The detection of an asymptomatic carotid bruit invariably engenders considerable debate and uncertainty about proper evaluation and management. Which noninvasive tests should be performed? Should brain imaging be performed to search for asymptomatic infarcts? When is carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting indicated for asymptomatic stenosis?
All patients with cervical bruits, whether or not they are symptomatic, should be evaluated by noninvasive Doppler ultrasound to determine if the bruit reflects a significant internal carotid artery stenosis. Some centers recommend CT scans or MRI of the brain on all patients to either delineate old strokes in asymptomatic patients or exclude other intracranial lesions in symptomatic patients. However, routine CT scans on all patients with carotid stenoses may not be cost-effective.
Asymptomatic bruits. If, based on a thorough history, the patient is truly asymptomatic and Doppler studies demonstrate a stenosis of less than 80%, then intensive medical therapy with antiplatelet therapy such as aspirin, high-potency statins, and risk factor modification is appropriate for most patients. Anticoagulation with warfarin is not recommended. Patients with greater than 60% stenosis should be treated for hyperlipidemia, and the LDL level should be targeted for less than 70 mg/dl. Statin treatment will be required in the majority of patients. In carotid endarterectomy specimens, use of statins has been associated with reduced macrophage infiltration and matrix metalloproteinase 9 area, suggesting that statins can be useful in stabilizing carotid plaques (29). Smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged. Although the study was done in symptomatic patients, the Treat Stroke to Target study, which randomly assigned patients to a moderate or intensive LDL target, found benefit with a lower LDL target (03). Therefore, it appears reasonable to extrapolate an LDL of less than 70 mg/dl as a reasonable target for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Less than 55 mg/dl can be considered in patients judged to have higher vascular risk, such as carotid stenosis with diabetes.
Asymptomatic patients with stenoses between 60% and 79% should be re-evaluated every 6 to 12 months with noninvasive studies to determine if there has been progression of stenosis. If, during follow-up, the patient becomes symptomatic or the lesion progresses, then further evaluation is warranted. Plaque morphology, as it becomes better defined and classified, may significantly influence future clinical decision-making. Asymptomatic patients with high-grade (greater than 80%) stenoses by Doppler ultrasound who are good operative risks with excellent 5-year life expectancies should receive further evaluation with either MRA or contrast angiography.
The Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study evaluated patients with 60% to 99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis and found a modest reduction in ipsilateral stroke with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) (04). At 5 years, the projected rate of ipsilateral stroke was 11.0% in the medically treated patients and 5.1% in the surgery group. The annual absolute risk reduction of 1.2% per year is small, and some vascular neurologists have argued that it is not clinically meaningful. In addition, concerns have been raised about whether the low perioperative stroke rate in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study can be reproduced routinely in the community. Recommendations are that for asymptomatic patients, the perioperative stroke rate should be less than 3% (07), yet the stroke rate for asymptomatic patients was 4.6% in the Aspirin and Carotid Endarterectomy trial, which featured experienced surgeons at stroke centers. In addition, in up to 45% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the future cause of an ipsilateral stroke may not be related to the carotid stenosis, with the cause being either cardioembolism or small vessel occlusive disease (26). If a practitioner is confident that the perioperative stroke rate is less than 3% at their institution and if the patient is otherwise healthy and with a 5-year life expectancy, then there may be a small benefit for performing carotid endarterectomy in patients with 60% to 99% stenosis. This position was articulated in the American Academy of Neurology carotid endarterectomy guidelines (10). However, whether CEA remains beneficial compared to modern intensive medical therapy is unclear (see below).
The Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) results have been published (MRC ACST Collaborative Group 2004). This was a multicenter, international study in which patients with more than 60% stenosis were randomized to immediate carotid endarterectomy or deferred carotid endarterectomy. Patients in the deferred carotid endarterectomy group were treated medically. Approximately 90% of patients were on antiplatelet therapy, 70% were on antihypertensive agents, and 40% were on lipid-lowering medication. Enrolled were 3120 patients who were followed for a mean period of 3.3 years. The 5-year projected rates of total ischemic stroke were 11.8% in the deferred carotid endarterectomy group and 6.4% in the immediate carotid endarterectomy group. About half of the strokes in both groups were disabling. The benefit was smaller in women compared to men. Patients younger than 75 years of age demonstrated benefit, but it was unclear if patients older than 75 years of age derived benefit because their death rate was higher during the follow-up period. The overall perioperative morbidity and mortality rate was 3.1% in the ACST.
