Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in the Treatment of Restenosis After Prior Carotid Endarterectomy

Analysis of Surgeon and Center Case Volume and Stroke or Death after Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that the annual hospital volume of cases may affect the number of adverse events after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke or death after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative data of patients undergoing TCAR from 2016 to 2021. Surgeon and center volume were calculated based on the mean number of cases (MNC) performed yearly by each surgeon and center. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke or death.

RESULTS

A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into 3 quantiles: low (MNC = 4), medium (MNC = 10), and high (MNC = 26). Center volume was also divided into low (MNC = 14), medium (MNC = 32), and high (MNC = 64). After adjusting for potential confounders, and when compared with high-volume centers, low and medium center volumes were not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke and death, stroke, death, or stroke with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Compared with high-volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.04, p = 0.008), and stroke and TIA (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9, p = 0.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke and death, stroke, and stroke with TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared with high surgeon volume.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, center volume was not associated with any differences in outcomes among patients undergoing TCAR. On the other hand, surgeons with low volume were associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or MI and stroke or TIA when compared with high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

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.

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.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization.

METHODS

Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing 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.

Medical and Surgical Management of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Carotid artery stenosis is a condition where the carotid artery is blocked by fatty cholesterol deposits called plaque, increasing the risk of stroke. Elderly individuals with high cardiovascular risk are more susceptible, along with smokers, those with high cholesterol, males, and older individuals. Young females may also be affected by fibromuscular dysplasia. Carotid stenosis significantly raises stroke risk, and the severity is closely linked to stroke incidence and other cardiovascular events. Early detection and treatment are essential to prevent complications. Treatment options include medical and surgical interventions, such as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). The choice between surgery and medical management varies depending on patient characteristics and risk factors. This review explores carotid artery stenosis pathophysiology, risk factors, the importance of early detection and treatment, and the surgical approaches of CEA and CAS, addressing their roles and controversies. Healthcare professionals must understand these aspects to provide optimal care to patients with this condition.

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.

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.

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.

Carotid Lesion Length Independently Predicts Stroke and Death After TransCarotid Artery Revascularization and TransFemoral Carotid Artery Stenting

OBJECTIVES

Prior data from the CREST trial suggested that the higher perioperative stroke or death event rate among patients treated with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) appears to be strongly related to the lesion length. Nonetheless, data regarding the impact of lesion length on outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal is lacking. Herein, we aimed to compare the outcomes of TCAR versus TFCAS stratified by the length of the carotid lesion.

METHODS

Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database for carotid artery stenting between 2016 and 2021. Restricted cubic spline analysis was used to describe the relationship between the primary outcome (in-hospital stroke/death) and the exposure variable (lesion length) in the overall cohort. This relationship was not linear, and knots were identified where significant changes in the slope of the curve occurred. We therefore divided patients based on knot with the most significant inflection into two groups: lesion length<25mm (short) and lesion length ≥25mm. Clinically relevant and statistically significant variables on univariable analysis were added to the final logistic regression model clustered by center identifier to study the association between lesion length and in-hospital outcomes stratified by stent approach.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 17,931 TCAR (52.6% with long lesions), and 12,036 TFCAS (53.2% with long lesions). Patients with long lesions had higher rates of being symptomatic among both TCAR (27.2% vs 24.3%, P<0.001) and TFCAS (43.5% VS 38.5%, p<0.001) and were more likely to undergo general anesthesia in TCAR (84.7% vs 81.9%, P<0.001) and TFCAS (21.6% vs 15.8%, P<0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, long carotid lesions were associated with higher odds of stroke, stroke/TIA and stroke/death compared to short lesions among patients undergoing TCAR or TFCAS. However, when comparing TCAR vs TFCAS outcomes in patients with long lesions, TCAR was found to be associated with 30% reduction in stroke/TIA (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.6-0.9, P=0.015), stroke (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.5-0.9, P=0.009), and extended length of stay (ELOS) (aOR: 0.7, 95%CI:0.6-0.8, P<0.001). There was also a 40% reduction in the odds of in-hospital stroke/death (aOR: 0.6, 95%CI:0.5-0.8, P<0.001), and 70% reduction in mortality (aOR: 0.3, 95%CI:0.2-0.4, P<0.001) in TCAR compared to TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large contemporary retrospective national study, carotid lesion length appears to negatively impact in-hospital outcomes for TCAR and TFCAS. In the presence of lesions longer than 25 mm, TCAR appears to be safer than TFCAS with regard to the risk of in-hospital stroke, stroke/TIA, death, stroke/death and ELOS. These favorable outcomes seem to confirm the relative advantage of flow reversal compared to distal embolic protection (DEP) devices in terms of neuroprotection.

Impact of Frailty on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients undergoing TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterized by reduction in metabolic reserves leading to increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes following invasive surgical interventions. The 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) validated in prior studies has shown high predictive accuracy for all surgical specialties including vascular procedures. In this study we aim to utilize the mFI-5 to predict outcomes in Transcarotid Revascularization (TCAR).

