A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization with Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;69:426-436. [PMID: 32505684 DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.05.070]

Avoiding Complications with Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for carotid artery stenting offers an innovative method for treating carotid artery occlusive disease. This technique utilizes the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, CA) to temporarily reverse flow in the carotid artery prior to crossing or treating the carotid lesion, reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. This review aims to summarize possible complications associated with the procedure and offer suggestions to address or avoid these issues in practice.

METHODS

A review of the available scientific literature was performed via PubMed database queries. Our institutional experience with TCAR was reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Outcomes assessed included perioperative complications and overall rates of re-stenosis after TCAR.

RESULTS

Potential complications of TCAR were identified and summarized. These are organized based on preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative timing of the potential complication. Our group's real-world outcomes of 273 patients undergoing TCAR with median (interquartile range) follow up of 17.4 (4.4 -38.7) months, including safety and restenosis data, are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Herein we summarize the available literature regarding potential complications that may be encountered when performing TCAR. Safe and effective clinical outcomes, comparable to those of published clinical trial data, can be successfully achieved in the real-world setting.

Impact of embolic protection methods versus access types on outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is commonly performed through transfemoral or transcarotid access. Neurologic protection methods utilized during the procedure include distal embolic protection (DEP) and flow reversal devices. Multiple studies demonstrated more favorable outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal (TCAR) in comparison to transfemoral carotid artery stenting with DEP (TFCAS-DEP). However, not many studies compared TCAR with transcarotid artery stenting with DEP (TCAS-DEP) or TFCAS with flow arrest by proximal balloon occlusion (TFCAS-PBO). We aimed to compare the effect of access types and embolic protection methods on the outcomes of CAS.

METHODS

All patients undergoing CAS between September 2016 and August 2024 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to compare outcomes of TFCAS-DEP, TFCAS-PBO, and TCAS-DEP with TCAR. Cohorts were weighted with regards to 27 baseline variables.

RESULTS

A total of 99,030 patients were included in our study: TCAR, 66,655 (67.3%); TFCAS-DEP, 30,723 (31.0%); TCAS-DEP, 912 (0.9%); and TFCAS-PBO, 740 (0.8%). Compared with TCAR, TFCAS-DEP had more than double the odds of in-hospital and 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-3.19; P < .001; OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.08-2.74; P < .001), and 62% higher odds of stroke/death (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.45-1.81; P < .001). The TCAS-DEP group had double the risk of 30-day mortality (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.13-3.53; P = .016) and 58% increased risk of stroke (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .031). Finally, higher odds of in-hospital and 30-day mortality (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.22-5.00; P = .012; and OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03-3.30; P = .038, respectively) were observed in the TFCAS-PBO group when compared with TCAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, comprehensive multi-institutional study comparing carotid access types and embolic protection methods, TCAR seems to be the safest endovascular carotid revascularization procedure owing to its lower risk of postoperative stroke or death. This study confirms that avoidance of the aortic arch and flow reversal neuroprotection are both important in reducing complications following CAS.

Predictive Factors Driving Positive Awake Test in Carotid Endarterectomy Using Machine Learning

BACKGROUND

Positive neurologic awake testing during the carotid cross-clamping may be present in around 8% of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The present work aimed to assess the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered risk calculator in predicting intraoperative neurologic deficits (INDs).

METHODS

Data was collected from carotid interventions performed between January 2012 and January 2023 under regional anesthesia. Patients with IND were selected along with consecutive controls without IND in a case-control study design. A predictive model for IND was developed using machine learning, specifically Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, and its performance was assessed and compared to an existing predictive model. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was employed for the model interpretation.

RESULTS

Among 216 patients, 108 experienced IND during CEA. The AI-based predictive model achieved a robust area under the curve of 0.82, with an accuracy of 0.75, precision of 0.88, sensitivity of 0.59, and F1Score of 0.71. High body mass index (BMI) increased contralateral carotid stenosis, and a history of limb paresis or plegia were significant IND risk factors. Elevated preoperative platelet and hemoglobin levels were associated with reduced IND risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This AI model provides precise IND prediction in CEA, enabling tailored interventions for high-risk patients and ultimately improving surgical outcomes. BMI, contralateral stenosis, and selected blood parameters emerged as pivotal predictors, bringing significant advancements to decision-making in CEA procedures. Further validation in larger cohorts is essential for broader clinical implementation.