The ACST investigators have also reported 10-year results (20). At 10 years, there was still a benefit for carotid endarterectomy, but it was lower in absolute terms. The immediate carotid endarterectomy group had a 10-year stroke risk of 13.4% compared to 17.9% in the deferred carotid endarterectomy group (absolute gain 4.6%). Patients aged 75 years and older once again did not show clear benefit. Stroke risk in both the carotid endarterectomy and medical therapy groups was substantially lower in the patients who received lipid-lowering treatment. Patients with remote symptoms (greater than 6 months previously) and patients with radiologic infarcts had a higher 10-year stroke risk, with a 5.8% increase over 10 years (45). An analysis from the Oxford Vascular Study also reports that patients with 80% to 99% stenosis have a higher 5-year stroke risk compared to patients with less than 80% stenosis (23).
In a combined analysis of Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study and ACST, it was noted that there was no clear benefit for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic women (40). One of the potential reasons for this finding is that women seem to do better with medical therapy. In a study evaluating endarterectomy specimens, women had more features of stable plaques, such as low macrophage staining and strong smooth muscle staining (21).
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly being considered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy, and, in fact, most carotid stenting is being performed in asymptomatic patients. The SAPPHIRE trial found that patients at high medical risk for endarterectomy who were subsequently randomized to stenting or endarterectomy had a lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death with stenting (12.2% at 1 year) compared to surgery (20.1%) (50). However, the study did not include a control group who were treated medically, and it remains unclear as to whether stenting is superior to intensive medical therapy in patients considered high risk for endarterectomy. In the 3-year results of the SAPPHIRE study, there was no clear difference between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenosis (18). The relatively high death rate in both groups raises questions about whether either procedure is necessary in “high-risk for carotid endarterectomy” asymptomatic patients.
The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) was reported in 2010 (08). This study enrolled conventional risk patients and subjects were assigned to either carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting. The study originally included symptomatic patients only, but asymptomatic patients with more than 60% stenosis on angiography or more than 70% stenosis on ultrasound were included in 2004. The study was not powered to detect a difference in the 1176 asymptomatic patients, however. The primary endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke after 30 days did not differ between the two groups (carotid artery stenting 3.5%, carotid endarterectomy 3.6%) (08). At 4 years, there was a trend favoring carotid endarterectomy if periprocedure myocardial infarction events are not included (carotid artery stenting 4.5%, carotid endarterectomy 2.7%, p=0.07).
Carotid artery stenting has also been compared to carotid endarterectomy in the Asymptomatic Carotid Trial 1 (ACT-1) (39). This randomized trial enrolled patients younger than 80 years of age, and the results were comparable with carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting. The 30-day rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death was 3.8% with carotid artery stenting and 3.4% with carotid endarterectomy.
Another study that has reported comparative outcomes between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting is the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial 2 (ACST 2) (19). The study randomized patients who, in the view of the treating physician, were suitable for treatment with either procedure. Both procedures had an approximately 1% rate of disabling periprocedural stroke. Overall, periprocedural stroke or death was noted in 3.5% of stenting patients and in 2.6% of endarterectomy patients. There was no difference in the 5-year outcomes of the procedures. ACST 2 provides a similar message to other studies in that periprocedural strokes are slightly lower with carotid endarterectomy, but long-term outcomes are similar.
In community practice, however, carotid endarterectomy appears to have better outcomes than carotid stenting. In an analysis of over 20,000 patients treated at 186 hospitals in the United States, the in-hospital stroke and death rate was 4.0% with carotid stenting and 1.5% with carotid endarterectomy (12). This difference remained statistically significant (p< 0.001) after adjustment for baseline characteristics.
