Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting

Outcomes of redo vs primary carotid endarterectomy in the transcarotid artery revascularization era

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes following redo carotid endarterectomy (rCEA) have been shown to be worse than those after primary CEA (pCEA). Additional research has shown that outcomes are better with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for restenosis after CEA compared with rCEA and transfemoral carotid artery stenting; however, not all patients are eligible for TCAR or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Given the increasing utilization of endovascular techniques, this study aims to evaluate changes in outcomes of rCEA vs pCEA before and after the approval of TCAR by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2015.

METHODS

All patients between 2003 and 2023 who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included and categorized as pCEA or rCEA. Cochrane-Armitage trend testing was used to examine trends in proportion of rCEA compared with pCEA, and the Mann-Kendall trend test was used for perioperative outcomes following rCEA overtime. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital stroke/death, stroke, death, and stroke/death/myocardial infarction following rCEA vs pCEA after stratifying patients into two cohorts: 2003 to 2015 and 2016 to 2023 (before and after introduction of TCAR). Analysis was also performed based on preoperative symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 198,150 patients undergoing CEA, 98.4% were pCEA and 1.6% were rCEA. During the study period, the proportion of rCEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative decreased from 2.3% to 1.0% as endovascular methods became more available (P < .001). Trend testing of individual outcomes showed an increase in the stroke/death rate following rCEA over time (P = .019) despite an improvement in the death rate (P = .009). From 2003 to 2015, patients undergoing rCEA had higher odds of stroke/death compared with pCEA (2.4% vs 1.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.73; P = .007). Higher stroke/death rates after rCEA persisted only in asymptomatic patients (2.3% vs 1.1%; aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.19-3.25; P = .006); however, there was no difference in symptomatic patients (3.0% vs 2.0%; aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.51;3.01; P = .50). In the late period, rCEA had higher odds of stroke/death compared with pCEA (3.1% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.85-3.18; P < .001), and the association was seen in asymptomatic patients (1.9% vs 1.0%; aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.29-2.82; P < .001) and symptomatic patients (6.3% vs 2.0%; aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.17-4.64; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of rCEAs done yearly in the United States has been decreasing as endovascular options became available. As the rate of rCEA has decreased, outcomes have been worsening, with an increasing stroke/death rate seen over time, driven primarily by worse outcomes in symptomatic patients. Stroke/death rates for asymptomatic patients fall within Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, and so the choice between rCEA, CAS, or medical management should be made after shared decision-making between a patient and their surgeon. However, with an in-hospital stroke death rate of over 6% symptomatic patients should be selected very carefully, as some are less likely to benefit from rCEA.

Stroke risk management in carotid atherosclerotic disease: a clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Stroke and the ESC Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded the knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (i) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (ii) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailors personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology, and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promoting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management including statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies, and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multi-morbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for inter-disciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making.

What the National Coverage Determination for Carotid Artery Stenting Means for the Treatment of Patients with Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

In October 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services agreed to revisit its national coverage determination (NCD) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). We provide an overview of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion, and discuss the likely ramifications on patient care and outcomes in the future.

METHODS

We completed a narrative review of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion.

RESULTS

Arguments presented in favor of the CAS NCD expansion predominantly focused on the outcomes of 4 large multicenter randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2021 that reported similar outcomes for composite end points between patients undergoing CAS and carotid endarterectomy. The main arguments against expanding the CAS NCD centered around higher patient stroke risks with CAS, increasing health-care costs, premature decision-making, and the lack of a validated shared decision-making tool that can be readily applied to carotid revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

By expanding the indications for CAS to asymptomatic and standard-risk patients, they will be exposed to excess and unnecessary risks without any evident benefits, potentially leading to widespread adoption of a procedure driven by financial incentives rather than genuine patient benefits.

Lipidomic Expression Analysis in Carotid Atherosclerotic Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lipids are key molecules for atherosclerosis, with tight regulation mechanisms, making them potential biomarkers for disease-specific diagnostics and therapeutics. Therefore, we aim to perform a systematic literature review on lipidomic analysis in serum/plasma and plaque samples of patients with carotid atherosclerosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on the lipidomic profile in serum/plasma and carotid artery plaques from patients with significant carotid disease by degree of stenosis in preoperative imaging and clinical presentation (symptomatic, asymptomatic, and radiation-induced carotid disease). Main outcome was the differential lipidomic expression of serum/plasma, and plaque lipids of patients with carotid artery atherosclerosis. Studies were screened using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to determine the quality of the design and content of the selected manuscripts.

RESULTS

We included fourteen studies, from which ten included plaque analysis. The lipidomic analysis revealed that sterols and hydroxycholesterols were consistently found in both blood and plaque across studies. Triacylglycerols were present in both sample types, with specific forms linked to radiation-induced carotid artery disease. Symptomatic patients exhibited esterified hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acids and arachidonic acid precursors exclusively in plaque with an inflammatory profile of the disease. In contrast, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid were associated with plaque stability. Diabetics showed nonesterified fatty acids and specific phospholipids only in plaque, indicating localized lipid changes. Other pathways relevant to disease progression include the sphingolipids and ceramide pathways with inflammatory profiling.