Postoperative Bleeding Complications are Common among Patients Undergoing Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Current practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 30 days postoperatively after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) to promote stent patency. However, many patients are already taking other antithrombotic medications. The optimal pharmacologic regimen in this patient population remains unclear, especially as it pertains to postoperative bleeding complications.

METHODS

All TCAR procedures performed at a large academic medical center from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2023, were identified via current procedural terminology codes and retrospectively reviewed via electronic medical records. Data were collected on patient demographics, procedural details, postoperative complications, and antithrombotic regimen. Bleeding complications were categorized as surgical and nonsurgical, which included any bleeding diatheses that were not related to the neck incision, such as epistaxis, hematuria, melena, or noncervical hematoma.

RESULTS

A total of 116 TCAR procedures were performed. The 30-day incidence of bleeding complications was 12.1% (n = 14), which included 8 (6.9%) symptomatic neck hematomas and 6 (5.2%) nonsurgical site bleeding complications. Aside from patient age (median 72 years [66-79] vs. 79 years [70.5-88], P = 0.03), demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical indication, risk-related indication for TCAR, and inpatient/outpatient status were similar between patients who experienced bleeding versus no bleeding complications. Patients who developed bleeding complications experienced higher 30-day hospital readmission (42.9% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.001) and reintervention rates (21.4% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001) and trended toward longer postoperative length of stay (1.5 days [1-3] vs. 1 [1-2] days, P = 0.07). Reasons for readmission (n = 16) included: epistaxis (1), hematuria (1), headache and melena (1), melena and myocardial infarction (1), fall (1), headache (1), dyspnea (5), delirium (1), diarrhea (1), atrial fibrillation (1), and neck hematoma (1); 1 patient did not have a readmission reason documented. Reinterventions (n = 6) included neck hematoma evacuation (2), epistaxis cauterization (1), emergent cricothyroidotomy (1), and repeat carotid stenting (1). The management of antithrombotic medications during bleeding events were highly variable among providers (11 patients with nothing held, 1 apixaban held, 1 aspirin held, 1 clopidogrel held); however, no patients suffered carotid stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Bleeding complications are common within 30 days of TCAR and frequently result in unplanned hospital readmission and reintervention. There is significant provider-level variability in management of antithrombotic medications during these events. These data highlight need for evidence-based guidelines for the optimal pharmacologic strategy for patients post-TCAR who develop bleeding complications.

Transcarotid artery revascularization outperforms transfemoral carotid artery stenting regardless of aortic arch type or degree of atherosclerosis

OBJECTIVE

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services now approve reimbursement for transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of standard-risk patients with carotid artery occlusive disease. TFCAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy is known to be challenging with worse outcomes. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) could be a preferable alternative in these patients owing to avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal during stent deployment. We aim to compare the outcomes of TCAR vs TFCAS across all aortic arch types and degrees of arch atherosclerosis.

METHODS

All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting between September 2016 and October 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified into four groups: Group A (mild atherosclerosis and type I/II arch), Group B (mild atherosclerosis and type III arch), Group C (moderate/severe atherosclerosis and type I/II arch), and Group D (moderate/severe atherosclerosis and type III arch). The primary outcome was in-hospital composite stroke or death. Analysis of variance and χ2 tests analyzed differences for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders, and backward stepwise selection was implemented to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final models. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, log rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models analyzed hazard ratios for 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 20,114 patients were included (Group A: 12,980 [64.53%]; Group B: 1175 [5.84%]; Group C: 5124 [25.47%]; and Group D: 835 [4.15%]). TCAR was more commonly performed across the four groups (72.21%, 67.06%, 74.94%, and 69.22%; P < .001). Compared with patients with mild arch atherosclerosis, patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis in Group C and Group D were more likely to be female, hypertensive, smokers, and have chronic kidney disease. Patients with type III arch in Group B and Group D were more likely to present with stroke preoperatively. On multivariable analysis, TCAR had less than one-half the risk of stroke/death and 1-year mortality compared with TFCAS in the patients with the mildest atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (Group A) (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.61; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P < .001). Group B patients with similar atherosclerosis but more complex arch anatomy had 70% lower odds of stroke/death with TCAR compared with TFCAS (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.75; P = .01). Similar findings were also evident in patients with more severe atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97; P = .037). There was no significant difference in odds of stroke/death in patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis and complex arch (Group D) (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.39-2.16; P = .834).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is safer than TFCAS in patients with simple and advanced arch anatomy. This could be related to the efficiency of flow reversal vs distal embolic protection. The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision will likely increase stroke and death outcomes of carotid stenting nationally if multidisciplinary approach and appropriate patient selection are not implemented.

