Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) in Octogenarians and Older

"TCAR or nothing": the only options for some complex carotid stenosis

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. We present four cases for which we believe transcervical carotid artery revascularization was the only option to treat the lesions. Each case presented with specific technical challenges that were overcome by intraoperative planning that allowed for safe deployment of the Enroute stent (Silk Road Medical) with resolution of each patient's stenosis.

Trans-Distal Radial Artery Carotid Revascularization with Forearm Flow Reversal: An Alternative Option of CAS in the TCAR Era

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative to carotid artery stenting (CAS). TCAR demonstrated its superiority by avoiding femoral artery puncture and establishing proximal protection without crossing the stenotic lesion. In the TCAR era, we focused on the possibility of a trans-distal radial approach (DRA). A balloon-guide catheter was navigated via DRA to establish proximal protection before lesion crossing. The forearm subcutaneous vein was used as the flow-reversal circuit.

METHODS

Six internal carotid artery stenosis patients underwent CAS using "the forearm flow reversal technique." Every procedure was performed under continuous flow reversal from the common carotid artery to the forearm cephalic vein.

RESULTS

Successful revascularization was achieved without ischemic or access-site complications. The distal radial artery was patent at discharge in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-distal radial CAS with forearm flow reversal is a feasible and less invasive technical option.

A single-center experience of 30-day perioperative and one year clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization in 100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) using the ENROUTE system (Silk Road) has been proposed as a safe and effective alternative to both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Two large registries (ROADSTER 1 and ROADSTER 2) have shown that TCAR has acceptable/low rates of perioperative stroke/death. This study will analyze the 30-day perioperative and 1-year clinical outcomes from a single-center.

PATIENT POPULATION AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from SVS/VQI TCAR surveillance project (TSP) of 100 consecutive patients (102 TCAR procedures) done in our institution. These procedures were done for high-risk patients for CEA, which included anatomical (previous CEA, high cervical lesion, neck radiation, stoma, arch type, etc.), physiological (CHF, severe coronary artery disease, COPD on O2 therapy, etc.) and combined anatomical/physiological reasons. These procedures were done by vascular surgeons after receiving the appropriate training. The perioperative stroke, death, and MI rates were analyzed. Kaplan Meyer analysis was used to estimate rate of freedom from stroke/death and the incidence of ≥50% and ≥80% in-stent restenosis at 1 year.

RESULTS

100 consecutive high-risk patients for CEA included: 38% anatomical, 44% physiological, and 18% combined anatomical and physiological reasons. The mean age was 72.5 years (range 52-90 years). Indications for TCAR were 34% for symptomatic lesions (TIA/stroke) and 66% for asymptomatic lesions. Mean ipsilateral treated stenosis was 80.4%. Contralateral ≥50% stenosis/occlusion was present in 31% of patients. Technical success rate was 100%. 92% had pre-stenting PTA and 26% had post-stenting PTA. The mean flow reversal time was 8.5 min (range 3-26 min). The 30-day perioperative stroke rate was 2.9% (1/67, 1.5% for asymptomatic patients), the stroke/death rate was 2.9%, and stroke/death and MI rate was 3.9% (4/102). Other perioperative complications included cranial nerve injury 3/102 (2.9%), carotid artery dissection (2%), and major hematoma (necessitated operation evacuation) (5.9%). Freedom from stroke rates and stroke/death rates at 1 year were: 90% and 89%. Freedom from ≥50% and ≥80% in-stent restenosis rates at 1 year were 82% and 90%, respectively. None of these restenosis were symptomatic except two (2/13). Freedom from reintervention rate at 1 year was 98%.

CONCLUSION

Although the perioperative events were somewhat higher than what has been reported in previous registries, TCAR for patients who are high-risk for CEA has a low perioperative stroke and stroke/death rates with satisfactory outcome at 1 year. Further long-term data is probably needed to verify long-term outcome.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

History of Carotid Artery Reconstruction around the World and in Japan

Since ancient times, physicians have been aware of correlations between the carotid artery and consciousness; however, carotid stenosis was only recently identified as the cause of atherothrombotic ischemic stroke. In 1658, Wepfer described the first suggestion of a link between symptoms of cerebral arterial insufficiency and carotid pathology. In 1951, Fisher reported details of the symptoms and pathological findings and emphasized that cervical atheromatous lesions induced cerebral infarction with various symptoms. The beginning of carotid artery surgery was ligation of the carotid artery for neck or head injury, but surgeons were aware that this operation induced cerebral symptoms due to lack of blood supply. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was first reported by Eastcott et al. in 1954, and in Japan, Kimoto performed a successful CEA in 1962. In 1979, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was performed for patients with fibromuscular dysplasia, and then, carotid artery stenting (CAS) was first performed in 1989 by Mathias. In Japan, Kuwana et al. were the first to perform carotid PTA, in 1981, whereas Yamashita et al. performed the first CAS in 1997. Yoshimura et al. proposed staged carotid stenting to prevent hyperperfusion syndrome. Some issues in carotid reconstruction are still debated today, which include conventional (standard) CEA versus the eversion technique, CEA versus CAS versus medical therapy, and medical economic problems. In the future, we must continue to develop more effective, safer, and less expensive therapeutic methods to prevent carotid stroke, carrying on the efforts of the ancient peoples who pioneered this research.