CONCLUSION

Lipidomic provides an innovative approach to stratify carotid atherosclerotic disease. Integrating lipidomic data with other -omics approaches may further enhance our understanding of disease mechanisms and aid in the development of precision medicine approaches, specifically in those patients at risk for early carotid atherosclerotic disease.

Impact of embolic protection methods versus access types on outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is commonly performed through transfemoral or transcarotid access. Neurologic protection methods utilized during the procedure include distal embolic protection (DEP) and flow reversal devices. Multiple studies demonstrated more favorable outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal (TCAR) in comparison to transfemoral carotid artery stenting with DEP (TFCAS-DEP). However, not many studies compared TCAR with transcarotid artery stenting with DEP (TCAS-DEP) or TFCAS with flow arrest by proximal balloon occlusion (TFCAS-PBO). We aimed to compare the effect of access types and embolic protection methods on the outcomes of CAS.

METHODS

All patients undergoing CAS between September 2016 and August 2024 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to compare outcomes of TFCAS-DEP, TFCAS-PBO, and TCAS-DEP with TCAR. Cohorts were weighted with regards to 27 baseline variables.

RESULTS

A total of 99,030 patients were included in our study: TCAR, 66,655 (67.3%); TFCAS-DEP, 30,723 (31.0%); TCAS-DEP, 912 (0.9%); and TFCAS-PBO, 740 (0.8%). Compared with TCAR, TFCAS-DEP had more than double the odds of in-hospital and 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-3.19; P < .001; OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.08-2.74; P < .001), and 62% higher odds of stroke/death (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.45-1.81; P < .001). The TCAS-DEP group had double the risk of 30-day mortality (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.13-3.53; P = .016) and 58% increased risk of stroke (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .031). Finally, higher odds of in-hospital and 30-day mortality (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.22-5.00; P = .012; and OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03-3.30; P = .038, respectively) were observed in the TFCAS-PBO group when compared with TCAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, comprehensive multi-institutional study comparing carotid access types and embolic protection methods, TCAR seems to be the safest endovascular carotid revascularization procedure owing to its lower risk of postoperative stroke or death. This study confirms that avoidance of the aortic arch and flow reversal neuroprotection are both important in reducing complications following CAS.

2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

AIM

The "2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke" replaces the 2014 "Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke." This updated guideline is intended to be a resource for clinicians to use to guide various prevention strategies for individuals with no history of stroke.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for literature published since the 2014 guideline; derived from research involving human participants published in English; and indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and other selected and relevant databases was conducted between May and November 2023. Other documents on related subject matter previously published by the American Heart Association were also reviewed.

STRUCTURE

Ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes lead to significant disability but, most important, are preventable. The 2024 primary prevention of stroke guideline provides recommendations based on current evidence for strategies to prevent stroke throughout the life span. These recommendations align with the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 for optimizing cardiovascular and brain health, in addition to preventing incident stroke. We also have added sex-specific recommendations for screening and prevention of stroke, which are new compared with the 2014 guideline. Many recommendations for similar risk factor prevention were updated, new topics were reviewed, and recommendations were created when supported by sufficient-quality published data.

Transcarotid artery revascularization outperforms transfemoral carotid artery stenting regardless of aortic arch type or degree of atherosclerosis

OBJECTIVE

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services now approve reimbursement for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of standard-risk patients with carotid artery occlusive disease. TFCAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy is known to be challenging with worse outcomes. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) could be a preferable alternative in these patients owing to avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal during stent deployment. We aim to compare the outcomes of TCAR vs TFCAS across all aortic arch types and degrees of arch atherosclerosis.

METHODS

All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting between September 2016 and October 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified into four groups: Group A (mild atherosclerosis and type I/II arch), Group B (mild atherosclerosis and type III arch), Group C (moderate/severe atherosclerosis and type I/II arch), and Group D (moderate/severe atherosclerosis and type III arch). The primary outcome was in-hospital composite stroke or death. Analysis of variance and χ2 tests analyzed differences for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders, and backward stepwise selection was implemented to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final models. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, log rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models analyzed hazard ratios for 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 20,114 patients were included (Group A: 12,980 [64.53%]; Group B: 1175 [5.84%]; Group C: 5124 [25.47%]; and Group D: 835 [4.15%]). TCAR was more commonly performed across the four groups (72.21%, 67.06%, 74.94%, and 69.22%; P < .001). Compared with patients with mild arch atherosclerosis, patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis in Group C and Group D were more likely to be female, hypertensive, smokers, and have chronic kidney disease. Patients with type III arch in Group B and Group D were more likely to present with stroke preoperatively. On multivariable analysis, TCAR had less than one-half the risk of stroke/death and 1-year mortality compared with TFCAS in the patients with the mildest atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (Group A) (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.61; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P < .001). Group B patients with similar atherosclerosis but more complex arch anatomy had 70% lower odds of stroke/death with TCAR compared with TFCAS (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.75; P = .01). Similar findings were also evident in patients with more severe atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97; P = .037). There was no significant difference in odds of stroke/death in patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis and complex arch (Group D) (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.39-2.16; P = .834).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is safer than TFCAS in patients with simple and advanced arch anatomy. This could be related to the efficiency of flow reversal vs distal embolic protection. The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision will likely increase stroke and death outcomes of carotid stenting nationally if multidisciplinary approach and appropriate patient selection are not implemented.

