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

OBJECTIVE

Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR.

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

OBJECTIVE

Age ≥80 years is known to be an independent risk factor for periprocedural stroke after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) but not after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The objective of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes for CEA, TF-CAS, and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among octogenarian patients (aged ≥80 years) overall and stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

METHODS

All patients aged ≥80 years with 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis who had undergone CEA, TF-CAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2005-2020) were included. We compared the perioperative (30-day) incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death for CEA vs TF-CAS vs TCAR using analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression models. The results were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis stratified by symptom status and degree of stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 28,571 carotid revascularization procedures were performed in patients aged ≥80 years: CEA, n = 20,912 (73.2%), TF-CAS, n = 3628 (12.7%), and TCAR, n = 4031 (14.1%). The median age was 83 years (interquartile range, 81.0-86.0 years); 49.8% of the patients were symptomatic (51.9% CEA, 46.2% TF-CAS, 42.4% TCAR); and 60.7% had high-grade stenosis (59.0% CEA, 65.2% TF-CAS, 65.4% TCAR). Perioperative stroke/death occurred most frequently following TF-CAS (6.6%), followed by TCAR (3.1%) and CEA (2.5%; P < .001). After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, the odds ratio (OR) for stroke/death was greater for TF-CAS vs CEA (adjusted OR [aOR], 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.65-4.23), followed by TCAR vs CEA (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18-1.87). The risk of perioperative stroke/death remained significantly greater for TF-CAS compared with CEA regardless of symptom status and degree of stenosis (P < .05 for all). In contrast, the risk of stroke/death was higher for TCAR vs CEA for asymptomatic patients (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.41-2.94) and those with high-grade stenosis (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.05) but similar for patients with symptomatic and moderate-grade disease (P > .05 for both). The risk of myocardial infarction was lower with TCAR (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) and TF-CAS (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) compared with CEA overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, TCAR and CEA can be safely offered to older adults, in particular, symptomatic patients and those with moderate-grade stenosis. TF-CAS should be avoided in older patients when possible.

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

OBJECTIVE

Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts.

RESULTS

Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P < .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P < .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P < .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.

Protamine use in transfemoral carotid artery stenting is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events

BACKGROUND

Protamine use in carotid endarterectomy has been shown to be associated with fewer perioperative bleeding complications without higher rates of thromboembolic events. However, the effect of protamine use on complications after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear, and concerns remain about thromboembolic events.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing transfemoral CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2018. We assessed in-hospital outcomes using propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who did and did not receive protamine. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure exacerbation. Bleeding complications were categorized as bleeding resulting in intervention or blood transfusions.

RESULTS

Of the 17,429 patients undergoing transfemoral CAS, 2697 (15%) patients received protamine. We created 2300 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive protamine. There were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death between the two cohorts (protamine, 2.5%; no protamine, 2.9%; relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.21; P = .37). Protamine use was not associated with statistically significant differences in perioperative bleeding complications resulting in interventional treatment (0.9% vs 0.5%; RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.99-4.46; P = .05) or blood transfusion (1.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61; P = .78). There were also no statistically significant differences for the individual outcomes of stroke (1.8% vs 2.3%; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16; P = .22), death (0.9% vs 0.8%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.62-2.19; P = .63), transient ischemic attack (1.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.67-1.82; P = .70), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.52-2.78; P = .67), or heart failure exacerbation (1.0% vs 0.9%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58-1.90; P = .88). Protamine use in patients presenting with symptomatic carotid stenosis was associated with lower risk of stroke or death (3.0% vs 4.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-0.998; P = .048), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death with protamine use in asymptomatic patients (1.6% vs 1.0%; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.67-3.92; P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin reversal with protamine after transfemoral CAS is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, and its use in symptomatic carotid disease is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.

Young patients undergoing carotid stenting procedures have an increased rate of procedural failure at 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The outcomes of patients with premature cerebrovascular disease (age ≤55 years) who undergo carotid artery stenting are not well-defined. Our study objective was to analyze the outcomes of younger patients undergoing carotid stenting.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified based on age ≤55 or >55 years. Primary endpoints were periprocedural stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite outcomes. Secondary endpoints included procedural failure (defined as ipsilateral restenosis ≥80% or occlusion) and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

