Quality Assurance for Carotid Stenting in the CREST-2 Registry

Impact of the type of anesthesia on adverse events during transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The use of local or regional anesthesia (LRA) is encouraged during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) since the procedure is performed through a small incision. LRA permits neurologic evaluation during the procedure and may reduce periprocedural cardiac morbidity compared to general anesthesia (GA). There is limited and conflicting information regarding the preferred anesthesia to use during TCAR. We compared periprocedural clinical and technical complications, and intraprocedural performance metrics of TCAR performed under GA versus LRA.

METHODS

Patient, lesion, physician, and procedural information was collected in a worldwide quality assurance program of consecutive TCAR procedures. A composite clinical adverse event rate (death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction) and a composite technical adverse event rate (aborted procedure, conversion to carotid endarterectomy, bleeding, dissection, cranial-nerve injury, device failure) in the periprocedural period were computed. Four intraprocedural performance measures (flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and skin-to-skin time) were recorded. Deidentified data were analyzed independently at the Center for Vascular Research, Univ of Maryland. Poisson regressions were used to assess the impact of anesthesia type on adverse event rates. Linear regressions were used to compare performance measures.

RESULTS

A total of 27,043 TCARs were performed by 1,456 physicians between 2012 and 2021. A majority (83%) of patients received GA, and this proportion increased over time (R2=0.74, p<0.0001). Some physicians (33.4%) used LRA in some of their procedures; only 2.7% used LRA in all of their procedures. Clinical risk-factors were more common in the LRA group (p<0.0001), and anatomic risk-factors in the GA group (p<0.0001); these differences were adjusted for in subsequent analyses. LRA was more likely to be used by vascular surgeons and by physicians with higher prior transfemoral carotid stenting experience (p<0.0001). When comparing GA vs. LRA, clinical adverse events (1.49% [95% CI 1.3,1.8] vs 1.55% [1.2,2.0], p=0.78), technical adverse events (5.6% [5.2,6.2] vs 5.3% [4.5,6.3], p=0.47), and intraprocedural performance measures did not differ by type of anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 2/3rds of physicians performed TCAR exclusively under GA, and the overall proportion of procedures performed under GA increased over time. A larger fraction of patients with severe medical risk-factors received LRA vs. GA, while a larger fraction of patients with anatomic risk-factors received GA. Periprocedural clinical and technical adverse events did not differ by type of anesthesia. Intraprocedural performance metrics that drive procedural cost were similar between groups; potential differences in procedural cost driven by anesthetic choice require further study.

Carotid endarterectomy for symptomic and asymptomic stenosis: Report of 65388 cases (Russian register)

AIM

Analysis of in-hospital and long-term results of carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic stenoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample was formed by completely including all cases of carotid endarterectomy (n = 65,388) performed during the period from May 1, 2015 to November 1, 2023. Depending on the symptomatic/asymptomatic nature of the stenosis, all patients were divided into two groups: group 1 - n = 39,172 (75.2%) - patients with asymptomatic stenosis; Group 2 - n = 26216 (24.8%) - patients with symptomatic stenosis. The postoperative follow-up period was 53.5 ± 31.4 months.

RESULTS

In the hospital postoperative period, the groups were comparable in the incidence of death (group 1: n = 164 (0.41%); group 2: n = 124 (0.47%); p = .3), transient ischemic attack (group 1: n = 116 (0.29%); group 2: n = 88 (0.33%); p = .37), myocardial infarction (group 1: n = 32 (0.08%); group 2: n = 19 (0.07%); p = .68), thrombosis of the internal carotid artery (group 1: n = 8 (0.02%); group 2: n = 2 (0.007%); p = 0, 19), bleeding (group 1: n = 58 (0.14%); group 2: n = 33 (0.12%); p = .45). In group 2, ischemic stroke developed statistically more often (group 1: n = 328 (0.83%); group 2: n = 286 (1.09%); p = .001), which led to a higher value of the combined endpoint (group 1: n = 640 (1.63%); group 2: n = 517 (1.97%); p = .001). In the long-term postoperative period, the groups were comparable in cases of death (group 1: n = 65 (0.16%); group 2: n = 41 (0.15%); p = .76) and death from cardiovascular causes (group 1: n = 59 (0.15%); group 2: n = 33 (0.12%); p = .4). A greater number of ischemic strokes were detected in patients of group 2 (group 1: n = 213 (0.54%); group 2: n = 187 (0.71%); p = .006). In group 1, hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70%) of the internal carotid artery was more often diagnosed (group 1: n = 974 (2.49%); group 2: n = 351 (1.34%); p < .0001) and myocardial infarction (group 1: n = 66 (0.16%); group 2: n = 34 (0.13%); p < .0001). When analyzing stroke-free survival, analysis of Kaplan-Meier curves showed that a statistically larger number of strokes were diagnosed in group 2 (p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Due to the fact that the patients were initially not comparable for a number of indicators, to achieve balance, we applied propensity score matching analysis. Thus, group 1 consisted of 24,381 patients, and group 2 consisted of 17,219 patients. In the hospital postoperative period, statistically significant differences were obtained only in the combined end point, which was greater in group 2 (group 1: n = 465 (1.9%); group 2: n = 382 (2.2%); p = .02). In the long-term follow-up period, after applying propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences were obtained between groups.