METHODS

All patient who underwent TCAR from November 2016 to April 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Database were included. The mFI-5 was calculated as a cumulative score divided by 5 with 1 point each for poor functional status, presence of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and hypertension. Patients were stratified into two groups based on prior studies: low mFI-5 (0.6) and high (≥0.6). Primary outcomes included in-hospital death, extended length of postoperative stay (> 1 day), and non-home discharge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), and composite endpoint of stroke/death, stroke/TIA and stroke/death/MI. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between mFI-5 and postoperative outcomes. Secondary analysis stratified by symptomatic status was performed.

RESULTS

Out of the 17,983 patients who underwent TCAR, 4526(25.2%) had mFI-5 score of ≥0.6 and considered clinically frail. Compared to the non-frail group, frail patients were more likely to be female (38.7% vs 35.6%, p<0.001), have poor functional status (43.6 vs 8.3%, p<0.001), and present with significant comorbidities including diabetes (75.3% vs 26.1%, p<0.001), hypertension (98.9% vs 88.5%, p<0.001), CHF (52.2% vs 5.6, p<0.001), and COPD (60.3% vs 14.2%, p<0.001). They were also more likely to be active smokers (25.4% vs 20.4%, p<0.001) and symptomatic prior to intervention (28.7% vs 25.3%, p<0.001). On univariate analysis, frail patients were at significantly higher risk to experience adverse outcomes including in-hospital mortality, TIA, MI, stroke/death, stroke/TIA, stroke/death/MI, discharge to non-home facility, and extended LOS. After adjusting for potential confounders, frail patients remained at significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality [aOR 2.26(1.41,3.61), p=0.001], TIA [aOR 1.65(1.08, 2.54), p=0.040], non-home discharge [aOR 1.99(1.71,2.32) p<0.001], and extended LOS [aOR 1.41(1.27, 1.55) p<0.001]. On further stratified analysis based on symptomatic status, the increased risk of stroke/death, TIA, and death was observed only in symptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Modified Frailty Index is a reliable tool that can be used to identify high risk patients for TCAR prior to intervention. This could help vascular surgeons, patients, and families in informed decision making to further optimize perioperative care and medical management in frail patients.

Impact of Routine Intracerebral Completion Angiography on Outcomes After TransCarotid Artery Revascularization

OBJECTIVES

Completion intracerebral angiography (CIA) following transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) aims to identify distal embolization after stenting and serve as a measure of intraoperative quality control. Nevertheless, there is no general evidence regarding the benefit of performing routine CIA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential risk and benefit of routine CIA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database for transcarotid artery revascularization between 2016-2021. Patients were divided into two groups: patients with no CIA performed and those with completion angiography performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI) and return to the operating room (RTOR). Clinically relevant and statistically significantly variables on univariable analysis were added to a logistic regression model clustered by center identifier.

RESULTS

A total of 18,155 patients who underwent TCAR were identified, 63.7% of them had routine CIA performed. Patients who had routine CIA were more likely to have contralateral carotid occlusion and general anesthesia. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found no difference in the risk of stroke or death (aOR): 1.03, 95%CI (0.8-1.3), P=.820), stroke/TIA (aOR, 1, 95%CI (0.8-1.3), P=.998), stroke (aOR: 1.1, 95%CI (0.8-1.4), P=.452), death (aOR: 0.98, 95%CI (0.6-1.6), P=.953), MI (aOR: 0.78, 95%CI (0.5-1.2), P=.240), or RTOR (aOR: 1.5, 95%CI (0.6-3.8), P=.412) between patients who had CIA compared to those who did not. A sub-analysis of patients who had new occlusion detected on CIA (69 patients, 0.6%; 19 not treated and 50 treated) indicated higher risk of stroke or death in patients with treated new occlusions (OR: 7.1, 95%CI (2.9-17.3), P<.001) and stroke/TIA (aOR, 5.8, 95%CI (2.3-14.7), P<.001) compared to patients who had no CIA. However, no difference in stroke/death (OR: 3.3, 95%CI (0.37-29.5), P=.283) or stroke/TIA (aOR, 3.1, 95%CI (0.3-29.4), P=.327) was found in patients with non-treated new occlusions compared to patients who had no CIA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, routine performance of completion cerebral angiography was not beneficial with no significant differences in in-hospital stroke or death detected. Detection of new lesions on completion cerebral angiography was rare. Moreover, identifying new occlusions following intracranial angiography was associated with higher odds of stroke or death when these new lesions are treated. Further studies are needed to define the etiology of worse outcomes in patients undergoing intervention for lesions discovered on completion cerebral angiogram and delineate optimal timing for further imaging and intervention.

Cost-Effectiveness of TransCarotid Artery Revascularization versus Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have demonstrated that TransCarotid Artery Stenting (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR to CEA for carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a five-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs while TCAR cost $19154 for 2. 92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost effective 49% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that while five-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at six-years follow-up.