CHICAGO – Urgent carotid interventions were safe after thrombolysis for acute mild to moderate strokes, according to a review of 165 patients at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans.
“Our data support the practice of not denying a patient an urgent carotid intervention simply because of TPA [tissue plasminogen activator] administration during the acute stroke period,” said lead investigator Dr. Nicolas Zea, an Ochsner vascular surgeon.
“Urgent carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or coronary artery stenting [CAS] can be safely undertaken in minor to moderate strokes with NIH stroke scale scores less than 10; TPA itself does not appear to be a contraindication, even within 72 hours,” he added.
Urgent carotid interventions are becoming more common after ischemic strokes to prevent recurrences. The approach is most effective within 2 weeks of the index event, but there have been concerns that intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) and other complications might be more likely if patients have had TPA.
Dr. Ochsner and his colleagues conducted their review because, “as vascular surgeons, we are going to encounter a lot more of these patients in the very near future,” Dr. Zea said a meeting hosted by the Society for Vascular Surgery.
From January 2009 to January 2015, 31 patients at Ochsner had carotid interventions – 25 CEA, 6 CAS – a mean of 2.1 days after receiving TPA for transient ischemic attacks (TIA) or ischemic strokes. The patients’ mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 6.6.
Over the same period, 134 patients who had not received TPA had urgent carotid interventions – 110 CEA, 24 CAS – a mean of 2.6 days after TIA or ischemic stroke presentation. Their mean NIHSS score was 6.1.
There were no statistically significant demographic or comorbidity differences between the TPA and no-TPA groups; patients were about 70 years old, on average, and the majority were men. Most had ipsilateral carotid stenosis greater than 70%, or acute occlusions.
The 30-day overall complication rate was 12.9% in the TPA group and 6.7% in the non-TPA group, a nonsignificant difference (P = 0.35).
In the TPA group, there was one (3.2%) ICH, one (3.2%) neck hematoma, and two (6.4%) deaths. In the no-TPA group, there were two (1.5%) ICHs, two (1.5%) neck hematomas, one (0.7%) ischemic stroke, two (1.5%) myocardial infarctions, and two (1.5%) deaths.
In both groups, ICH patients had stroke scores greater than 10. Also, although the rate of death was higher in the TPA group, the deaths “were not necessarily related to thrombolysis,” Dr. Zea noted. One death was from pulmonary embolism, the second from unknown causes. Deaths were due to acute mesenteric ischemia and ICH in the no-TPA group, Dr. Zea said.
There was one (3.2%) hemorrhagic conversion in the TPA group and two (1.5%) in the no-TPA group. Similarly, one (3.2%) TPA patient and two (1.5%) no-TPA patients had complications from access site bleeding. The differences were not statistically significant.
In the TPA group, it didn’t seem to matter if intervention came within 72 hours of administration – as in about half the cases – or afterward, when TPA risks have largely passed. There was one death and one ICH in patients in the earlier group, and one death in the later group, a nonsignificant difference.
There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Zea had no disclosures. One of the coinvestigators is a consultant for Lutonix.
aotto@frontlinemedcom.com