Early Carotid Endarterectomy after Acute Stroke Yields Excellent Outcomes: An Analysis of the Procedure-Targeted ACS-NSQIP

Interventions in Carotid Artery Surgery: An Overview of Current Management and Future Implications

Atherosclerotic carotid artery disease has been well studied over the last half-century by multiple randomized controlled trials attempting to elucidate the appropriate modality of therapy for this disease process. Surgical techniques have evolved from carotid artery endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting to the development of hybrid techniques in transcarotid artery revascularization. In this article, the authors provide a review of the available literature regarding operative and medical management of carotid artery disease.

Insurance status is associated with urgent carotid endarterectomy and worse postoperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Underinsured patients can experience worse preoperative medical optimization. We aimed to determine whether insurance status was associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) urgency and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy dataset from January 2012 to January 2021. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to analyze the differences across the insurance types for the primary outcome variable: CEA urgency. The analyses were limited to patients aged <65 years to minimize age confounding across insurers. We also examined differences in preoperative medical optimization and symptomatic disease and postoperative outcomes. A secondary analysis was performed to examine the effect of CEA urgency on the postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 27,331 patients had undergone first-time CEA. Of these patients, 4600 (17%) had Medicare, 3440 (13%) had Medicaid, 17,917 (65%) had commercial insurance, and 1374 (5%) were uninsured. The Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher rates of urgent operation compared with Medicare (20.0% and 34.7% vs 14.4%; P < .001), with no differences in the commercial group vs the Medicare group. Additionally, Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower rates of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (93.6% and 93.5% vs 95.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of symptomatic disease (42.1% and 57.6% vs 36.2%; P < .001) compared with Medicare patients. The rate of perioperative stroke/death was higher for the Medicaid and uninsured patients than for the Medicare patients (1.63% and 1.89% vs 1.02%; P = .017 and P = .01, respectively), with no differences in the commercial group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured status were associated with increased odds of an urgent operation (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5; and OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7, respectively), symptomatic disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5, respectively), and perioperative stroke/death (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; and OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0, respectively) and a decreased odds of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; and OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99, respectively). Additionally, the rates of perioperative stroke/death were higher for patients who had required urgent surgery compared with elective surgery (2.8% vs 1.0%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of perioperative stroke/death for patients who had required urgent surgery (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid and uninsured patients were more likely to require urgent CEA, in part because of poor preoperative medical optimization. Additionally, urgent operation was independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes. These results highlight the need for improved preoperative follow-up for underinsured populations.

Timing of Revascularization in Ischemic Moyamoya Disease: Association of Early Versus Delayed Surgery with Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Patients with nmoyamoya disease (MMD) who present primarily with ischemic stroke are known to have greater rates of perioperative strokes as compared with those who present with nonstroke symptoms. The optimal timing for revascularization for these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

From 1994 to 2015, 91 patients with MMD presented with signs and symptoms of an acute ischemic stroke with diffusion restriction correlate on magnetic resonance imaging, and these patients were subdivided into those who underwent early revascularization (<90 days from last stroke), versus those who underwent delayed revascularization (≥90 days after last stroke), based on evidence that most neurological recovery after stroke occurs during the first three months. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 surgical cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 27 patients underwent early revascularization, and 64 patients underwent delayed revascularization. Patients who underwent early revascularization had a statistically greater rate of perioperative stroke (P = 0.04) and perioperative mortality (P = 0.03), and overall complication rate (P = 0.049). At last follow-up of 5.2 ± 4.3 years, patients who underwent delayed revascularization had a lower mortality rate (P = 0.01) and a lower overall postoperative stroke incidence (P = 0.002). As a function of time, patients with MMD undergoing delayed revascularization had a statistically higher length of stroke-free survival (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MMD who present with ischemic stroke are more likely to have perioperative strokes, overall perioperative complications, worse long-term mortality rates, and lower rates of stroke-free survival if revascularization surgery occurred within 90 days of last stroke.

Outcomes of Early Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy after Acute Neurologic Events

OBJECTIVE

Carotid revascularization within 14 days of a neurologic event is recommended by society guidelines. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) carries the lowest overall stroke rate for any carotid artery stenting technique; however, outcomes of TCAR within 14 days of a neurologic event have not been directly compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

We compared 30-day outcomes of symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and CEA within 14 days of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) from January 2016 to February 2020 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting and CEA databases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient risk factors. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative ipsilateral stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

A total of 1,281 symptomatic patients underwent TCAR and 13,429 patients underwent CEA within 14 days of a neurologic event. After 1:1 propensity matching, 728 matched pairs were included for analysis. The primary composite outcome of stroke, death, or MI was more frequent in the TCAR group (4.7% vs. 2.6%, p= 0.04). This was driven by a higher rate of post-operative ipsilateral stroke in the TCAR group (3.8% vs. 1.8%, p=0.005). There was no difference between TCAR and CEA in terms of death (0.7% vs. 0.8%, p= 0.8) or MI (0.8% vs. 1%, p= 0.7). Although TCAR procedures were shorter (69 minutes IQR 53-85 vs. 120 minutes IQR 93-150, p<0.001) and post procedure length of stay was similar (2 days, p= 0.3) compared to CEA, TCAR patients were more likely to be discharged to a facility other than home (26% vs. 19%, p<0.01). Performing TCAR within 48 hours of a stroke was an independent predictor of post-operative stoke or TIA (OR 5.4 95% CI 1.8-16). This increased risk of post-operative stroke or TIA was not seen when performing TCAR within 48 hours of a TIA.

CONCLUSION

TCAR within 14 days of a neurologic event results in higher ipsilateral post-operative stroke rates when compared to CEA, especially when performed within 48 hours of a stroke.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies evaluating the association between beta-blocker use and postoperative adverse events of carotid endarterectomy (CEA)

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association of beta-blocker use with postoperative adverse events of CEA based on real-world data.

METHODS

Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched up to Apr. 2021 using a combination of thesaurus and free-text terms to identify the studies about the effect of beta-blockers on outcomes of CEA. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of preoperative beta-blockers on the outcomes of CEA were included. Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. All pooled analyses were based on a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of seven observational studies (six case-control studies and one cohort study) were included. Of the three case-control studies that examine the association of beta-blockers with composite postoperative adverse events, two studies including three datasets totaled 24161 participants were included in the quantitative synthesis and the overall results showed a statistically significant association between beta-blocker use and composite postoperative adverse events of CEA (OR 1.35, 95%CI 1.15- 1.59, p = .0003; I² = 13%). Publication bias was not present in the meta-analysis (Egger's test showed non-significant results: p = .453). Two of the included studies utilized indirect measures of cerebral ischemia: intraoperative EEG, intraoperative hemodynamic indicators; and found a significant association between beta-blockers and intraoperative cerebral ischemia. Another two studies were included for meta-analysis on the association between beta-blockers and 30-day strokes or death of CEA (OR 1.61, 95%CI 0.98-2.65, p = .06; I²=0%). Of all included studies, there is only one cohort study that reported the association of beta-blockers with postoperative MI by chi-squared analysis (OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.86-2.07).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggested that there was an increased risk of postoperative adverse outcomes of CEA among beta-blocker users compared to non-users in the real world.