Comparing Post-operative Pain and Other Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is growing in popularity. Although major clinical end-points such as stroke rate and mortality are well-known, patient reported outcomes such as pain, and length of stay are among the purported benefits that are as yet untested. We sought to determine if there are differences in pain and other clinical outcomes when comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and TCAR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 326 patients undergoing TCAR (n = 50) or CEA (n = 276) from 2019-2023. Primary outcomes of interest were maximum pain numeric rating scales (NRS) reported in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative days (POD) zero and 1, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMMEs) received intraoperatively through POD1. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day emergency department (ED) returns/readmissions.

RESULTS

Fifty TCAR and 150 CEA patients were included in the propensity score matched cohorts. TCAR patients reported lower pain-NRS in PACU (P < .001) and on POD0 (P = .002), but similar pain scores on POD1 (P = .112). Postoperatively, TCAR patients were less likely to receive opioids (52% vs 75.3%, P = .003) and received less OMME from PACU through POD1 (12.8 ± 16.2 vs 23.2 ± 27.2, P = .001). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, prior chronic opioid use, and prior carotid surgery, TCAR patients were approximately 70% less likely to receive post-operative opioids. No significant differences in LOS, 30-day ED returns/readmissions, or complications were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CEA, patients undergoing TCAR reported lower pain scores and consumed fewer narcotics overall. However, the absolute difference was modest, and pain scores were low in both cohorts. Differences in pain and post-operative narcotic use may be of less importance when deciding between TCAR and CEA. Total non-opioid protocols may be feasible in both approaches.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision.

METHODS

The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS.

RESULTS

The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

Non-White Patients Have a Higher Risk of Stroke Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery revascularization has traditionally been performed by either a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent. Large data analysis has suggested there are differences in perioperative outcomes with regards to race, with non-White patients (NWP) having worse outcomes of stroke, restenosis and return to the operating room (RTOR). The introduction of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has started to shift the paradigm of carotid disease treatment. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing the difference in postoperative outcomes after TCAR between racial groups.

METHODS

All patients from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent TCAR were included in our analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on race: individuals who identified as White and a second group that comprised all other races. Demographic and clinical variables were compared using Student's t-Test and chi-square test of independence. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on perioperative outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, restenosis, RTOR, and transient ischemic attack (TIA).

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 22,609 patients: 20,424 (90.3%) White patients and 2185 (9.7%) NWP. After adjusting for sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of prior stroke or TIA, symptomatic status, and high-risk criteria at time of TCAR, there was a significant difference in postoperative stroke, with 63% increased risk in NWP (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.40, P = 0.014). However, we found no significant difference in the odds of MI, death, postoperative TIA, restenosis, or RTOR when comparing NWP to White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that NWP have increased risk of stroke but similar outcomes of death, MI, RTOR and restenosis following TCAR. Future studies are needed to elucidate and address the underlying causes of racial disparity in carotid revascularization.

Clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy from a large single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been practiced as an alternative for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting, specifically in high-risk patients. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients if done within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR surveillance project. A few registry studies (primarily from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) compared the early and up to 1-year outcomes of TCAR vs CEA or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. There is no large single-center study that reported late clinical outcomes. The present study compares intermediate clinical outcomes of TCAR vs CEA.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed collected data from TCAR surveillance project patients enrolled in our institution and compare it with CEA patients done by the same providers at the same time period. The primary outcome was combined perioperative stroke/death and late stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included combined stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and bleeding. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from stroke, stroke/death, and ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 646 procedures (637 patients) (404 CEA, 242 TCAR). There was no significant difference in the indications for carotid intervention. However, TCAR patients had more high-risk criteria, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. There was no significant differences between CEA vs TCAR in 30-day perioperative stroke (1% vs 2%), stroke/death rate (1% vs 3%; P = .0849), or major hematomas (2% vs 2%). The rate of CNI was significantly different (5% for CEA vs 1% for TCAR; P = .0138). At late follow-up (2 years), the rate of stroke was 1% vs 4% (P = .0273), stroke/death 8% vs 15% (P = .008), ≥80 % restenosis 0.5% vs 3% (P = .0139) for CEA patients vs TCAR patients, respectively. After matching 242 CEAs and 242 TCARs, the perioperative stroke rate was 1% for CEA vs 2% for TCAR (P = .5037), the stroke/death rate was 2% vs 3% (P = .2423), and the CNI rate was 3% vs 1% (P = .127). At late follow-up, rates of stroke were 1% for CEA vs 4% for TCAR (P = .0615) and stroke/death were 8% vs 15% (P = .0345). The rate of ≥80% restenosis was 0.9% for CEA vs 3% for TCAR (P = .099). The rates of freedom from stroke at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for CEA vs TCAR were 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99% vs 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively (P = .0806); stroke/death were 94%, 90%, 87%, and 86% vs 93%, 87%, 76%, and 75%, respectively (P = .0529); and ≥80% restenosis were 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98% vs 97%, 95%, 93%, and 93%, respectively (P = .1132).

