Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy

Transcranial Duplex Evaluation of Internal Carotid Artery Flow Direction during Transcarotid Artery Revascularisation with Integrated Embolic Protection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the findings of transcranial duplex (TCD) evaluation of petrous internal carotid artery (ICA) flow during transcarotid artery revascularisation (TCAR). Thirty day clinical results were also evaluated.

METHODS

A two centre database of all consecutive patients who had TCD evaluation of the petrous segment of the ICA during TCAR with a modified approach using the Neuroguard IEP (Contego Medical, Raleigh, NC, USA) three in one device and selective flow reversal was reviewed retrospectively. This novel carotid stent has an integrated embolic protection (IEP) system, and the procedure has been termed TCAR-IEP. The study primary endpoint was the achievement or not of flow reversal, and secondary endpoints were procedural technical success and 30 day stroke and or death.

RESULTS

Between January and May 2023, 22 consecutive patients (mean age 72 years; 16 [73%] males) underwent TCAR-IEP with concomitant TCD evaluation of the ipsilateral petrous ICA. In 16 of these patients (73%) there was a sufficient temporal bone window to allow for an adequate peri-operative duplex scan of the petrous segment of the ICA. After common carotid artery (CCA) clamping and side port opening for pressure differential augmentation and despite the presence of retrograde flow in an 8 F carotid artery sheath in all patients, only eight patients (50%) demonstrated flow reversal in the ipsilateral petrous ICA. Technical success was 100%. No major strokes or death were observed in the first 30 days post-intervention.

CONCLUSION

In this study, distal ICA flow reversal was not present during TCAR for a significant proportion of patients despite retrograde flow being visually observed in the CCA sheath. Addition of distal embolic protection in all patients appears reasonable for effective stroke risk reduction.

An International, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues about TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics.

METHODS

A 3-round Delphi consensus process was performed, including 29 experts. The aim of round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed that TCAR can or can probably or possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hr. It was felt that TCAR cannot or should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can or can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA or TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians or interventionalists or vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and RCTs should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

A Contemporary Evaluation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services High-risk Indicators for Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Compare stroke/death outcomes across carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) high-risk criterion.

BACKGROUND

Existing literature has revealed inconsistencies with CMS risk guidelines. With recent approval for TCAR and TFCAS in standard-risk patients, an updated analysis of guidelines is needed.

METHODS

Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2016-2023) on CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR patients were used. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital stroke/death rates across procedures for high-risk criteria: contralateral occlusion (CLO), prior CEA, CAS, radiation, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD (on home O 2 ), unstable angina, recent MI (<6 mo), and age (≥75 years-old).

RESULTS

A total of 199,050 patients were analyzed, of whom 122,737 (62%) patients underwent CEA, 50,095 (25%) TCAR, and 26,218 (13%) TFCAS. TCAR had lower odds of stroke/death compared with CEA in patients with CLO [aOR=0.73 (95% CI: 0.55-0.98], P =0.035] and radiation [aOR=0.44 (95% CI: 0.23-0.82), P =0.010]. Contrary to CMS criteria, CEA patients did not have higher stroke/death in patients with prior CEA, CAS, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD, unstable angina, recent MI, or age (≥75) compared with TCAR and TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

While CMS high-risk criteria have traditionally been recognized as contraindications for CEA, our study reveals inconsistencies-with CEA performing similarly to TCAR and significantly better than TFCAS in patients with prior CEA, moderate to severe CHF, recent MI, or age (≥75). As a result, the definition of high-risk criteria may warrant reconsideration.

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.

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.

Transcarotid versus transfemoral access for cerebrovascular intervention: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cerebrovascular intervention is an excellent option to treat cerebrovascular diseases. Interventional access is a prerequisite and a foundation for cerebrovascular intervention, which is crucial to the success of an intervention. Although transfemoral arterial access (TFA) has become a popular and acceptable method of access for cerebrovascular angiography and intervention in clinical practice, it has some drawbacks that limit the usage in cerebrovascular interventions. Therefore, transcarotid arterial access (TCA) has been developed in cerebrovascular interventions. We aim to conduct a systematic review to compare the safety and efficacy of TCA with TFA for cerebrovascular intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this protocol, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols were followed. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched mainly from 1 January 2004, to the formal search date. Additionally, reference lists and clinical trial registries will be searched. We will include clinical trials with more than 30 participants, which reported the endpoints of stroke, death and myocardial infarction. Two investigators will independently select studies, extract data and assess bias risk. A standardised mean difference with 95% CI will be presented for continuous data, and a risk ratio with 95% CI will be presented for dichotomous data. On inclusion of sufficient studies, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be conducted. The funnel plot and Egger's test will be used to assess publication bias.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As only published sources will be used in this review, ethical approval is not required. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316468.