Of the 35,802 patients who underwent either TF-CAS or TCAR, 2912 (6.1%) were ≤55 years. Younger patients were less likely than older patients to have coronary disease (30.5% vs 50.2%; P < .001), diabetes (31.5% vs 37.9%; P < .001), and hypertension (71.8% vs 89.8%; P < .001), but were more likely to be female (45% vs 35.4%; P < .001) and active smokers (50.9% vs 24.0%; P < .001) Younger patients were also more likely to have had a prior transient ischemic attack or stroke than older patients (70.7% vs 56.9%; P < .001). TF-CAS was more frequently performed in younger patients (79.7% vs 55.4%; P < .001). In the periprocedural period, younger patients were less likely to have a MI than older patients (0.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in the rates of periprocedural stroke (1.5% vs 2.0%; P = .173) and composite outcomes of stroke/death (2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .686) and stroke/death/MI (2.9% vs 3.2%; P = .353) between our two cohorts. The mean follow-up was 12 months regardless of age. During follow-up, younger patients were significantly more likely to experience significant (≥80%) restenosis or occlusion (4.7% vs 2.3%; P = .001) and to undergo reintervention (3.3% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, there was no statistical difference in the frequency of late strokes between younger and older patients (3.8% vs 3.2%; P = .129).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with premature cerebrovascular disease undergoing carotid artery stenting are more likely to be African American, female, and active smokers than their older counterparts. Young patients are also more likely to present symptomatically. Although periprocedural outcomes are similar, younger patients have higher rates of procedural failure (significant restenosis or occlusion) and reintervention at 1-year follow-up. However, the clinical implication of late procedural failure is unknown, given that we found no significant difference in the rate of stroke at follow-up. Until further longitudinal studies are completed, clinicians should carefully consider the indications for carotid stenting in patients with premature cerebrovascular disease, and those who do undergo stenting may require close follow-up.

Disability and associated outcomes among patients suffering periprocedural strokes after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative stroke after carotid artery stenting (CAS) is rare. However, the degree of disability and long-term effects from a postoperative stroke remain unclear. Our goal was to assess the degree of disability from a stroke after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral CAS (TFCAS) for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, and the associated 1-year impact on subsequent neurological events and mortality.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative CAS registry (2016-2023) was queried for CAS performed for asymptomatic disease. Patients with a postoperative stroke had their disability stratified by modified Rankin score of 0 to 1 (mild), 2 to 3 (moderate), 4 to 5 (severe), and 6 (deceased). Postoperative stroke-related disability based on modified Rankin scale for those recorded at discharge and its association with long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 23,435 TCAR and 7487 TFCAS procedures performed for asymptomatic disease. Among TCAR patients, the periprocedural stroke and stroke/death rates were 0.80% and 1.03%, respectively, with disability distributed as 33.6% mild, 31.0% moderate, 28.9% severe, and 7.5% deceased. Among TFCAS patients, the periprocedural stroke and stroke/death rates were 0.92% and 1.19%, respectively, with disability distributed as 37.7% mild, 31.0% moderate, 27.5% severe, and 2.9% deceased. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that severe early postoperative disability was associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 11.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9-17.7; P = .001) and increased subsequent neurological event/death (HR, 10.82; 95% CI, 6.93-16.9; P = .001). Patients with a stroke after TFCAS had a higher risk of 1-year mortality (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10, 1.47; P = .001) and neurological event/death (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11-1.45; P < .001), as compared with patients with a stroke after TCAR. Among patients who undergo a CAS procedure for asymptomatic disease, hypertension was associated with a higher likelihood of developing severe disability (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03-17.32; P = .045), whereas preoperative aspirin (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87; P = .01) or P2Y12 inhibitor use (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.74; P = .11) was associated with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disability.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who undergo TCAR and TFCAS for asymptomatic carotid artery disease who suffered a periprocedural stroke had substantial disability. Patients with strokes from TFCAS have worse 1-year outcomes as compared with patients with stroke after TCAR. These findings should help to guide patient-provider discussions regarding the surgical management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis and the risks of CAS interventions, as well as aid in the prognostication of postoperative stroke.

The elevated stroke and death rates among asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid stenting in the Pacific Northwest are associated with high-risk patient selection

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines recommend treatment of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis when stroke/death rates less than 3% can be achieved. However, in the Pacific Northwest region of the Vascular Quality Initiative, elevated stroke/death rates have been reported. This study aims to characterize regional and center-specific outcomes for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and investigate potential underlying drivers.