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar perioperative clinical outcomes. However, CEA was superior to TCAR for the rates of late stroke/death and had a somewhat lower rate of ≥80% restenosis at 2 years, but this difference was not statistically significant.

An analysis of the recommendations of the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis currently account for the majority of carotid interventions performed in the United States; therefore, the following article will review the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines perspective in treating patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

A systemic review and meta-analysis were conducted by the evidence practice center of the Mayo Clinic using a specified population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework.

RESULTS

Based on published randomized trials and related supporting evidence, the following were noted: the SVS recommends that patients with asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis can be considered for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the reduction of long-term risk of stroke, provided the patient has a life expectancy of 3 to 5 years with risk of perioperative stroke and death not exceeding 3%. The type of carotid intervention should be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention. Data from CREST, ACT, and the Vascular Quality Initiative suggest that certain properly selected asymptomatic patients can be treated with carotid stenting with equivalent outcome to CEA in the hands of experienced interventionalists. The institutions and operator performing carotid stenting must exhibit expertise sufficient to meet the established American Heart Association guidelines for treatment of patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ie, combined stroke/death rate of less than 3%).

CONCLUSIONS

SVS recommends that low surgical risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of ≥70% to be treated with CEA with best medical therapy over medical therapy alone for the long-term prevention of stroke/death (GRADE 1B). Carotid intervention should also be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention (ie, CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS).

Surveillance and risk factors for early restenosis following transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Restenosis after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a known complication. When identified in the early postoperative period, it may be related to technique. We evaluated our TCAR experience to identify potentially modifiable factors impacting restenosis.

METHODS

This is a single-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing TCAR from November 2017 to July 2022. Restenosis was defined as >50% stenosis on duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination or computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis's test. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of 61 interventions, 11 (18%) developed restenosis within the median follow-up of 345 days (interquartile range, 103-623 days). Among these patients, 82% (9/11) had >50% stenosis, and 18% (2/11) had >80% stenosis. Both patients with high-grade restenosis were symptomatic and underwent revascularization. Diagnosis of post-TCAR restenosis was via DUS examination in 45% (5/11), CTA in 18% (2/11), or both CTA/DUS examination in 36% (4/11). Restenosis occurred within 1 month in 54% (6/11) and 6 months in 72% (8/11) of patients. However, three of the six patients with restenosis within 1 month had discordant findings on CTA vs DUS imaging. Patient comorbidities, degree of preoperative stenosis, medical management, balloon size, stent size, lesion characteristics, and predilatation angioplasty did not differ. Patients with restenosis were younger (P = .02), had prior ipsilateral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 6.5; P = .02), had history of neck radiation (OR, 18.3; P = .01), and lower rate of postdilatation angioplasty (OR, 0.11; P = .04), without an increased risk of neurological events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although post-TCAR restenosis occurred in 18% of patients, only 3% of patients had critical restenosis and required reintervention. Patient factors associated with restenosis were younger age, prior endarterectomy, and history of neck radiation. Although early restenosis may be mitigated by improved technique, the only technical factor associated with restenosis was less use of postdilatation angioplasty. Balancing neurological risk, this factor may have increased application in appropriate patients. Diagnosis of restenosis was inconsistent between imaging modalities; current surveillance paradigms and diagnostic thresholds may warrant reconsideration.

"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.

Determinants of Mortality and Mid-Term Outcomes After Transcarotid Artery Revascularization and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVES

The potential benefit of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) over transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) has been studied in the perioperative period with lower rates of stroke and death; however, data on mid-term outcomes are limited. We aimed to evaluate 3-year outcomes after TCAR and tfCAS and determine the primary predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality following TCAR.