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.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients

OBJECTIVE

Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis.

METHODS

Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression.

RESULTS

In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

The effect of the collateral cerebrovascular circulation on tolerance to carotid artery cross-clamping and on early outcome after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The Circle of Willis (CoW) serves as the primary source of contralateral blood supply in patients who undergo carotid artery cross-clamping (CC) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It has been suggested that the CoW's anatomy influences CEA outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between the cerebral collateral circulation, a positive awake test for intraoperative neurologic deficit after carotid CC, and postoperative adverse neurologic events.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies that assessed the cerebral circulation, including CoW variations, using neuroimaging techniques in patients who underwent carotid CC. For the metanalytical incidence, the statistical technique used was weight averaging. Otherwise, descriptive analysis was used due to the excessive heterogeneity of the studies.

RESULTS

Eight publications, seven cohort and one case-controlled study, involving 1313 patients who underwent carotid artery CC under loco-regional anesthesia, were included in the systematic review. The incidence of positive awake test in the cohort studies ranged from 4.4% to 19.7%. Carotid artery CC resulted in positive awake test in 5% to 91% of patients with alterations in the anterior portion and in 27% to 74% with alterations in the posterior portion of the CoW. A positive awake test in patients with contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion ranged from 5.8% to 45.7%. Contralateral carotid stenosis >70% or occlusion were associated with a positive awake test (P < .001). Patients with incomplete CoW did not have statistically significant correlation with intraoperative neurological deficits after CC. Data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of the collateral circulation on early outcome after CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, contralateral carotid artery stenosis or occlusion, but not CoW abnormalities, were associated with a positive awake test after carotid artery CC. Further research is needed to evaluate which specific CoW anomaly predicts neurologic deficit after CC and to confirm association between a positive awake test and clinical outcome after 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.

Comparing Post-operative Pain and Other Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is growing in popularity. Although major clinical end-points such as stroke rate and mortality are well-known, patient reported outcomes such as pain, and length of stay are among the purported benefits that are as yet untested. We sought to determine if there are differences in pain and other clinical outcomes when comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and TCAR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 326 patients undergoing TCAR (n = 50) or CEA (n = 276) from 2019-2023. Primary outcomes of interest were maximum pain numeric rating scales (NRS) reported in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative days (POD) zero and 1, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMMEs) received intraoperatively through POD1. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day emergency department (ED) returns/readmissions.

RESULTS

Fifty TCAR and 150 CEA patients were included in the propensity score matched cohorts. TCAR patients reported lower pain-NRS in PACU (P < .001) and on POD0 (P = .002), but similar pain scores on POD1 (P = .112). Postoperatively, TCAR patients were less likely to receive opioids (52% vs 75.3%, P = .003) and received less OMME from PACU through POD1 (12.8 ± 16.2 vs 23.2 ± 27.2, P = .001). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, prior chronic opioid use, and prior carotid surgery, TCAR patients were approximately 70% less likely to receive post-operative opioids. No significant differences in LOS, 30-day ED returns/readmissions, or complications were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CEA, patients undergoing TCAR reported lower pain scores and consumed fewer narcotics overall. However, the absolute difference was modest, and pain scores were low in both cohorts. Differences in pain and post-operative narcotic use may be of less importance when deciding between TCAR and CEA. Total non-opioid protocols may be feasible in both approaches.

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.