Real-World Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are comparable to those of carotid endarterectomy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis, but real-world outcomes are not well-known.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the real-world clinical outcomes of CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective registry study of 156 centers between January 2015 and December 2019. We enrolled consecutive patients with CAS managed by certified specialists from the Japanese Society of Neuroendovascular Therapy. Outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause death at 30 days after CAS. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, all-cause death, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and procedural complications.

RESULTS

We analyzed 9,792 patients (symptomatic, n = 5,351; asymptomatic, n = 4,441). The mean age was 73.5 years, and men were dominant (86.4%). Embolism protection devices were used in 99% of patients. The primary outcome was not significantly different between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups (120 [2.2%] vs 65 [1.5%]; adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.92-1.83). The incidences of symptomatic ICH, any ICH, acute in-stent occlusion, and hyperperfusion syndrome were significantly more prevalent in the symptomatic group (47 [0.9%] vs 8 [0.2%], aOR: 4.41 [95% CI: 1.68-11.6]; 73 [1.4%] vs 12 [0.3%], aOR: 3.56 [95% CI: 1.71-7.39]; 45 [0.8%] vs 19 [0.4%], aOR: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.08-4.40]; and 102 [1.9%] vs 36 [0.8%], aOR: 1.78 [95% CI: 1.17-2.71], respectively). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The complication rate after specialist-involved CAS at 30 days was low in real-world practice.

Long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy vs transfemoral carotid stenting in a Medicare-matched database

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. However, there is discrepancy in data regarding long-term outcomes. We aimed to compare long-term outcomes of CEA vs TFCAS using the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database.

METHODS

We assessed patients undergoing first-time CEA or TFCAS in Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network from January 2003 to December 2018. Patients with prior history of carotid revascularization, nontransfemoral stenting, stenting performed without distal embolic protection, multiple or nonatherosclerotic lesions, or concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality, any stroke, and a combined end point of death or stroke. We additionally performed propensity score matching and stratification based on symptomatic status.

RESULTS

A total of 80,146 carotid revascularizations were performed, of which 72,615 were CEA and 7531 were TFCAS. CEA was associated with significantly lower risk of death (57.8% vs 70.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.52; P < .001), stroke (21.3% vs 26.6%; aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; P < .001) and combined end point of death and stroke (65.3% vs 76.5%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55; P < .001) at 10 years. These findings were reflected in the propensity-matched cohort (combined end point: 34.6% vs 46.8%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62) at 4 years, as well as stratified analyses of combined end point by symptomatic status (asymptomatic: 63.2% vs 74.9%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; P < .001; symptomatic: 69.9% vs 78.3%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59; P < .001) at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of North American real-world data, CEA was associated with greater long-term survival and fewer strokes compared with TFCAS. These findings support the continued use of CEA as the first-line revascularization procedure.

Safety of Tailored Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Elderly Patients: A Single Center Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in symptomatic elderly patients (≥70 years old) may have a high periprocedural stroke rate. This study was performed to examine whether tailored TFCAS for symptomatic elderly patients is as safe as that for symptomatic nonelderly patients.

METHODS

The subjects were 185 patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis. Tailored TFCAS including postoperative management was performed based on preoperative examinations of vascular anatomy, plaque imaging, platelet aggregation activity, and cerebral hemodynamic impairment. The major 30-day perioperative stroke rates were examined.

RESULTS

The patients included 51 (27.6%) <70 (group Y) and 134 (72.4%) ≥70 (group E) years old. Group E included significantly more cases with an elongated aortic arch, tortuous target lesion, and longer plaques (all P < 0.05). Among all cases, 181 (97.8%) procedures were performed as per preoperative planning. Group E had more frequent use of a proximal embolic protection device and a closed-cell or dual-layer micromesh stent (all P < 0.05). Seven patients (3.8%) had major stroke. Rates of major ischemic stroke (2.0% vs. 3.0%, P = 1.00) and intracranial hemorrhage (2.0% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.48) were low and did not differ significantly between groups Y and E.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic elderly patients have several unfavorable factors. However, tailored TFCAS for each patient based on preoperative examinations in symptomatic elderly patients may be as safe as that in symptomatic nonelderly patients.