METHODS

Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients undergoing TCAR or tfCAS from January 2016 to December 2022 were analyzed. 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbor method was used to adjust baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox Proportional Hazard Regression were used to evaluate long-term outcomes. Iterative stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis and Cox Proportional Hazard Regression were used to identify predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality, respectively, based upon preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 70 237 patients were included in analysis (TCAR=58.7%, tfCAS=41.3%). Transcarotid artery revascularization patients were older and had higher rates of comorbid conditions and high-risk medical and anatomic features than tfCAS patients. Propensity score matching yielded 22 322 pairs with no major differences between groups except that TCAR patients were older (71.6 years vs 70.8 years). At 3 years, TCAR was associated with a 24% reduction in hazard of death compared with tfCAS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.71-0.82, p<0.001), for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. This survival advantage was established in the first 6 months (HR=0.59, 95% CI=0.53-0.62, p<0.001), with no difference in mortality risk from 6 months to 36 months (HR=0.95, 95% CI=0.86-1.05, p=0.31). Transcarotid artery revascularization was also associated with decreased hazard for 3-year stroke (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-0.99, p=0.04) and stroke or death (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.76-0.87, p<0.001) compared with tfCAS. The top predictors for 30-day and 1-year mortality were postoperative complications. The primary independent predictor was the occurrence of postoperative stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcarotid artery revascularization had a sustained mid-term survival advantage associated over tfCAS, with the benefit being established primarily within the first 6 months. Notably, our findings highlight the importance of postoperative stroke as the primary independent predictor for 30-day and 1-year mortal.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The ongoing debate over the superiority of TCAR compared to tfCAS and CEA has been limited by a lack of comparative studies examining the impact of pre-operative symptoms on outcomes. Furthermore, data are scarce on mid-term outcomes for TCAR beyond the perioperative period. As a result, it remains uncertain whether the initial benefits of stroke and death reduction observed with TCAR over tfCAS persist beyond one year. Our study addresses these gaps in the literature, offering evidence to enable clinicians to assess the efficacy of TCAR for up to three years. Additionally, our study seeks to identify risk factors for postoperative mortality following TCAR, facilitating optimal patient stratification.

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.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS

BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear.

METHODS

Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response.

RESULTS

Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization.

METHODS

Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Three Years Survival of Trans Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare-Linked Database

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA.

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and 1-year outcomes compared with CEA. We aimed to compare the 1-year and 3-year outcomes of TCAR versus CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked [Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION)] database.

METHODS

The VISION database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was 1-year and 3-year survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce 2 well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression was used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in 1-year death [hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30; P =0.065]. At 3-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P =0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased 3-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.63; P =0.008). Exploratory analyses of postoperative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at 1 year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of 3-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard-risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.

What Is the Role of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization?

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold-standard method of carotid revascularization in symptomatic patients with ≥50% and in asymptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) has been associated with higher perioperative stroke rates compared to CEA in several studies. On the other hand, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in patients who are considered high risk for surgery. There is increasing data that supports TCAR as a safe and efficient technique with outcomes similar to those of CEA, but additional level-one studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term outcomes of TCAR in high- and standard-risk patients.

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.

Propensity-score-matched analysis of dual antiplatelet treatment and alternative antiplatelet regimens after transcarotid revascularizations

OBJECTIVE

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continues to be the preferred medication regimen after the placement of a carotid stent using the transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) technique despite a dearth of quality data. Therefore, this investigation was performed to define the risks associated with antiplatelet choice.

METHODS

We queried all patients who underwent TCAR captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to June 2022, to determine the association between antiplatelet choice and outcomes. Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those receiving alternative regimens consisting of single antiplatelet, anticoagulation, or a combination of the two. A 1:1 propensity-score match was performed with respect to baseline comorbidities, functional status, anatomic/physiologic risk, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

During the study period, 29,802 procedures were included in our study population, with 24,651 (82.7%) receiving DAPT and 5151 (17.3%) receiving an alternative antiplatelet regimen. A propensity-score match with respect to 29 variables generated 4876 unique pairs. Compared with patients on DAPT, in-hospital ipsilateral stroke was significantly higher in patients receiving alternative antiplatelet regimens (1.7% vs 1.1%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.54 [1.10-2.16], P = .01), whereas no statistically significant difference was noted with respect to mortality (0.6% vs 0.5%, 1.35 [0.72-2.54], P = .35). A composite of stroke/death was also more likely in patients receiving an alternative regimen (2.4% vs 1.7%, 1.47 [1.12-1.93], P = .01). Immediate stent thrombosis (2.75 [1.16-6.51]) and a nonsignificant trend toward increased return to the operating room were more common in the alternative patients. Conversely, the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was lower in the alternative regimen group (0.4% vs 0.7%, 0.53 [0.31-0.90], P = .02). At 1 year after the procedure, we observed an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.34 [1.11-1.63], P < .01) but not stroke (0.52 [0.27-0.99], P = .06) in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

This propensity-score-matched analysis demonstrates an increased risk of in-hospital stroke and 1-year mortality after TCAR in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen instead of DAPT. Further studies are needed to elucidate the drivers of DAPT failure in patients undergoing TCAR to improve outcomes for carotid stenting 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.

Physiologic risk factors increase risk of myocardial infarction with transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials

OBJECTIVE

Patients can be considered at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) because of either anatomic or physiologic factors and will often undergo transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Patients with physiologic criteria will be considered to have a higher overall surgical risk because of more significant comorbidities. Our aim was to study the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and combined end points for patients who had undergone TCAR stratified by the risk factors (anatomic vs physiologic).