William M. Feinberg Lecture: Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Current and Future Considerations

Asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis is an important therapeutic target for stroke prevention. For decades, the ACAS (Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study) and ACST (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial) trials provided most of the evidence supporting endarterectomy for patients with asymptomatic high-grade stenosis who were otherwise good candidates for surgery. Since then, transfemoral/transradial carotid stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization have emerged as alternatives to endarterectomy for revascularization. Advances in treatments against atherosclerosis have driven down the rates of stroke in patients managed without revascularization. SPACE-2 (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy-2), a trial that included endarterectomy, stenting, and medical arms, failed to detect significant differences in stroke rates among treatment groups, but the study was stopped well short of its recruitment goal. CREST-2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial) will be able to clarify whether revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy remains efficacious under conditions of intensive medical management. Transcarotid artery revascularization has a favorable periprocedural risk profile, but randomized trials comparing it to intensive medical management are lacking. Features like intraplaque hemorrhage on MRI and echolucency on B-mode ultrasonography can identify patients at higher risk of stroke with asymptomatic stenosis. High-grade stenosis with poor collaterals can cause hemispheric hypoperfusion, and unstable plaque can cause microemboli, both of which may be treatable risk factors for cognitive impairment. Evidence that there are patients with carotid stenosis who benefit cognitively from revascularization is presently lacking. New risk factors are emerging, like exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics. Strategies to limit exposure will be important without specific medical therapies.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry

OBJECTIVE

With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

METHODS

We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians.

RESULTS

We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Transcarotid arterial revascularization is feasible and safe with concomitant inferior vena cava occlusion

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has risen as a promising minimally invasive intervention for high-risk patients with favorable anatomy. TCAR's noninferiority to carotid endarterectomy regarding stroke is reliant on its flow reversal technology and lack of aortic arch manipulation. We present the case of a 79-year-old man with a chronically occluded inferior vena cava who safely underwent staged bilateral TCAR for bilateral high-grade carotid artery stenosis. Although chronic inferior vena cava occlusion alters flow mechanics, we suspect that any pressure gradient facilitating retrograde flow from the carotid artery to the femoral vein provides neuroprotective benefits.

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.

"TCAR or nothing": the only options for some complex carotid stenosis

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization has emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. We present four cases for which we believe transcervical carotid artery revascularization was the only option to treat the lesions. Each case presented with specific technical challenges that were overcome by intraoperative planning that allowed for safe deployment of the Enroute stent (Silk Road Medical) with resolution of each patient's stenosis.

Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

Trans-Distal Radial Artery Carotid Revascularization with Forearm Flow Reversal: An Alternative Option of CAS in the TCAR Era

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative to carotid artery stenting (CAS). TCAR demonstrated its superiority by avoiding femoral artery puncture and establishing proximal protection without crossing the stenotic lesion. In the TCAR era, we focused on the possibility of a trans-distal radial approach (DRA). A balloon-guide catheter was navigated via DRA to establish proximal protection before lesion crossing. The forearm subcutaneous vein was used as the flow-reversal circuit.

METHODS

Six internal carotid artery stenosis patients underwent CAS using "the forearm flow reversal technique." Every procedure was performed under continuous flow reversal from the common carotid artery to the forearm cephalic vein.

RESULTS

Successful revascularization was achieved without ischemic or access-site complications. The distal radial artery was patent at discharge in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-distal radial CAS with forearm flow reversal is a feasible and less invasive technical option.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS

BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear.

METHODS

Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response.

RESULTS

Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization.

METHODS

Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Prediction of postprocedural filter debris after transcarotid revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a technique in which cerebral flow reversal is utilized as embolic protection during carotid stenting. The presence, or absence, of filter debris created during TCAR could potentially be a surrogate to characterize carotid lesions at high risk for embolization and, therefore, explored in this investigation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of TCARs performed within the Indiana University and Memorial Hermann (McGovern Medical School at UTHealth) Health Systems to capture demographics and preoperative variables. A mixed effect multivariate logistic regression model was created to discern the best predictors of intraoperative filter debris.

RESULTS

During the study period, from December 2015 to December 2021, we captured filter debris status in 693 of 750 patients containing 323 cases of filter embolization at case completion. With respect to demographics and indications, we found a higher incidence of neck radiation (2.7 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.01) and a more pronounced Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; 5.3 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.3, p < 0.01) in the filter debris cohort while contralateral carotid occlusion (6.6 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.05) and clopidogrel usage (87.3 vs. 80.1%, p = 0.03) were less common. Longer intraoperative flow reversal (8.0 ± 1.2 vs 10.5 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) and fluoroscopy time (4.0 ± 0.6 vs 5.1 ± 0.6, p < 0.01) were also seen in those with filter debris. These findings remained when a mixed effect univariate logistic regression model was used to account for differences in filter debris reporting between locations. After multivariable modeling, we found that reverse flow time and CCI remained predictive of filter debris while the presence of a contralateral carotid occlusion was still protective.

