In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

Use of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization to Treat Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis Associated with Free-Floating Thrombus

BACKGROUND

Free-floating thrombus in the internal carotid artery (ICA) has traditionally been treated via an open surgical approach through a longitudinal incision and exposure similar to that for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In this case report, we present a novel use of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis associated with free-floating ICA thrombus.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We describe a 67-year-old female who presented with a diagnosis of right hemispheric stroke in evolution and prior history of right CEA and a mechanical mitral valve. Imaging confirmed high-grade recurrent stenosis of the right ICA with free-floating thrombus. TCAR was utilized to repair both the recurrent stenosis and the thrombus.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo CEA in the face of recurrent stenosis is a challenging clinical scenario, which in this instance, was further complicated by the presence of free-floating thrombus and active anticoagulation due to a mechanical mitral valve. This case report describes the successful management of ICA thrombus and restenosis with the novel use of TCAR.

Big data in vascular surgery: registries, international collaboration and future directions

Given the increasing availability of large data set, small single-institutional series raise decreasing attention. Rapid expansion of technology from electronic medical records to easily accessible internet access, and widespread use and acceptance of registries in the medical world has allowed for research and quality improvement efforts using 'big data'. Big data, although technically not defined, typically refers to large databases that can be used to investigate common or rare disease processes or outcomes, describe variation in clinical practices across and between different specialties at various practice location, whilst allowing important information about trends over time. Big data have allowed investigators to quickly assimilate cohorts of patients and/or procedures to answer current questions, with more complete population representation and improved generalizability whilst decreasing the likelihood of power problems and type II errors. On the other hand, pitfalls still exist with the growing problem of hypothesis fishing, lack of granularity and the fear by many clinicians that registry transparency may have already gone too far, where surgery groups or individual surgeon outcomes are readily available to patients and referring providers. Within vascular surgery specifically, big data have expanded over the last decade and now includes regional, national and global registries that have major benefits of gathering specific clinical and procedural information within vascular surgery. In this review, we highlight the main vascular surgery registries and recap a few success stories of how the registries have been leveraged to benefit discovery, quality improvement and ultimately patient care. Additionally, we outline future directions that will be imperative for continued expansion, acceptance and adoption of 'big data' utilization inpatients with vascular disease.

Outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization with dynamic flow reversal in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO) are controversial. CCO has been defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a high-risk criterion and is used as an indication for transfemoral carotid artery stenting. With the promising outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we aimed to study the perioperative outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO and to assess the feasibility of TCAR in these high-risk patients.

METHODS

All patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent TCAR with flow reversal between September 2016 and May 2019 were included. Patients with trauma, dissection, or more than two treated lesions were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were used to compare the primary outcome of in-hospital stroke or death after TCAR in patients with CCO and those without CCO (patent and <99% stenosis). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative neurologic changes and the individual outcomes of in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction as well as 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 5485 TCAR cases were included, of which 593 (10.8%) had CCO. In patients with CCO, mean flow reversal time was shorter (10.1 ± 6.7 minutes vs 11.1 ± 7.8 minutes; P < .01); intraoperative neurologic changes occurred in 1% of these patients compared with 0.7% of those with patent contralateral carotid arteries (P = .43). On univariable analysis, no significant difference in in-hospital stroke or death was shown between patients with and patients without CCO (1.7% vs 1.5%; P = .65). Similarly, no significant differences were noted between the groups in terms of in-hospital death (0.7% vs 0.4%; P = .27), stroke (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = .32), and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.2% vs 1.8%; P = .53) as well as 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.6%; P = .55). The results remained statistically nonsignificant after adjustment for baseline differences between the groups; the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of in-hospital stroke/death in patients with CCO compared with those with patent contralateral carotid arteries was not significant (OR, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-3.0; P = .40). In symptomatic patients presenting with prior stroke, CCO was associated with significantly higher odds of stroke or death (OR, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-15.4; P = .01) compared with no CCO. On the other hand, in asymptomatic patients, no significant difference in outcomes was observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, TCAR seems to be safe in patients with CCO. Caution should be taken in symptomatic patients with CCO and a history of prior stroke as they might have worse outcomes compared with patients with patent contralateral carotid arteries. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to assess the perioperative and long-term outcomes of TCAR in patients with CCO in comparison to other procedures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting using the transcervical approach

