Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Results in Low Rates of Periprocedural Neurologic Events, Myocardial Infarction, and Death

Novel endovascular transmural technique for pharmacological block of superior cervical ganglion prevents sympathetic-mediated cerebral vasospasm

BACKGROUND

Sympathetic-mediated vasoconstriction from the superior cervical ganglion (SCG) is a significant contributor to cerebral vasospasm. Inhibition of the SCG has been shown to improve cerebral blood flow and reverse cerebral vasospasm in swine models. We evaluated the efficacy of a novel minimally invasive endovascular approach to target and pharmacologically inhibit the SCG, using a Micro-Infusion Device for transmural drug delivery.

METHODS

Eight SCGs in four Yorkshire swine were surgically identified. After confirming appropriate sympathetic-mediated intracranial vasoconstriction response with SCG stimulation, an endovascular Micro-Infusion Device was used for transmural targeting of the SCG and delivery of 1.5-2 mL of 1% lidocaine-contrast mixture to the perivascular space. Digital subtraction angiography was obtained at: (1) baseline; (2) with SCG stimulation; and (3) after lidocaine delivery to the SCG using the Micro-Infusion Device with concurrent SCG stimulation. Vessel diameters were measured and compared.

RESULTS

Endovascular transmural delivery of lidocaine to the SCG and carotid perivascular tissue using the Micro-Infusion Device successfully inhibited sympathetic-mediated vasoconstriction response. Measured vessel diameters after lidocaine delivery were comparable to baseline despite SCG stimulation.

CONCLUSION

A novel endovascular technique of transmural delivery of lidocaine to the SCG and carotid artery perivascular tissues successfully inhibits the sympathetic input to the cerebral vasculature and modulates sympathetic-mediated cerebral vasospasm. These results suggest promising steps towards translation to potential clinical use for patients suffering from cerebral vasospasm.

Outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ischemic stroke and disability caused by carotid artery stenosis have always been worldwide problems. At present, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) have been commonly used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be another option.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase to find literatures comparing TCAR with TFCAS and CEA. The primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, cranial nerve injure (CNI), and operative time. Secondary outcomes were stroke, death, MI in the elderly; cost; radiation; and entry site complication.

RESULTS

Initial search of the literature included 165 articles, of which 12 studies were chosen in the end. These studies demonstrated high technical success rate of TCAR. Patients who received TCAR had lower risks of death, stroke/death and less radiation exposure compared to TFCAS. In meta analysis, the risk of stroke was significantly lower in TCAR group than TFCAS (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.47-0.85). And there was no significant difference in TIA and MI. TCAR was associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. In older patients, the effect of TCAR was significantly better than that of TFCAS.

CONCLUSION

TCAR is associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke compared to TFCAS. TCAR is also associated with shorter operative time, lower risk of CNI and less blood loss compared to CEA. TCAR may be a promising treatment option besides TFCAS and CEA.

Feasibility and Intermediate Results of Transcarotid Revascularization with a Prosthetic Conduit

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid technique with excellent initial outcomes. The technical success and safety of TCAR is heavily dependent on an anatomically suitable common carotid artery (CCA). Many patients do not meet anatomic criteria and therefore are not eligible for this therapy. We sought to extend the eligibility of TCAR to patients with unfavorable CCA anatomy via the adoption of a prosthetic arterial conduit.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study of patients with critical carotid artery stenosis who underwent TCAR via a prosthetic conduit between June 2019 and October 2021 was performed. All patients in the study were considered high-risk for carotid endarterectomy based on anatomic features, such as restenosis post-carotid endarterectomy and neck radiation. Unfavorable CCA anatomy was defined as a clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance <5 cm, a CCA diameter <6 mm, and/or significant atherosclerotic disease at the intended arterial access site. The primary outcome of interest was technical success. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, intermediate and long-term patency, intermediate and long-term stroke and/or mortality and in-hospital length of stay. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 29 months.

RESULTS

Eight patients underwent 10 TCAR procedures via a prosthetic conduit. A total of 2 procedures (20%) were performed on female patients and 8 procedures (75%) were performed on male patients. The mean age was 65 years old (standard deviation 11 years). Technical success was 100%. The 30-day ipsilateral stroke rate was 0%. The 30-day patency was 90%. There was no re-exploration for hemorrhage and 30 day mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is an excellent option for carotid artery revascularization. Unfavorable CCA anatomy has limited its applicability. TCAR via a prosthetic conduit has the potential to expand eligibility for this promising therapy.