METHODS

A retrospective review of asymptomatic patients undergoing TCAR and TF-CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative for the Pacific Northwest region from 2016 to 2022 was performed. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke or death within 30 days of index hospitalization. Overall regional outcomes and center-specific outcomes were assessed. A high stroke/death rate was defined as greater than 3%. Demographics, comorbidities, and operative risk factors were then compared between centers with high and low stroke/death rates.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 asymptomatic patients across 27 centers underwent carotid stenting in the Pacific Northwest from 2016 to 2022, of which 886 (76.8%) underwent TCAR and 268 (23.2%) underwent TF-CAS. The overall stroke/death rates were 2.5% and 3.0% for TCAR and TF-CAS, respectively. Among centers with stroke/death rates above 3%, for both TCAR and TF-CAS, all were in the top one-half of centers by volume. When patients undergoing TCAR were assessed, those treated at centers with high stroke/death rate underwent revascularization at higher volume centers (12 vs 7 cases per year; P = .03), which treated fewer patients with >80% stenosis (42.1% vs 52.2%; P < .01) and more patients with high-risk anatomy (42.3% vs 35.3%; P = .01), and high-risk physiology as defined by an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 4 or 5 (25.5% vs 17.5%; P < .01). Among patients undergoing TF-CAS, those treated at centers with a high stroke/death rate were more likely to have high-risk anatomy (63.5% vs 48.6%; P = .03), and high-risk physiology as defined by an ASA class of 4 or 5 (23.5% vs 10.4%; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

High stroke/death rates in the Pacific Northwest appear to be driven by the selection of high-risk patients with less than 80% stenosis. Decreasing the frequency of carotid revascularization in asymptomatic patients with very high physiologic risk including those with ASA class 4 and those with less than 80% stenosis may offer the opportunity for improved outcomes.

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.

Carotid disease treatment modality and its association with postoperative vasoactive medication utilization and hospital length of stay

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery disease is a major cause of stroke for which the standard treatment has traditionally been a combination of medical management and intervention, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). In recent years, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been adopted as a promising treatment after US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015. In terms of stroke reduction, TCAR has been found to have equivalent outcomes with CEA with shorter operative times. A well-described side effect of TCAR is the stimulation of baroreceptors in the carotid bulb, resulting in bradycardia and blood pressure variability that may require vasopressor support. This factor has the potential to lengthen both intensive care unit (ICU) and entire hospital stay. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative vasopressor or vasodilator treatment between traditional CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR and whether it affects ICU and/or overall hospital lengths of stay.

METHODS

The Kaiser Permanente Southern California regional database was queried from January 2018 to December 2023 for all patients who underwent CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR at any Southern California Permanente Hospital. The χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze patient characteristics and compare medication use and ICU and postintervention length of stay in each intervention modality.

RESULTS

The regional database query yielded 3012 patients who had undergone CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. The average postoperative inpatient length of stay for TCAR patients (2.8 days) was shorter than CEA (3.7 days) and TFCAS (5.6 days) (P < .0001). TCAR patients were more likely to have intravenous vasoactive medication (21.0%) compared with CEA (6.2%) and TFCAS (7.7%) (P < .0001). Also, TCAR patients were more likely to have oral midodrine prescribed at any point in their hospitalization (9.1%) compared with CEA (0.5%) and TFCAS (2.0%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR patients were more likely to require intavenous vasoactive medication postoperatively compared with CEA and TFCAS patients. This finding is likely secondary to baroreceptor stimulation by balloon angioplasty and stent deployment. Further investigation to analyze why this is not as frequently seen with TFCAS would be beneficial. Despite this, TCAR had lower postoperative ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Combining these findings with already reported benefits makes TCAR an attractive option in the operative treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

Periprocedural P2Y12 inhibitors improve perioperative outcomes after carotid stenting by primarily decreasing strokes

OBJECTIVE

The continuation of antiplatelet agents in the periprocedural period around carotid stenting (CAS) procedures is felt to be mandatory to minimize the risk of periprocedural stroke. However, the optimal antiplatelet regimen is unclear, with some advocating dual antiplatelet therapy, and others supporting the use of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors alone. The objective of this study was to evaluate the periprocedural effect of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors for CAS.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was used from years 2007 to 2020. All transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) procedures were included. Patients were stratified based on perioperative use of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors as well as symptomatic status. Primary end points were perioperative neurological events (strokes and transient ischemic attacks). Secondary end points were mortality and myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