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER (pivotal; safety and efficacy study for reverse flow used during carotid artery stenting procedure), ROADSTER 2 (Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket trial; postapproval study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery disease), and ROADSTER extended access TCAR trials was performed. All 851 patients were considered to be at high risk for CEA and were included and stratified using high-risk anatomic criteria (ie, contralateral occlusion, tandem stenosis, high cervical artery stenosis, restenosis after previous endarterectomy, bilateral carotid stenting, hostile neck anatomy with previous neck irradiation, neck dissection, cervical spine immobility) or high-risk physiologic criteria (ie, age >75 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, history of angina, congestive heart failure New York Heart Association class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent MI, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent contralateral cranial nerve injury, chronic renal insufficiency). For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients were required to have had ≥80% carotid stenosis and symptomatic patients to have had ≥50% stenosis. The primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and MI at 30 days. The data were statistically analyzed using the χ² test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 851 high surgical risk patients were categorized into two groups: those with anatomic-only risk factors (n = 372) or at least one physiologic risk factor present (n = 479). Of the 851 patients, 74.5% of those in the anatomic subset were asymptomatic, and 76.6% in the physiologic subset were asymptomatic. General anesthesia was used similarly in both groups (67.7% anatomic vs 68.1% physiologic). MI had occurred in eight patients in the physiologic group (1.7%), all of whom had been asymptomatic and in none of the anatomic patients (P = .01). The combined stroke, death, and MI rate was 2.1% in the anatomic cohort and 4.2% in the physiologic cohort (P = .10). Stratification of each group into asymptomatic and symptomatic patients did not yield any further differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who had undergone TCAR in the present prospective, neurologically adjudicated trial because of high-risk physiologic factors had had a higher rate of MI compared with the patients who had qualified for TCAR using anatomic criteria only. These patients had experienced comparable rates of combined stroke, death, and MI rates. The anatomic patients represented a healthier and younger subset of patients, with notably low overall event rates.

Thirty-Day Perioperative Clinical Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been proposed as a alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients. Recently Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR to include standard surgical risk patients within the Society of Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Few single centers compared the clinical outcome of TCAR with CEA. This study compares 30-day perioperative clinical outcomes between TCAR and CEA.

STUDY DESIGN

This is retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the TCAR Surveillance Project of TCAR patients enrolled in our institution and compared with CEAs done in the same time/with the same providers. The primary outcome was stroke and/or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death, MI, cranial nerve injury, bleeding, and others. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 501 patients (347 CEA, 154 TCAR). There were no significant differences in symptomatic status (43% for CEA vs 38% for TCAR, p = 0.303). TCAR had more patients with hypertension (p = 0.04), coronary artery disease (p = 0.028), and congestive heart failure (p = 0.039). The 30-day perioperative complication rates for CEA vs TCAR were as follows: stroke 1% vs 3% (p = 0.142), stroke/death 1% vs 3% (p = 0.185), MI 0.6% vs 0.7% (p = 1), death 0.6% vs 0% (p = 1), stroke/death/MI 2% vs 4% (p = 0.233), cranial nerve injury 4% vs 2% (p = 0.412), and major hematoma (requiring reintervention) 2% vs 3% (p = 1). After matching 154 CEA patients and 154 TCAR, 30-day perioperative complication rates were as follows: stroke 2% vs 3% (p = 0.723), stroke/death 3% vs 3% (p = 1), death 1.3% vs 0% (p = 0.498), MI 0.7% vs 0.7% (p = 1), and stroke/death/MI 3% vs 4% (p = 0.759).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that using propensity match analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar 30-day perioperative outcomes. Further long-term data are needed.

Impact of Flow Reversal Duration on Neurological Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUNDS

Flow reversal is a key component of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). However, the impact of flow reversal duration on neurological outcomes and the duration of flow reversal which optimizes TCAR's outcomes is not known. We evaluated the association of flow reversal time with the intraoperative and postoperative neurological outcomes of TCAR.

METHODS

We studied all patients undergoing TCAR from September 2016 to October 2021. The exposure of interest was the duration of flow reversal. Multivariable logistic and fractional polynomial models were used to study the impact of flow reversal duration on in-hospital stroke, intraoperative neurological change/intolerance and stroke/death following TCAR and to identify the flow reversal time above which significant perioperative neurological events occur.