CONCLUSION

In our combined experience, the creation of visible filter debris after TCAR seems to be independently associated with extended reverse flow time and elevated CCI while a contralateral carotid occlusion was protective.

Post-Stroke Brain Health Monitoring and Optimization: A Narrative Review

Significant advancements have been made in recent years in the acute treatment and secondary prevention of stroke. However, a large proportion of stroke survivors will go on to have enduring physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities from suboptimal post-stroke brain health. Impaired brain health following stroke thus warrants increased attention from clinicians and researchers alike. In this narrative review based on an open timeframe search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, we define post-stroke brain health and appraise the body of research focused on modifiable vascular, lifestyle, and psychosocial factors for optimizing post-stroke brain health. In addition, we make clinical recommendations for the monitoring and management of post-stroke brain health at major post-stroke transition points centered on four key intertwined domains: cognition, psychosocial health, physical functioning, and global vascular health. Finally, we discuss potential future work in the field of post-stroke brain health, including the use of remote monitoring and interventions, neuromodulation, multi-morbidity interventions, enriched environments, and the need to address inequities in post-stroke brain health. As post-stroke brain health is a relatively new, rapidly evolving, and broad clinical and research field, this narrative review aims to identify and summarize the evidence base to help clinicians and researchers tailor their own approach to integrating post-stroke brain health into their practices.

Impact of Physician Experience on Stroke or Death Rates in Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting: Insights from the Vascular Quality Initiative

Objective

With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using VQI data.

Methods

We analyzed tfCAS patient data from 2005-2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and in-hospital stroke/TIA. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using Cochran Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines, validated using generalized estimating equations.

Results

We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2,476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2% to 1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8% to 1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6% to 2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0% to 1.1%) (all p-values<0.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1% to 1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6% to 1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7% to 0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8% to 1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all p-values<0.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures.

Conclusions

In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates post-tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. With the recent CMS coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased post-operative complications.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Three Years Survival of Trans Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare-Linked Database

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA.

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and 1-year outcomes compared with CEA. We aimed to compare the 1-year and 3-year outcomes of TCAR versus CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked [Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION)] database.

METHODS

The VISION database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was 1-year and 3-year survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce 2 well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression was used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in 1-year death [hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30; P =0.065]. At 3-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P =0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased 3-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.63; P =0.008). Exploratory analyses of postoperative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at 1 year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of 3-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard-risk patients requiring 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.

Impact of calcified plaque volume on technical and 3-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

We sought to quantify the percent calcification within carotid artery plaques and assess its impact on percent residual stenosis and rate of restenosis in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected institutional Vascular Quality Initiative data was performed to identify all patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization from December 2015 to June 2021 (n = 210). Patient and lesion characteristics were extracted. Using a semiautomated workflow, preoperative computed tomography head and neck angiograms were analyzed to determine the calcified plaque volume in distal common carotid artery and internal carotid artery plaques. Intraoperative digital subtraction angiograms were reviewed to calculate the percent residual stenosis post-intervention according to North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. Peak systolic velocity and end-diastolic velocity were extracted from outpatient carotid duplex ultrasound examinations. Univariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the relationship of calcium volume percent and Vascular Quality Initiative lesion calcification to percent residual stenosis in completion angiograms. Kaplan-Meier analysis examined the relationship between calcium volume percent and in-stent stenosis over 36 months.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven carotid arteries were preliminarily examined. Predilation was performed in 87.4% of cases with a mean balloon diameter of 5.1 ± 0.7 mm and a mean stent diameter was 8.8 ± 1.1 mm. The mean calcium volume percent was 11.9 ± 12.4% and the mean percent residual stenosis was 16.1 ± 15.6%. Univariate logistic regression demonstrated a statistically significant difference between calcium volume percent and percent residual stenosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.324; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.005-1.746; P = .046). Stratified by quartile, only the top 25% of calcified plaques (>18.7% calcification) demonstrated a statistically significant association with higher percent residual stenosis (OR, 2.532; 95% CI, 1.049-6.115; P =.039). There was no statistical significance with lesion calcification (OR, 1.298; 95% C,: 0.980-1.718; P = .069). A Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the rate of in-stent stenosis during a 36-month follow-up for lesions containing >8.2% calcium volume (P = .0069).