A systematic analysis found that results of carotid endarterectomy are improving. Registry and clinical trial showed an average 6% reduction in major complications during the period 1991 to 2010 (33). The authors proposed that the new benchmarks for an asymptomatic patient should be stroke/death less than 1.2% and a periprocedural mortality rate of less than 0.4%.
Evidence is accumulating that improvements in medical therapy have led to a reduction in stroke risk for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. In the Oxford Vascular Study, 101 patients with greater than 50% carotid stenosis were treated medically (31). During a mean of 3 years follow-up, only one minor stroke and five transient ischemic attacks occurred. The annual stroke risk was 0.34%. A study from the Netherlands followed 293 patients with asymptomatic stenosis of 50 to 99% for a mean period of 6.2 years. The risk of stroke was 0.4% in patients with 50 to 99% stenosis and 0.5% in patients with 70 to 99% stenosis (13). This study, along with the transcranial Doppler studies mentioned above, suggests that carotid revascularization may not be necessary in the majority of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. An analysis of data from the U.S. VA Hospital system also found that the benefit of endarterectomy has been reduced in recent years and that intensive medical therapy is a reasonable first option (27).
Due to the advances in medical therapy, some have advocated multi-center clinical trials to compare aggressive medical therapy (AMT) alone versus AMT plus carotid revascularization (09). The CREST 2 study is in progress to compare AMT alone versus either AMT plus carotid endarterectomy or AMT plus carotid stenting (11). AMT consists of aspirin, high-dose statin therapy with a LDL goal of less than 70 mg/dl, blood pressure reduction targeted to national guidelines, and lifestyle modification (24). This North American study will have two parallel trials comparing AMT alone versus AMT plus carotid endarterectomy and AMT alone versus AMT plus carotid stenting. As of December 2023, over 2300 patients have been enrolled, with an ultimate goal of 2480 patients. The CREST 2 trialists have published useful algorithms for systematic treatment of lipids and blood pressure (47).
An asymptomatic carotid stenosis that has been reported is the SPACE 2 study (36). The study was halted prematurely due to slow enrollment and loss of funding. The study enrolled patients between ages 50 and 85 years and with extracranial internal carotid stenosis of at least 70%. Patients were assigned to either CEA + best medical therapy (BMT), CAS+ BMT, or BMT alone. The primary endpoint was stroke or death within 30 days plus ipsilateral stroke beyond 30 days. The endpoint rates were 2.5% with CEA + BMT, 3.1% with BMT alone, and 4.4% with CAS + BMT. The authors concluded that neither CEA nor CAS were shown to be superior to BMT alone, but that the results should be viewed with caution. Notably, the annual stroke risk with BMT alone decreased from 2.2% in the ACAS trial to 0.6% per year in SPACE 2.
Another trial that has reported interim results is the European Carotid Surgery Trial 2 (14). In this study, the authors enrolled patients with at least 50% internal carotid artery stenosis, and they included both asymptomatic and low-to-medium risk symptomatic patients. The analysis method was novel in that the authors evaluated the “win ratio” for the two groups of optimized medical therapy alone versus optimized medical therapy plus revascularization. In both groups (asymptomatic or symptomatic), there was no evidence that optimized medical therapy plus revascularization was superior to optimized medical therapy alone. Periprocedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction occurred in 10.2% of medical therapy patients and 10.5% of medical therapy plus revascularization patients. The authors concluded that, pending further studies, optimized medical therapy alone is reasonable for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis or low to medium risk symptomatic stenosis. The larger CREST 2 trial mentioned above is expected to provide results in late 2025.
Symptomatic bruits. Patients with hemispheric transient ischemic attacks or amaurosis fugax associated with lesions of less than 50% by ultrasound should be treated with aspirin and risk factor modification. If the patient has had recent symptoms (in the previous 6 months) and if there is severe (greater than 70%) stenosis, then carotid endarterectomy will be of benefit in reducing the stroke rate if the patient is an otherwise stable surgical candidate and the surgery can be performed with a less than 6% stroke rate (35). For patients with 50% to 69% stenosis, carotid endarterectomy is likely to be more beneficial in patients with hemispheric as opposed to retinal symptoms, patients with ulcerated lesions as opposed to smooth lesions, and men compared to women (06; 10).