Association of carotid revascularization approach with perioperative outcomes based on symptom status and degree of stenosis among octogenarians

What Is the Best Technique for Treating Carotid Disease?

This is a comprehensive review of carotid artery revascularization techniques: Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA), Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS), and Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR). CEA is the gold standard and is particularly effective in elderly and high-risk patients. TFCAS, introduced as a less invasive alternative, poses increased periprocedural stroke risks. TCAR, which combines minimally invasive benefits with CEA's neuroprotection principles, emerges as a safer option for high-risk patients, showing comparable results to CEA and better outcomes than TFCAS. The decision-making process for carotid revascularization is complex and influenced by the patient's medical comorbidities and anatomic factors.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR).

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage.

RESULTS

A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques.

METHODS

Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury.

RESULTS

A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Discrepancies in clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length measurements for transcarotid artery revascularization using different imaging modalities

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an effective method for carotid artery stenting. However, anatomic eligibility for TCAR is most often limited by an inadequate clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length of <5 cm. Preoperative clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation distances may be underestimated when using conventional straight-line measurements on computed tomographic angiography (CTA) imaging. We therefore compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths as measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA, and intraoperative duplex ultrasound (US), to assess potential differences.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive TCAR procedures performed between 2016 and 2019 for atherosclerotic carotid disease. For each patient, we compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA using TeraRecon image reconstruction, and intraoperative duplex US with neck extension and rotation. We further assessed patient and imaging characteristics in individuals with a ≥0.5 cm difference among the measurement methods. In particular, common carotid artery (CCA) tortuosity, defined as the inability to visualize the entire CCA from clavicle to carotid bifurcation on both a single coronal and sagittal imaging cut, was examined as a contributing factor for these discrepancies.

RESULTS

Of the 70 TCAR procedures identified, 46 had all three imaging modalities available for review. The median clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length was found to be 6.4 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4-6.7 cm) on straight-line CTA, 7.0 cm (IQR, 6.0-7.5 cm) on intraoperative duplex US, and 7.2 cm (IQR, 6.5-7.5 cm) on center-line CTA (P < .001). Patients with a ≥0.5 cm difference between their straight-line CTA and either their intraoperative duplex US or center-line CTA measurements were more likely to have tortuous CCAs (60.0% vs 19.1%; P = .01; 51.4% vs 0.0%; P = .01). There were no notable differences in age, gender, prior neck/cervical spine surgery, or neck immobility among these individuals. In patients with tortuous CCAs, duplex US and center-line CTA measurements added 1.0 cm (IQR, 0.6-1.5 cm) and 1.1 cm (IQR, 0.9-1.6 cm) more in length than straight-line CTA measurements, respectively. There was a strong linear correlation between the additional lengths provided by duplex US measurements and those provided by center-line CTA measurements for each individual within the tortuous CCA group (r = 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of straight-line CTA during preoperative planning can underestimate the clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, particularly in those with tortuous CCAs. Both duplex US performed with extended-neck surgical positioning and center-line CTA provide similar and longer carotid length measurements, and should be utilized in patients with tortuous carotid vessels to better determine TCAR anatomic eligibility.

History of Carotid Artery Reconstruction around the World and in Japan

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

Trends in mortality and postoperative complications among octogenarian patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients represent a large portion of patients undergoing vascular surgery. This study aims to assess the contemporary frequency of octogenarians undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and to evaluate their postoperative complications and survival rates.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) dataset was queried for patients who underwent elective CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients aged >90 years were excluded, as well as emergent and combined cases. The population was divided into two age groups: <80 years and ≥80 years. Frailty scores were generated using Vascular Quality Initiative variables grouped into 11 domains historically associated with frailty. Patients with scores within the first 25th percentile, between the 25th and 50th percentile, and above the 75th percentile were categorized into low, medium, and high frailty classes, respectively. Procedural indications were defined as hard (stenosis ≥80% or ipsilateral neurologic symptoms) or soft. Primary outcomes of interest were 2-year stroke-free and 2-year overall survival comparing (i) octogenarians with nonoctogenarians and (ii) octogenarians by frailty class. Standard statistical methods were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 83,745 cases were included in this analysis. Between 2012 and 2021, a consistent proportion averaging 17% of CEA patients were octogenarians. Among this age group, the proportion of patients undergoing CEA for hard indications increased over time from 43.7% to 63.8% (P < .001). This increase was accompanied by a statistically significant increase in the combined 30-day perioperative stroke and mortality rate from 1.56% in 2012 to 2.96% in 2021 (P = .019). A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly lower 2-year stroke-free survival among octogenarians compared with the younger group (78.1% vs 87.6%; P < .001). Similarly, there was a significantly lower 2-year overall survival among octogenarians compared with the younger group (90.5% vs 95.1%; P < .001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses showed that high frailty class was associated with increased 2-year stroke risk (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-3.17; P < .001) and 2-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-3.47; P < .001). Repeat Kaplan-Meier analysis stratifying octogenarians by frailty class revealed that octogenarians with low frailty can have stroke-free and overall survival rates comparable with nonoctogenarians (88.2% vs 87.6% [P = .158] and 96.0% vs 95.1% [P = .151], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronological age should not be regarded as a contraindication for CEA. Frailty score calculation is a better predictor for postoperative outcomes and is an appropriate tool to risk stratify octogenarians, aiding in the decision between best medical treatment or intervention. The risk benefit assessment for high frailty class octogenarians is paramount because the postoperative risks may outweigh the long-term survival benefits of the prophylactic CEA.

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.