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

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.

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.

Perioperative Outcomes in Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy or Stenting Nationwide

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a newer treatment for carotid stenosis where the carotid artery is accessed directly in the neck for stenting. It is less invasive than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and has less embolic potential than carotid artery stenting (CAS), but population-level utilization of TCAR and outcomes are currently unknown. Our study compares outcomes of TCAR with those of CEA and CAS.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Database was used for years 2015 to 2019. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to compare CEA, CAS, and TCAR outcomes with age, sex, race, hospital teaching status, symptomatic carotid disease status, side of procedure, intraoperative monitoring, and the weighted Elixhauser comorbidity score as covariates.

RESULTS

TCAR comprised 0.69% of these procedures in 2016, rising to 1.35% in 2019. The inpatient rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction for TCAR were 0.63% (95% confidence interval: 0.36%, 1.06%), 0.42% (0.21%, 0.80%), and 1.46% (1.04%, 2.05%), respectively. Compared with CEA, TCAR had statistically insignificant difference odds of death, odds ratio (95% CI) for stroke was 0.47 (0.25, 0.87), and for myocardial infarction, it was 0.66 (0.37, 0.94). Compared with CAS, for TCAR, the odds ratio for death was 0.41 (0.24, 0.71), and for stroke, it was 0.48 (0.26, 0.91).

CONCLUSION

TCAR is underutilized relative to other revascularization techniques yet has favorable outcomes compared with CEA and CAS. TCAR may be preferred to CAS in patients not surgical candidates for CEA and has a less invasive possibility for those eligible for CEA.