CONCLUSIONS

A calcium volume percent of >18.7% was associated with a higher percent residual stenosis, and a calcium volume percent of >8.2% was associated with higher in-stent stenosis at 36 months. There was one clinically diagnosed stroke during the follow-up period, demonstrating the overall safety of the procedure.

Physiologic risk factors increase risk of myocardial infarction with transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials

OBJECTIVE

Patients can be considered at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) because of either anatomic or physiologic factors and will often undergo transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Patients with physiologic criteria will be considered to have a higher overall surgical risk because of more significant comorbidities. Our aim was to study the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and combined end points for patients who had undergone TCAR stratified by the risk factors (anatomic vs physiologic).

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER (pivotal; safety and efficacy study for reverse flow used during carotid artery stenting procedure), ROADSTER 2 (Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket trial; postapproval study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery disease), and ROADSTER extended access TCAR trials was performed. All 851 patients were considered to be at high risk for CEA and were included and stratified using high-risk anatomic criteria (ie, contralateral occlusion, tandem stenosis, high cervical artery stenosis, restenosis after previous endarterectomy, bilateral carotid stenting, hostile neck anatomy with previous neck irradiation, neck dissection, cervical spine immobility) or high-risk physiologic criteria (ie, age >75 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, history of angina, congestive heart failure New York Heart Association class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent MI, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent contralateral cranial nerve injury, chronic renal insufficiency). For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients were required to have had ≥80% carotid stenosis and symptomatic patients to have had ≥50% stenosis. The primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and MI at 30 days. The data were statistically analyzed using the χ² test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 851 high surgical risk patients were categorized into two groups: those with anatomic-only risk factors (n = 372) or at least one physiologic risk factor present (n = 479). Of the 851 patients, 74.5% of those in the anatomic subset were asymptomatic, and 76.6% in the physiologic subset were asymptomatic. General anesthesia was used similarly in both groups (67.7% anatomic vs 68.1% physiologic). MI had occurred in eight patients in the physiologic group (1.7%), all of whom had been asymptomatic and in none of the anatomic patients (P = .01). The combined stroke, death, and MI rate was 2.1% in the anatomic cohort and 4.2% in the physiologic cohort (P = .10). Stratification of each group into asymptomatic and symptomatic patients did not yield any further differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who had undergone TCAR in the present prospective, neurologically adjudicated trial because of high-risk physiologic factors had had a higher rate of MI compared with the patients who had qualified for TCAR using anatomic criteria only. These patients had experienced comparable rates of combined stroke, death, and MI rates. The anatomic patients represented a healthier and younger subset of patients, with notably low overall event rates.

Thirty-Day Perioperative Clinical Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been proposed as a alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients. Recently Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR to include standard surgical risk patients within the Society of Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Few single centers compared the clinical outcome of TCAR with CEA. This study compares 30-day perioperative clinical outcomes between TCAR and CEA.

STUDY DESIGN

This is retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the TCAR Surveillance Project of TCAR patients enrolled in our institution and compared with CEAs done in the same time/with the same providers. The primary outcome was stroke and/or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death, MI, cranial nerve injury, bleeding, and others. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 501 patients (347 CEA, 154 TCAR). There were no significant differences in symptomatic status (43% for CEA vs 38% for TCAR, p = 0.303). TCAR had more patients with hypertension (p = 0.04), coronary artery disease (p = 0.028), and congestive heart failure (p = 0.039). The 30-day perioperative complication rates for CEA vs TCAR were as follows: stroke 1% vs 3% (p = 0.142), stroke/death 1% vs 3% (p = 0.185), MI 0.6% vs 0.7% (p = 1), death 0.6% vs 0% (p = 1), stroke/death/MI 2% vs 4% (p = 0.233), cranial nerve injury 4% vs 2% (p = 0.412), and major hematoma (requiring reintervention) 2% vs 3% (p = 1). After matching 154 CEA patients and 154 TCAR, 30-day perioperative complication rates were as follows: stroke 2% vs 3% (p = 0.723), stroke/death 3% vs 3% (p = 1), death 1.3% vs 0% (p = 0.498), MI 0.7% vs 0.7% (p = 1), and stroke/death/MI 3% vs 4% (p = 0.759).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that using propensity match analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar 30-day perioperative outcomes. Further long-term data are needed.