A total of 31,036 CAS procedures were included for analysis, with 49.8% TCAR and 50.2% TF-CAS cases; 63.8% of patients were male and 82.3% of patients were on a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. P2Y₁₂ inhibitor use was more common in males, asymptomatic patients, those older than 70 years, and concurrent statin use. P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were more likely to be used in TCAR cases than in TF-CAS cases (87.3% vs 76.8%; P < .001). The rate of periprocedural neurological events in the whole cohort was 2.6%. Patients on P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were significantly less likely to experience a periprocedural neurological event (2.3% vs 3.9%; P < .001) and mortality (0.6% vs 2.1%; P < .001) than those who were not on a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. There was no effect on the rates of myocardial infarction. On multivariate analysis, both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients on P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were significantly less likely to develop perioperative neurological events. Additionally, the use of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors demonstrated an independent significant effect in reducing of the rate of perioperative stroke (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.33). Finally, additional analysis of the types of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors used revealed that all seemed to be equally effective in decreasing the periprocedural neurological event rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of perioperative P2Y₁₂ inhibitors seems to markedly decrease the perioperative neurological event rate with TCAR and TF-CAS in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and should be strongly considered. Patients with contraindications to P2Y₁₂ inhibitors may not be appropriate candidates for any CAS procedure. Additionally, alternative types of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors seem to be equally effective as clopidogrel. Finally, an analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative demonstrates that, even for TCAR cases, only 87.3% of patients seem to be on P2Y₁₂ inhibitors in the periprocedural period, leaving room for significant improvement.

Postoperative outcomes in patients with anemia undergoing carotid revascularization

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anemia is associated with worse postoperative morbidity and mortality after major vascular procedures. Limited research has examined the optimal method of carotid revascularization in patients with anemia. Therefore, we aim to compare the postoperative outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among patients with anemia.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of patients with anemia undergoing CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2016 and 2023. We defined anemia as a preoperative hemoglobin level of <13 g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Logistic regression models were used for multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Our study included 40,383 CEA (59.3%), 9159 TFCAS (13.5%), and 18,555 TCAR (27.3%) cases in patients with anemia. TCAR patients were older and had more medical comorbidities than CEA and TFCAS patients. TCAR was associated with a decreased 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.59; P < .001), in-hospital MACE (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.75; P < .001) compared with TFCAS. Additionally, TCAR was associated with a 20% decrease in the risk of 30-day mortality (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98; P = .03) and a similar risk of in-hospital MACE (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .07) compared with CEA. Furthermore, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (aOR, 2; 95% CI, 1.5-2.68; P < .001) and in-hospital MACE (aOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2; P < .001) compared with CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multi-institutional national retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, TFCAS was associated with a high risk of 30-day mortality and in-hospital MACE compared with CEA and TCAR in patients with anemia. TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with CEA. These findings suggest TCAR as the optimal minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in patients with anemia.

Comparison of restenosis and reintervention rates in closed cell stents compared to open cell stents after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) related to stent configuration.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all CAS including transcarotid and transfemoral approaches, performed at our institution from 2015 to 2024. Groups were identified according to the stent used at the index procedure by open-cell stents (OCS) and closed-cell stents (CCS). Subgroup analysis by symptomatic status was also performed. Stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death were analyzed, including those occurring within 30 days of procedure and on last follow-up (14.5 ± 15.1 months). Restenosis and need for reintervention were also assessed.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-six patients were included in our study cohort, with 128 OCS (Enroute stent [Silkroad Medical], 76; Protégé stent [Medtronic], 34; Precise stent [Cordis], 15; Acculink stent [Abbott], 3), and 118 CCS (Wallstent [Boston Scientific], 118). Baseline characteristics and comorbidities of the overall cohort showed differences in body mass index (CCS: 28.57 ± 6.19 kg/m2, OCS: 29.79 ± 5.98 kg/m2; P = .018) and symptomatic status (CCS: 78; 66.1%, OCS: 34; 26.6%; P < .001). In subgroup analysis within symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, these differences did not persist. Of note, in symptomatic patients, a higher rate of diabetics received CCS (33.3%) compared with OCS (14.7%; P = .043). Composite outcomes of stroke, MI, and death were no different at 30 days and on mid-term follow-up (14.5 ± 15.1 months). Only MI at follow-up in the overall cohort was significantly higher in the OCS group (4.7%) compared with CCS (0%; P = .03); however, this difference did not persist in subgroup analysis among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Restenosis (CCS: 16; 13.6%, OCS: 2; 1.6%; P < .001) and reinterventions (CCS: 13; 11%, OCS: 0; 0%; P < .001) were higher in the CCS group. Furthermore, this difference persisted for both outcomes in symptomatic and asymptomatic subgroup analysis. Multivariate analysis showed increased risk for restenosis in CCS (adjusted hazard ratio, 10.28; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-47.09; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in short- and mid-term outcomes was present in either CCS or OCS regarding stroke, MI, or death. On mid-term follow-up, CCS patients had a higher rate of restenosis and reintervention, and this difference persisted in both symptomatic and asymptomatic subgroups.

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.