2011;32(22):2851-2906. PMID 21873417
  71. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Carotid artery stent placement for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis IPG388.. 2011; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg388. Accessed March 29, 2018.
  72. Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee: an Inter-collegiate Committee of the RACP (ANZAN C, RACS (ANZSVS), RANZCR. Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stenting. Intern Med J. Apr 2011;41(4):344-347. PMID 21299785
  73. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Decision Memo for Carotid Artery Stenting (CAG-00085R). 2005; https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca- decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=157&NcaName=Carotid+Artery+Stenting+(1st+Recon). Accessed March 27, 2018.
  74. Hopkins LN, Myla S, Grube E, et al. Carotid artery revascularization in high surgical risk patients with the NexStent and the Filterwire EX/EZ: 1-year results in the CABERNET trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Jun 1 2008;71(7):950-960. PMID 18412236
  75. Bonati LH, Lyrer P, Ederle J, et al. Percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty and stenting for carotid artery stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Sep 12 2012(9):CD000515. PMID 22972047 

Coding Section 

Codes  Number  Description 
CPT    See Policy Guidelines section 
ICD-9 Procedure   00.61  Percutaneous angioplasty or atherectomy of precerebral (extracranial) vessel(s) 
  00.63  Percutaneous insertion of carotid artery stents(s) 
  00.40-00.48  Adjunct vascular system procedures - code range used to denote the number of vessels treated and number of stents inserted 
ICD-9 Diagnosis  433.10-433.11  Occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, code range 
   433.30-433.31 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries; multiple and bilateral, code range 
HCPCS     
ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15)  l65.21-l65.29  Occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery code range 
  433.30-433.31 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries; multiple and bilateral, code range
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15) 

 

ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. 

 

037H34Z, 037H3DZ,037H3ZZ, 037H44Z, 037H4DZ, 037H4ZZ, 037J34Z, 037J3DZ, 037J3ZZ, 037J44Z, 037J4DZ, 037J4ZZ, 037K34Z, 037K3DZ, 037K3ZZ, 037K44Z, 037K4DZ, 037K4ZZ, 037L34Z, 037L3DZ, 037L3ZZ, 037L44Z, 037L4DZ, 037L4ZZ, 037M34Z, 037M3DZ, 037M3ZZ, 037M44Z, 037M4DZ, 037M4ZZ, 037N34Z, 037N3DZ, 037N3ZZ, 037N44Z, 037N4DZ, 037N4ZZ

Surgical, upper arteries, dilation, carotid artery, code by body part (common, internal or external, and right or left), approach (percutaneous or percutaneous endoscopic) and device (drug-eluting intraluminal, intraluminal or none)

  037P34Z, 037P3DZ, 037P3ZZ, 037P44Z, 037P4DZ, 037P4ZZ, 037Q34Z, 037Q3DZ, 037Q3ZZ, 037Q44Z, 037Q4DZ, 037Q4ZZ

Surgical, upper arteries, dilation, vertebral artery, code by body part (right or left), approach (percutaneous or percutaneous endoscopic) and device (drug-eluting intraluminal, intraluminal or none)

 

03CH3ZZ, 03CH4ZZ, 03CJ3ZZ, 03CJ4ZZ, 03CK3ZZ, 03CK4ZZ, 03CL3ZZ, 03CL4ZZ, 03CM3ZZ, 03CM4ZZ, 03CN3ZZ, 03CN4ZZ

Surgical, upper arteries, extirpation, carotid artery, code by body part (common, internal or external, and right or left), and approach (percutaneous or percutaneous endoscopic)

 

03CP3ZZ, 03CP4ZZ, 03CQ3ZZ, 03CQ4ZZ

 

Surgical, upper arteries, extirpation, vertebral artery, code by body part (right or left), and approach (percutaneous or percutaneous endoscopic)

Type of Service  Cardiology   

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive.

Index 
Angioplasty, Carotid Artery
Carotid Artery, Angioplasty and Stenting
Stents, Carotid Artery 

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies, and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology © American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2013 Forward     

01/21/2020 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating rationale. 

01/25/2019 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating rationale and references. 

02/16/2018 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating description, regulatory status, rationale and references. 

01/03/2017 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, rationale and references. 

01/13/2016 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updated background, description, rationale and references. Added regulatory status. 

01/27/2015 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Adding description, guidelines and coding. Updating rationale and references. 

01/15/2014

Annual review.Updated description, rationale and reference. No change to policy intent.


Go Back