RESULTS

The study included 19,462 patients with mean age of 73.4 years who were mostly Caucasian (91%) and male (63%). The mean flow reversal time was 10.7 minutes, and the overall stroke rate was 1.4%. The odds of intraoperative neurological change increased by 3.6% per minute increase in flow reversal time (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95%, 1.01-1.06; P < 0.002). Flow reversal duration >10 minutes was associated with 78% increased odds of neurological changes compared to flow reversal duration <10 minutes. There was no significant association between flow reversal duration and stroke, and stroke/death in the first 5 minutes after initiation of flow reversal. The odds of stroke increased by 2.7% per minute increase in flow reversal time >5 minutes (OR, 1.03; 95%, 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001), with flow reversal duration >10 minutes associated with 38% increased odds of stroke compared to flow reversal duration ≤10 minutes (OR, 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-1.73, P = 0.006). The odds of stroke/death increased by 2.5% per minute increase in flow reversal time >5 minutes (OR, 1.03; 95%, 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001). Flow reversal duration >10 minutes was associated with 25% increased odds of stroke/death compared to flow reversal duration <10 minutes (OR, 1.25, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53, P = 0.038). Symptomatic status did not modify outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that outcomes following TCAR are optimal if the duration of flow reversal is minimized. A clinical cutoff time of 10 minutes is suggested by this study and recommended as a guide. Further studies targeted at the flow reversal component of TCAR are needed to solidify the evidence regarding the clinical effects of temporarily induced retrograde cerebral blood flow during TCAR.

TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Can Be Safely Performed in Patients Undergoing Dialysis

BACKGROUND

TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has been effectively performed to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis (CS). Prior studies established that TCAR can be safely performed in high-risk patients such as octogenarians, patients with prior carotid endarterectomy (CEA), contralateral occlusion, and heavily calcified lesions. Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of exhibiting cardiovascular complications. This study aims to investigate how dialysis may affect TCAR outcomes.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) dataset was queried for patients undergoing TCAR from November 2016 to November 2021. Patients were divided into dialysis and nondialysis groups. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, prolonged length of stay (more than 1 day) (PLOS), MI, and stroke or death. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess in-hospital outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival and log-rank test were used to assess 1-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 22,619 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Of these, 327 patients were undergoing dialysis. On univariable analysis, dialysis patients were associated with a higher risk of mortality compared to nondialysis patients (1.2% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.030). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, this difference did not persist (odd ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.8-4.9), P = 0.136). Dialysis patients were more likely to experience PLOS (OR: 1.6, 95% CI (1.2-2), P < 0.001). There was no difference between dialysis and nondialysis patients in the risk of stroke or death, stroke, stroke or TIA, MI, and stroke or death, or MI on univariable and multivariable analyses. At 1 year, the overall survival for dialysis versus nondialysis patients was 81.5% vs. 95.5%, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to date of dialysis patients who have undergone TCAR. We have shown that there was no difference in the risk of stroke, death, and MI between dialysis and nondialysis patients. Therefore, TCAR can be safely offered to patients undergoing dialysis. Future studies with larger number of patients are warranted to confirm these results.

Not a trifecta: complementary use of carotid artery revascularization techniques in the era of hybrid neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

Carotid stenosis is currently treated by carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). This study sought to add to the literature by providing real-world data comparing the safety and effectiveness associated with the performance of these carotid revascularization techniques by dual-trained neurosurgeons.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of carotid stenosis databases at two US centers. Patients treated by CEA, transfemoral CAS, or TCAR for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease were included. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days after the procedure.

RESULTS

Seven hundred eighty patients were included (583 with CAS, 165 with CEA, and 32 with TCAR). Overall, 486 patients (62.3%) were men, and 393 (50.4%) had left-sided carotid stenosis. Most patients (n = 617, 79.1%) had symptomatic disease. Among the three treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences with respect to 30-day ischemic events (CAS 3.8%, CEA 1.8%, TCAR 6.3%; p = 0.267) or 30-day mortality rates (CAS 3.6%, CEA 2.4%, TCAR 3.1%; p = 0.857). Male sex had significantly lower odds of 30-day transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke in both univariable (p = 0.024) and multivariable (p = 0.023) regression models. Increasing age had significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality on univariable (p = 0.006) and multivariable (p = 0.003) regression. Patients with the occurrence of 30-day TIA or stroke also had significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality on univariable (p < 0.001) and multivariable (p < 0.001) regression.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world experience reflects the current practice of hybrid neurosurgery at two high-volume tertiary care centers and suggests that all three treatment modalities have comparable safety and effectiveness if patients are properly selected.

Evaluating postoperative outcomes in patients with hostile neck anatomy undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy is relatively contraindicated in patients with a hostile neck anatomy who were historically revascularized with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). As transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has progressively replaced TFCAS, evidence pertaining to hostile neck anatomy and TCAR is necessary to establish its safety and feasibility in this subgroup of patients. Therefore, we analyzed the impact of a hostile neck anatomy on outcomes in patients undergoing TCAR and further compared them with those undergoing TFCAS to establish recommendations for standard of care.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TCAR and TFCAS from November 2016 to June 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were included. Patients were characterized into two groups based on the neck anatomy. Hostile neck anatomy was defined as a history of neck radiation or prior neck surgery including prior carotid endarterectomy or radical neck dissection. Primary outcomes included technical failure, access site complications (hematoma, stenosis, infection, pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula), and stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and a composite end point of stroke or TIA. Patients with nonatherosclerotic or multiple lesions were excluded from the analysis. Primary analysis was performed with all patients undergoing TCAR and outcomes between patients with hostile and nonhostile neck anatomy were compared. Further analysis included a comparison of patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR and TFCAS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess impact of hostile neck anatomy on postoperative outcomes. Results were adjusted for relevant potential confounders including age, gender, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, comorbidities, preoperative medications, anesthesia type, and protamine use.