Endovascular transmural access to carotid artery perivascular tissues: safety assessment of a novel technique

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in endovascular devices have allowed access and targeting of perivascular tissues of the peripheral circulation. The perivascular tissues of the cervical and cranial circulations have many important structures of clinical significance, yet the feasibility and safety of such an approach has not been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of a novel endovascular transmural approach to target the perivascular tissues of the common carotid artery in swine.

METHODS

A micro-infusion device was positioned in the carotid arteries of three Yorkshire pigs (six carotid arteries in total), and each carotid artery was punctured 10 times in the same location to gain access to the perivascular tissues. Digital subtraction angiography was used to evaluate vessel injury or contrast extravasation. MRI and MR angiography were used to evaluate evidence of cerebral ischemia or vessel injury. Post-mortem tissue analysis was performed to assess the level of extravascular hematoma and intravascular dissection.

RESULTS

None of the tested carotid arteries showed evidence of vessel injury (dissection or perforation) or intravascular thrombosis. MRI performed after repeated puncture was negative for neck hematoma and brain ischemia. Post-mortem tissue analysis of the carotid arteries showed mild adventitial staining with blood, but without associated hematoma and without vessel dissection.

CONCLUSION

Repeated puncture of the carotid artery to gain access to the perivascular tissues using a novel endovascular transmural approach is safe in a swine model. This represents a novel approach to various tissues in close proximity to the cervical and cranial vasculature.

PERFORMANCE 1 study: Novel carotid stent system with integrated post-dilation balloon and embolic protection device

OBJECTIVES

The PERFORMANCE I study was designed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the Neuroguard IEP® System, a novel carotid stent system with an integrated embolic filter and post-dilatation balloon, to treat clinically significant carotid artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND

The risk of major adverse events during carotid artery stenting is comparable to carotid endarterectomy, however, the risk of minor stroke remains higher with stenting.

METHODS

In total, 67 patients undergoing carotid artery stenting were enrolled at nine centers in Europe. Follow-up assessments included neurological exams, duplex ultrasound, 12-lead electrocardiogram, and cardiac enzyme analysis. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite rate of stroke, death, and myocardial infarctions versus a prespecified performance goal. Secondary endpoints included procedure success, device success, and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

The study population was predominantly male (74.6%) with a mean age of 69.3 ± 8.9 years and 67% of subjects met at least one criterion placing them at an elevated risk for adverse events following carotid endarterectomy. All patients were treated successfully with the study device. There were no deaths or strokes within 30 days of the index procedure. One subject (1.5%) experienced a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction at day 17. The primary endpoint was met with a 30-day major adverse events rate of 1.5% (1/67). Through 12-month follow-up, there were no strokes, neurological deaths, target lesion revascularizations, or instances of in-stent-restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study demonstrate the Neuroguard IEP system is safe and feasible with a stroke/death rate of 0% at 30 days. A large pivotal study is currently underway.

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.

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.

The Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal System Compared to Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Carotid artery stenosis has long been a critical cause of stroke and death, and it can seriously affect the life quality. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are both feasible therapies for this disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate if the efficacy of the two approaches is comparable.

Methods: Clinical studies up to March 2021 were searched through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from a computer. The screening process was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for methodological quality assessment of works of literature meeting the inclusion criteria, and Review Manager 5.4 was used for data synthesis. The I² statistic was performed to measure the heterogeneity, and M-H/I-V fixed or random model was utilized depending on the I² value. The evidence evaluation was accomplished based on grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) online tool.

Results: A total of 14,200 subjects (six comparative studies) were finally included in this pooled study. There is no statistical discrepancy between the two treatments on reducing stroke/death/myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.07), stroke (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77–1.37), or death (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67–1.94). Besides, TCAR is associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (P = 0.004), cranial nerve injury (P < 0.00001), and shorter procedure time (P < 0.00001) than CEA among the overall cohort.

Conclusions: TCAR is a rapidly developing treatment that reaches a comparable prognosis to CEA and significantly reduces the risk of myocardial infarction under the well-matched condition, which is a dependable choice for patients with carotid stenosis.

Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Adoption Should not Be Hindered by a Concern for a Long Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) offers a novel technique for carotid artery stenting (CAS) that provides flow reversal in the carotid artery and avoids aortic arch manipulation, thus, potentially lowering ipsilateral and contralateral periprocedural stroke rates. As a new technology, adoption may be limited by concern for learning a new technique. This study seeks to examine the number of cases needed for a surgeon to reach technical proficiency.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed using a prospectively collected database of all TCAR procedures performed in a tertiary health care system between 2016 and 2020. Patient demographics and anatomic characteristics were collected. Intraoperative variables and perioperative outcomes were examined. These variables were collated into groups for the first 4 procedures, procedures 5-8, and after 8. Independent Samples t test, 1-way ANOVA, and logarithmic regression were used to statistically analyze the data.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eighty-seven TCARs were performed by 14 surgeons. One hundred and twenty-two (65%) were male, 59 (32%) were older than 75 years, and 83 (44%) were symptomatic. The most common indications were high-lesions in 87 patients (47%) and recurrent stenosis after CEA in 37 patients (20%). Significant differences were found between the first and second groups of 4 cases when comparing mean operative time (71 vs. 58 min; P = 0.001) and flow reversal time (10.8 vs. 7.9 min; P= 0.004). similar significant differences were found between the first and third groups of 4 cases but not between the second and third groups. There was a reduction in contrast usage and fluoroscopy time after the first 4 cases, however, this did not reach statistical significance. There was no ipsilateral perioperative strokes. One patient had a contralateral stroke on postoperative day 2 due to intracranial atherosclerosis, and there was one perioperative mortality that occurred on postoperative day 3 after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedural and flow reversal times significantly shorten after 4 TCAR procedures are performed. Other metrics, such as fluoroscopy time and contrast usage, are also decreased. Complications, in general, are minimal. Proficiency in TCAR, as measured by these metrics, is met after performing only 4 procedures.

Hybrid Repair of a Common Carotid Pseudoaneurysm and Concomitant Internal Carotid Stenosis With Retrograde Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy

This report aims to present a rare case of a common carotid artery (CCA) pseudoaneurysm with a concomitant internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis that were treated with a hybrid technique. This strategy included the retrograde placement of a CCA covered stent under ICA clamping followed by standardized carotid endarterectomy. The technique will be discussed and compared with other possible treatments.

Editor's Choice - Early and Late Outcomes after Transcarotid Revascularisation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid/transcervical revascularisation (TCAR) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS). This review aimed to evaluate pooled data on patients undergoing TCAR.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were used.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was conducted under Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eligible studies (published online up to September 2020) reported 30 day mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) rates in patients undergoing TCAR. Data were pooled in a random effects model and weight of effect for each study was also reported. Quality of studies was evaluated according to Newcastle - Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (three low, seven medium, and eight high quality) included 4 852 patients (4 867 TCAR procedures). The pooled 30 day mortality rate was 0.7% (n = 32) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 - 1.0), 30 day stroke rate 1.4% (n = 62) (95% CI 1.0 - 1.7), and 30 day stroke/TIA rate 2.0% (n = 92) (95% CI 1.4 - 2.7). Pooled technical success was 97.6% (95% CI 95.9 - 98.8). The cranial nerve injury rate was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7 - 1.9) (n = 14; data from 10 studies) while the early myocardial infarction (MI) rate was 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 - 0.6) (n = 16; data from 17 studies). The haematoma/bleeding rate was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.8) (n = 135; data from 10 studies), with one third of these cases needing drainage or intervention. Within a follow up of 3 - 40 months the restenosis rate was 4% (95% CI 0.1 - 13.1) (data from nine studies; n = 64/530 patients) and death/stroke rate 4.5% (95% CI 1.8 - 8.4) (data from five studies; n = 184/3 742 patients). Symptomatic patients had a higher risk of early stroke/TIA than asymptomatic patients (2.5% vs. 1.2%; odds ratio 1.99; 95% CI 1.01 - 3.92); p = .046; data from eight studies).

CONCLUSION

TCAR is associated with promising early and late outcomes, with symptomatic patients having a higher risk of early cerebrovascular events. More prospective comparative studies are needed in order to verify TCAR as an established alternative treatment technique.