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) approach has emerged as an alternative when carotid endarterectomy or conventional CAS is contraindicated. The present study was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcomes included technical success, perioperative neurological event, myocardial ischemic events, death and their composite. Operational duration, flow reversal time and any local procedure related complication (carotid dissection and cranial nerve injury) were also recorded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were included, reporting on 3130 patients, undergoing TCAR. Thirty-five per cent of them were symptomatic. Technical success was 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P=0.11, I²=32%). Early (30-day) new neurological event rate was estimated at 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02; P=1.0, I²=0%, respectively) while early death rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; P=1.0, I²=0%). Myocardial ischemic (MI) event rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=0.97, I²=6.6%). The composite outcome of neurological event/MI/death at 30-day follow-up was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, P=0.79, I²=14%). Carotid dissection rate during the intervention was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03, P=0.58, I²=2.9%) while the post-operatively detected cranial nerve injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=1.0, I²=0%). Regarding the technical aspects of the procedures, operational and flow reversal time were at 73.8 min and 13.7 min, respectively (95% CI: 68.2-79.3, P=0.18, I²=37.6% and 95% CI: 11.3-16.1, P=0.48, I²=0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is feasible with high technical success rate. The procedure presents low incidence of local complications, neurological events, myocardial complications and mortality during the early postoperative period and should be considered an acceptable alternative for patients treated for carotid artery stenosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization with Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The increased perioperative stroke and death risk of TFCAS has however prevented TFCAS from widespread acceptance as an alternative to CEA in high-risk patients. Recent research suggests that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may be associated with a low stroke and death risk and potentially meet the needs of patients at high surgical risk. We aimed to estimate the 30-day risk of stroke or death of TCAR and compare it to TFCAS and CEA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus for studies of patients treated with TCAR. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate. A logistic-normal random-effects model with logit transformation was used to estimate the pooled event rates after TCAR. Pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) of events comparing TCAR to TFCAS and CEA were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified with the chi-squared statistic of the likelihood ratio (LR) test that compares the random-effects and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine nonrandomized studies evaluating 4012 patients who underwent TCAR were included. The overall 30-day risks after TCAR were stroke/death, 1.89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50, 2.37); stroke, 1.34% (95% CI: 1.02,1.75); death, 0.76% (95% CI: 0.56, 1.08); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI: 0.23, 1.59); stroke/death/MI, 2.20% (95% CI: 1.31, 3.69); cranial nerve injury (CNI), 0.31% (95% CI: 0.12, 0.83). The failure rate of TCAR was 1.27% (95% CI: 0.32, 4.92). Two nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with lower risk of stroke and death as compared with TFCAS (1.33% vs. 2.55%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74 and 0.76% vs. 1.46%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84, respectively). Four nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with a lower risk of CNI (0.54% and 1.84%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74) than CEA, but no statistically significant difference in the 30-day risk of stroke, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing TCAR with dynamic flow reversal for carotid stenosis the 30-day risk of stroke or death was low. The perioperative stroke/death rate of TCAR was similar to that of CEA while CNI risk was lower. Larger prospective studies are needed to account for confounding factors and provide higher certainty.

Treatment of Carotid Restenosis Using Transcarotid Revascularization

Objective:

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System (Silk Road Medical) is a United States Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment modality for stroke risk reduction in the setting of carotid artery stenosis. The goal of this investigation was to define the real-world outcomes associated with the application of this technique to patients presenting with restenosis after previous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS).

Methods:

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained institutional databases capturing all nontrial TCARs performed between August 2013 and July 2018 using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection System was completed at 3 unaffiliated hospital systems and unified for descriptive outcomes analysis.

Results:

During the study period, 237 combined TCARs were performed at our respective institutions. Of these procedures, 55 stents were implanted for the indication of restenosis after previous carotid revascularization (47 CEA, 8 TF-CAS). Within the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no ipsilateral strokes or deaths; one patient experienced perioperative myocardial infarction (MI; 1.8%). We noted a 4.8% incidence of postoperative hematoma, but none of these events were clinically significant as no reinterventions were performed in any of the 55 patients. Additionally, we did not observe any cases of stent thrombosis or pulmonary embolus. Mean length of stay was 2.2 ± 2.8 days. Our mean follow-up duration was 15.0 ± 9.2 months. Throughout the follow-up period, we did not observe any additional stroke or MI events. Additionally, there were no cases of in-stent restenosis, thrombosis, or reinterventions.

Conclusion:

Transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed in patients with restenotic carotid arteries with acceptable rates of ipsilateral stroke, MI, and death as demonstrated in this small multi-institutional series.

Concomitant transcarotid artery revascularization and transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Concomitant carotid artery disease and aortic valve disease is common. Whereas carotid stenosis does not appear to have an effect on outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the management of a patient with symptomatic carotid disease and severe aortic stenosis is challenging. The advent of minimally invasive endovascular techniques has provided less invasive and effective treatment options for these respective conditions. In this report, we describe two cases of patients successfully treated with concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcarotid artery revascularization.

Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis

Importance

Several trials have observed higher rates of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy. Transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal was recently introduced for carotid stenting. This technique was developed to decrease stroke risk seen with the transfemoral approach; however, its outcomes, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, are not well characterized.

Objective

To compare outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exploratory propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Surveillance Project and Carotid Stent Registry of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the United States and Canada undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting for carotid artery stenosis, from September 2016 to April 2019. The final date for follow-up was May 29, 2019.

Exposures

Transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included a composite end point of in-hospital stroke or death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction, as well as ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year. In-hospital stroke was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral, cortical or vertebrobasilar, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Death was all-cause mortality.

Results

During the study period, 5251 patients underwent transcarotid artery revascularization and 6640 patients underwent transfemoral carotid artery stenting. After matching, 3286 pairs of patients who underwent transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting were identified (transcarotid approach: mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years; 35.7% women; transfemoral approach: mean [SD] age, 71.6 [9.3] years; 35.1% women). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%]; relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%]; RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%]; RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82]; P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction between the 2 cohorts (0.2% for transcarotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84]; P = .47). At 1 year using Kaplan-Meier life-table estimation, the transcarotid approach was associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (5.1% vs 9.6%; hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66]; P < .001). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with higher risk of access site complication resulting in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61]; P = .04), whereas transfemoral carotid artery stenting was associated with more radiation (median fluoroscopy time, 5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 3 to 7] vs 16 minutes [IQR, 11 to 23]; P < .001) and more contrast (median contrast used, 30 mL [IQR, 20 to 45] vs 80 mL [IQR, 55 to 122]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients undergoing treatment for carotid stenosis, transcarotid artery revascularization, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, was significantly associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.

CEA vs. stent in patients with acute strokes: are they equally effective?

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide with 15 million strokes annually. Extracranial carotid stenosis contributes to major stroke morbidity and mortality as a significant etiology of ischemic strokes. For acute stroke, in addition to optimal medical management, patients may be candidates for carotid endarterectomy and/or carotid stenting for secondary stroke reduction. This paper set out to review the data currently available regarding equivalency of the two intervention options.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive literature review was performed through PubMed and other sources using the key words carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stent, acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, flow reversal, TCAR. Studies which solely evaluated patients with asymptomatic disease were ineligible for the study.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Review of landmark trials such as NASCET and CREST in addition to more recent studies demonstrates the effectiveness of surgical management with carotid endarterectomy of acute stroke. Carotid stenting has also been shown to have acceptable outcomes in certain patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Carotid endarterectomy continues to demonstrate effectiveness and safety for management of acute stroke, while carotid stenting has limitations. Carotid artery stenting has been shown to be non-inferior in some patient populations, but more recent and future technologic developments may expand the potential acceptable patient selection criteria.

Contemporary outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in high-risk anatomic and physiologic patients

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines state that the acceptable 30-day postoperative stroke/death rate after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is <3% for asymptomatic patients and <6% for symptomatic patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has identified certain high-risk characteristics used to define patients at highest risk for CEA for whom carotid artery stenting would be reimbursed. We evaluated the impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physiologic and anatomic high-risk criteria on major adverse event rates after CEA in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CEA from 2011 to 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular targeted database. Patients with high-risk anatomic or physiologic characteristics were identified by a predefined variable and were compared with normal-risk patients. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death, stratified by symptom status.

RESULTS

We identified 25,788 patients undergoing CEA, of whom 60% were treated for asymptomatic carotid disease. Among all patients, high-risk physiology or anatomy was associated with higher rates of 30-day stroke/death compared with normal-risk patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 3.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]). Patients who met criteria for high-risk physiology or anatomy also had higher rates of cardiac events (physiologic risk, 3.1% vs 1.6% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.3% vs 1.6% [P < .01]), but only patients with high-risk anatomy had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (physiologic risk, 2.4% vs 2.5% [P = .81]; anatomic risk, 4.3% vs 2.5% [P < .001]). Asymptomatic patients with high-risk physiology or anatomy had higher rates of 30-day stroke/death, especially in the physiologic high-risk group (physiologic risk, 4.7% vs 1.5% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.6% vs 1.5% [P < .01]), compared with normal-risk patients. However, among symptomatic patients, differences in stroke/death were seen only with high-risk anatomic patients and not with high-risk physiologic patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 3.4% [P = .12]; anatomic risk, 4.8% vs 3.4% [P = .01]).

CONCLUSIONS

As currently selected, contemporary real-world outcomes after CEA in asymptomatic carotid disease patients meeting high-risk physiologic criteria show an unacceptably high 30-day stroke/death rate, well above the 3% threshold. These results suggest the need for better selection of patients and preoperative optimization before elective CEA.