Transcarotid Revascularization Results in Patients Over 70 Years of Age

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy is associated with fewer procedure-related strokes than transfemoral carotid artery stenting in older populations, based on the results from previous quality randomized controlled studies. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid procedure completed in the setting of cerebral flow reversal to deploy a stent, making it an appealing choice for older patients. This study was completed to elicit any age-related differences in outcomes after undergoing TCAR in patients 70 years of age and older.

METHODS

A retrospective review was completed of a dual institutional database between December 2015 and April 2022 to capture demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative results. The geriatric cohort was defined at a cutoff of 70 years. Univariate statistical testing between groups were completed with Student's T-test or Fisher's exact test at an α of .05 for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

RESULTS

851 procedures were captured for statistical analysis. With age cutoff of 70 years, we generated 567 geriatric (78.4 ± 5.7 years) and 284 young (63.2 ± 5.7 years) patients. The older patients tended to have more baseline illness, as measured by a higher rate Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.4 ± 2.2 vs 6.0 ± 2.1, P < .01). Younger patients tended to be actively smoking (42.3% vs 17.6%, P < .01). Intraoperative variables were grossly similar by age, including blood loss (43.0 ± 45.0 vs 45.7 ± 50.3 mLs, P = .45), reverse flow time (9.0 ± 7.4 vs 9.0 ± 6.7 mins, P = .98), and technical success (98.9% vs 98.6%, P = .76). While we observed an increased rate of stroke in the older patients, this did not reach statistical significance (1.4% vs 2.6%, P = .33). There were no differences between age groups with respect to myocardial infarction (0% vs .5%, P = .55) and death (1.1% vs 1.1%, P > .99) in the 30-day perioperative period.

CONCLUSION

We found that TCAR was not associated with age-related increases in adverse outcomes and can be considered a viable option when treating carotid artery stenosis in patients older than 70 years of age.

Transcarotid Revascularization Timing and Early Postoperative Outcomes in Symptomatic Patients

Objective

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed several days after onset of symptoms has been shown to be optimal in preventing procedure-related stroke. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an alternative hybrid procedure to treat high-risk for CEA patients. In this investigation, our aim is to determine the effect of timing of TCAR in symptomatic patients.

Methods

Procedures were captured prospectively at 2 independent health systems from 2016-2022 within a carotid intervention database. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed to generate cohorts by time to revascularization from onset of symptoms, with the short-interval revascularization (SIR) group defined as having a time to revascularization between 2-5 days; and long-interval revascularization (LIR) group having a time to revascularization of 6-180 days. Univariate analysis was performed comparing the cohorts at an α of .05.

Results

During the study period, 875 TCARs were captured, including 321 procedures performed in symptomatic patients. Of these, 84 had revascularization performed within 6 days after onset of symptoms (SIR) while 237 additional cases were completed 6 or more days after onset of symptoms (LIR). Baseline comorbidities were grossly similar between cohorts. Intraoperatively, SIR patients were less likely to develop bradycardia (4.8% vs 22.2%, P = .01) and experienced a shorter operative time (58 minutes vs 65 minutes, P = .02). Estimated blood loss, flow reversal time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopic time and contrast volume were identical between the groups. Length of stay in SIR patients was longer (1, IQR [1-3] vs 1, IQR [1-2] days, P < .01). Additionally, SIR patients seemed to trend toward a higher rate of reinterventions (3.6% vs .4%, P = .06). The incidence of ipsilateral or contralateral stroke, cranial nerve palsy, myocardial infarction, hematoma, stent thrombosis and death were statistically identical between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Like the previous results established for CEA, symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR demonstrate similar outcomes if the procedure is performed 48 hours after the neurologic event.

Cost-Effectiveness of TransCarotid Artery Revascularization versus Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have demonstrated that TransCarotid Artery Stenting (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR to CEA for carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a five-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs while TCAR cost $19154 for 2. 92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost effective 49% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that while five-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at six-years follow-up.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy and Transfemoral Stenting in Octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) has higher combined stroke and death rates in elderly patients with carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may have similar outcomes to CEA. This study compared outcomes after TCARs relative to those after CEAs and TFCAS, focusing on elderly patients.

METHODS

We included all patients with carotid artery stenosis, and no prior endarterectomy or stenting, who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 (TCAR commercially available) to December 2019. We categorized patients into age decades: 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and 80-90 years. Outcomes included 30-day and one-year composite rates of stroke or death. Cox-proportional hazards models evaluated both outcomes after adjusting for patient demographics, clinical factors, symptomatology, hospital CEA volume, and clustering.