RESULTS

Among the 19,859 patients who underwent TCAR during the study period, 3636 (18.3%) had a hostile neck anatomy. On univariate analysis, both groups had comparable outcomes except for higher rates of stroke or death in patients with hostile neck anatomy. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no differences in technical failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.21; P = .699), stroke (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28; P = .464), death (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.71; P = .598), and MI (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = .518). However, patients with hostile neck were at a 30% increased risk of access site complications (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .023). Further adjusted analysis comparing the outcomes in TFCAS and TCAR among patients with hostile neck anatomy showed an almost four-fold increase in risk of death (aOR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.49-9.53; P = .005) and technical failure (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.82-7.47; P < .001) among patients undergoing treatment with TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR experienced an increased risk of access site complications; however, the risk for technical failure and postoperative stroke/death, stroke, TIA, MI, or death was similar among both groups. TFCAS was associated with significant increase in the risk of death and technical failure compared with TCAR in this group of patients. These results confirm that TCAR should be the preferred minimally invasive revascularization procedure for patients with hostile neck anatomy.

Dual Institutional Experience with Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

Introduction

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid open and endovascular technique to treat carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to present a large cohort of patients who underwent TCAR at 2 high-volume TCAR health systems.

Methods

This study was a retrospective chart review of all instances of TCAR within the Memorial Hermann Health System and Indiana University Health, from December 2015-January 2022, using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection Device (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, CA). We report patient demographics, intraoperative metrics, 30-day results and long-term results.

Results

In all, 750 patients underwent TCAR in the designated time period. Average patient age was 73 years, with 68% being male. Overall, 53.9% of patients had coronary artery disease, 45.4% had diabetes, and 36.9% were symptomatic. Technical success was achieved in 98.8% of patients with conversion to open endarterectomy in 1.1%. Average reverse flow time was 9.1 minutes with length of stay greater than 1 day 38%. Ipsilateral stroke rate within 30 days was 2.3% and long-term cumulative stroke rate was 3.0%. Death within 30 days occurred in 1.2% of patients and in 5.9% over long-term follow up. In all, 1% of patients required reintervention.

Conclusions

TCAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for carotid artery stenotic disease. Its outcomes are similar to historical results associated with carotid endarterectomy, long considered the gold standard.

Use of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting, and Carotid Endarterectomy in the US From 2015 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

A transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) device was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for stroke, cranial nerve injury, or major cardiac event. It is unclear how the introduction of TCAR has changed the use of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS).

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the temporal changes in the operative approach to carotid revascularization (CEA vs TFCAS vs TCAR), and to identify patient and disease characteristics commonly associated with each approach.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study obtained data from the Vascular Quality Initiative database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR were included. Data were analyzed from January to April 2022.

EXPOSURES

Month and year of surgery as well as patient risk status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Number and proportion of carotid revascularization procedures by operative approach.

RESULTS

A total of 108 676 patients (mean [SD] age 56.6 [12.5] years; 66 684 men [61.4%]) were included in the analysis. The most common operative approach overall was CEA (n = 81 508 [75.0%]), followed by TFCAS (n = 15 578 [14.3%]) and TCAR (n = 11 590 [10.7%]). The number of procedures increased over the study period (16 754 in 2015 vs 27 269 in 2019; P < .001). In 2015, CEA was used in 84.9% of all cases, followed by TFCAS (14.4%) and TCAR (0.8%). In 2019, CEA was used in 64.8% of cases, followed by TCAR (21.9%) and TFCAS (13.3%). The proportional use of CEA decreased by 5.0% (95% CI, -7.4% to -2.6%) per year, and TCAR use increased by 5.3% (95% CI, 2.3%-8.3%) per year. Among patients at high risk, the change was greater: CEA use decreased by 7.8% (95% CI, -11.9% to -3.8%) per year, TFCAS decreased by 4.8% (95% CI, -9.5% to -0.14%) per year, and TCAR increased by 12.6% (95% CI, 7.1%-18.1%) per year. Multinomial logistic regression showed that patient risk status was the most important characteristic associated with TCAR compared with CEA (relative risk ratio, 36.10; 95% CI, 29.24-44.66; P < .001) and TFCAS (relative risk ratio, 14.10; 95% CI, 11.86-16.66; P < .001). Linear regression revealed no association between year of surgery and in-hospital myocardial infarction, stroke, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study indicate that TCAR has become the dominant carotid revascularization approach, surpassing TFCAS and CEA in patients at high risk for stroke, cranial nerve injury, or cardiovascular events. Patient high-risk status was the main characteristic associated with a stenting approach, highlighting the perceived importance of carotid stenting therapies in this patient population.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.