Adapting to Evolving Technologies and Treatment Guidelines in a Procedural Trial: A Qualitative Review of the CREST-2 Experience

Multiple challenges confront procedural trials, including slow enrollment, lack of equipoise among patients and physicians, and failure to achieve adequate masking. Nonetheless, randomized clinical trials provide the best evidence of efficacy. The evolution of technology, techniques, and standards of care during the conduct of procedural trials challenges external validity. In this study, we review how a multicenter trial of revascularization of asymptomatic carotid arteries for stroke prevention has managed changes in treating carotid stenosis and medical management of atherothrombotic disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02089217.

Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting

BACKGROUND

The multicenter prospective CREST-2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach.

METHODS

Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access-related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity-score matched logistic regression.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access-related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in rates of major access-related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

Treatment of carotid stenosis in asymptomatic, non-octogenarian, standard risk patients with stenting versus endarterectomy trials

OBJECTIVE

Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA.

METHODS

Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97).

CONCLUSIONS

In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA.

Safety and Feasibility of Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stent-Assisted Revascularization within 48 Hours after Symptoms Onset

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed in the hyperacute period.

METHODS

We analyzed a retrospective database of CAS patients from our center. We included patients with symptomatic isolated ipsilateral extracranial carotid stenosis and acute tandem occlusions who underwent CAS. Hyperacute CAS (HCAS) and acute CAS (ACAS) groups were defined as CAS within 48 hours and >48 hours to 14 days from symptoms onset, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and restenosis or occlusion rates.

RESULTS

We included 97 patients, 39 with HCAS and 58 with ACAS. There was no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (HCAS 3.3% vs. ACAS 6.1%; p = 1). There were no differences in the rate of perioperative complications between groups although a trend was observed (HCAS 15.3% vs. ACAS 3.4%; p = .057). The rate of restenosis or occlusion between groups (HCAS 8.1% vs. ACAS 9,1%; log-rank test p = .8) was similar with a median time of follow-up of 13.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Based on this study, CAS may be feasible in the hyperacute period. However, there are potential higher rates of perioperative complications in the hyperacute group, primarily occurring in MT patients with acute tandem occlusion. A larger multicenter study may be needed to further corroborate our findings.

Safety and efficacy of symptomatic carotid artery stenting performed in an emergency setting

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has increasingly emerged as an alternative strategy to carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Optimal timing for CAS after symptoms onset remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS when performed in an emergency setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of CAS patients admitted to our CSC with symptomatic extracranial carotid occlusion or significant stenosis from January 2014-September 2019. Emergency CAS was defined as CAS performed during the same hospitalization from TIA/stroke onset, whereas elective CAS as CAS performed on a subsequent admission. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death related to the procedure at 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications and the rate of restenosis/occlusion at follow-up. Logistic regression and survival analyses were used to compare outcomes and restenosis at follow-up.

RESULTS

We identified 75 emergency and 104 elective CAS patients. Emergency CAS patients had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral carotid occlusion (17% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and use of general anesthesia (19% vs. 4%, p = 0.001) than elective CAS. There were no significant differences between emergency and elective CAS in the primary (5.7% vs. 1%, p = 0.161) and secondary (9% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.232) outcomes. We did not find differences in the rate of restenosis/occlusion (7% vs. 11.6%; log-rank test p = 0.3) at a median of 13 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In our study, emergency CAS in symptomatic patients might have a similar safety and efficacy profile to elective CAS at 3 months and long-term follow-up.

The conundrum of asymptomatic carotid stenosis-determinants of decision and evidence

Management of asymptomatic carotid disease continues to challenge medical practice and present evidence is often conflicting. Stroke is a significant burden in Public Health and 11% to 15% appear as first neurologic event associated with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Randomized trials provided support for Guidelines and Recommendations to intervene on asymptomatic stenosis, but at a known cost of a high number of unnecessary operations. Conflicting evidence from natural history studies and the widespread use of proper medical management including risk factors control, lowering-lipid drugs and strict control of arterial hypertension have reduced the incidence of strokes associated to asymptomatic carotid disease challenging established practice. Need to identify vulnerable lesions prone to develop thromboembolic brain events and also vulnerable patients at a higher risk of stroke is necessary and essential to further improve effectiveness of our interventions. After review of published literature on natural history of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, diagnostic methods to identify plaque vulnerability and present-day results of both endarterectomy and stenting, a strategy for management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis is suggested aiming to reduce unnecessary interventions and effectively contribute to stroke prevention.