RESULTS

We identified 33,115 patients who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR for carotid artery stenosis (35% in their 60s, 44% in their 70s, and 21% in their 80s), where half (50%) were symptomatic. The majority of patients had CEAs (80%), followed by TFCAS (11%) and then TCARs (9.1%). The overall rate of 30-day stroke/death was 1.5% and of one-year stroke/death was 4.4%. Octogenarians had the highest 30-day and one-year stroke/death rates relative to their peers (2.3% and 6.3%, respectively). Among all patients, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for 30-day stroke/death (HR 1.10 [95%-CI 0.75-1.62]) and slightly higher for one-year stroke/death (HR 1.34 [1.02-1.76]). Among octogenarians, however, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for both 30-day stroke/death (HR 1.12 [0.59-2.13]) and one-year stroke/death (HR 1.28 [0.85-1.94]). TFCAS relative to CEAs had higher hazards of both 30-day stroke/death (HR 1.78 [1.10-2.89]) and one-year stroke/death (HR 1.85 [1.35-2.54]) in octogenarians.

CONCLUSIONS

TCARs had similar outcomes relative to CEAs among octogenarians with respect to 30-day and one-year rates of stroke/death. TCAR may serve as a promising less-invasive treatment for carotid disease in older patients who are deemed high anatomic, surgical, or clinical risk for CEAs.

Intraoperative electroencephalographic changes during transcarotid artery revascularization are more frequent than previously reported

OBJECTIVE

Up to 14% of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy with continuous electroencephalographic (EEG) neuromonitoring will require shunt placement because of EEG changes. However, the initial studies of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) found only one patient with temporary EEG changes. We report our experience with intraoperative EEG monitoring during TCAR.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent TCAR at two urban hospitals within an integrated healthcare network from May 2017 to January 2020. The data included demographic information, patient comorbidities, symptom status, previous carotid interventions, anatomic details, contralateral disease, intraoperative vital signs and EEG changes, and postoperative major adverse events (transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], and death) both initially and at 30 days postoperatively. The Fisher exact test was used for categorical data and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous data.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients underwent TCAR during the study period, of whom 71 (79.8%) received intraoperative EEG neuromonitoring. Of the 89 patients, 70.8% were men and 29.2% were women. The median age was 75 years (IQR, 68-82.5 years). Symptomatic patients accounted for 41.6% of the cohort. Of the 71 patients who received continuous neuromonitoring, 9 experienced EEG changes during TCAR (12.7%). The changes resolved in seven patients with pressure augmentation in three and switching to a low flow toggle in three. One patient who had sustained EEG changes had a new postoperative neurologic deficit. The median carotid stenosis percentage on preoperative computed tomography angiography was lower for patients with EEG changes than for those without (67% vs 80%; P = .01). No correlation was found between symptom status or 30-day stroke in patients with and without EEG changes (P = .49 and P = .24, respectively). Overall, three postoperative strokes, two postoperative deaths, and one MI occurred, for a composite 30-day stroke, death, and MI rate of 6.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in continuous EEG monitoring were more frequent in our study than previously reported. Less severe carotid stenosis might be associated with a greater incidence of EEG changes. Limited data are available on the prognostic ability of EEG to detect clinically relevant changes during TCAR, and further studies are warranted.

Safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization in a community hospital

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes and complications of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) outside of academic vascular surgery programs.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective study was performed. Data from all cases of TCAR performed at a community hospital from May 2017 to February 2020 were collected and analyzed. Seven vascular surgeons performed the procedures after receiving appropriate training. The primary outcomes included technical success, the need for further revascularization, and major adverse events (death, cerebrovascular accident [CVA], myocardial infarction). The secondary outcomes included other adverse events and complications. The outcomes were assessed in the perioperative and 30-day follow-up periods.

RESULTS

During a 33-month period, TCAR was completed in 147 of 149 attempted cases (98.7%). No patients required further revascularization. The perioperative and 30-day major adverse event rates were 0.7% (n = 1) and 3.4% (n = 5), respectively. One case of a minor perioperative CVA occurred. At 30 days, one patient had died. The 30-day complications included CVA (n = 1) and myocardial infarction (n = 3). The combined perioperative and 30-day minor complication rates were 2.7% and 1.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is a safe and effective method of carotid artery revascularization in a community hospital setting. This technology might help improve revascularization in patients without access to larger academic centers.

The management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: Is there a benefit to operate elderly patients?

BACKGROUND

We present a retrospective study of a series of 40 patients over the age of 75 operated for an asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The results were evaluated during an average of 3 years of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study is retrospective and monocentric. The series includes 40 patients aged over 75 years and with an average age of 78.5 years (range 75-82). Patients underwent surgery for an asymptomatic carotid stenosis of more than 80%. The technique in all case was a carotid endarterectomy.

RESULTS

There have been no postoperative deaths or neurological adverse events. During an average follow-up of 3 years, there was one death secondary to colon cancer. However, 5 patients were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Carotid surgery in elderly patients may have a benefit. However, our study has shortcomings. It is retrospective and the patient cohort is reduced. A randomized, prospective study, comparing surgery or angioplasty with the best medical treatment, is necessary to choose the most effective and safest treatment to offer to an elderly patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.