Impact of Flow Reversal Duration on Neurological Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUNDS

Flow reversal is a key component of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). However, the impact of flow reversal duration on neurological outcomes and the duration of flow reversal which optimizes TCAR's outcomes is not known. We evaluated the association of flow reversal time with the intraoperative and postoperative neurological outcomes of TCAR.

METHODS

We studied all patients undergoing TCAR from September 2016 to October 2021. The exposure of interest was the duration of flow reversal. Multivariable logistic and fractional polynomial models were used to study the impact of flow reversal duration on in-hospital stroke, intraoperative neurological change/intolerance and stroke/death following TCAR and to identify the flow reversal time above which significant perioperative neurological events occur.

RESULTS

The study included 19,462 patients with mean age of 73.4 years who were mostly Caucasian (91%) and male (63%). The mean flow reversal time was 10.7 minutes, and the overall stroke rate was 1.4%. The odds of intraoperative neurological change increased by 3.6% per minute increase in flow reversal time (odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95%, 1.01-1.06; P < 0.002). Flow reversal duration >10 minutes was associated with 78% increased odds of neurological changes compared to flow reversal duration <10 minutes. There was no significant association between flow reversal duration and stroke, and stroke/death in the first 5 minutes after initiation of flow reversal. The odds of stroke increased by 2.7% per minute increase in flow reversal time >5 minutes (OR, 1.03; 95%, 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001), with flow reversal duration >10 minutes associated with 38% increased odds of stroke compared to flow reversal duration ≤10 minutes (OR, 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-1.73, P = 0.006). The odds of stroke/death increased by 2.5% per minute increase in flow reversal time >5 minutes (OR, 1.03; 95%, 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001). Flow reversal duration >10 minutes was associated with 25% increased odds of stroke/death compared to flow reversal duration <10 minutes (OR, 1.25, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53, P = 0.038). Symptomatic status did not modify outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that outcomes following TCAR are optimal if the duration of flow reversal is minimized. A clinical cutoff time of 10 minutes is suggested by this study and recommended as a guide. Further studies targeted at the flow reversal component of TCAR are needed to solidify the evidence regarding the clinical effects of temporarily induced retrograde cerebral blood flow during TCAR.

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.

Effect of Postoperative Stroke Timing on Perioperative Mortality After Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

In-hospital stroke (IHS) has been associated with worse outcomes than out-of-hospital stroke (OHS) due to delays in diagnosis and treatment. A paucity of studies exists comparing the timing of postoperative stroke after carotid revascularization. We aimed to study the effect of IHS versus OHS on postoperative mortality in carotid revascularization patients in a large-scale national database.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Statistical analysis included chi-squared test and multivariable logistic regression. Patients were divided based on postoperative stroke timing (no stroke, IHS, or OHS) as well as procedure type (CEA or CAS).

RESULTS

A total of 31,304 carotid revascularizations were performed with 420 (1.3%) IHSs and 207 (0.7%) OHSs. On adjusted analysis, there was significantly higher perioperative mortality with both IHS [odds ratio (OR): 19.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.61-28.18, P < 0.001] and OHS [OR: 29.73, 95% CI: 18.76-45.82, P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mortality after OHS versus IHS [OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.89-2.55, P = 0.161].

CONCLUSIONS

Any postoperative stroke after carotid revascularization significantly increased the odds of 30-day mortality. In contrast to previous studies demonstrating worse outcomes after IHS than OHS, we observed similar 30-day mortality between the 2 stroke categories. Improved follow-up and early recognition with rescue within carotid revascularization patients compared to the general population could potentially contribute to these results. However, overall mortality remains high for any postoperative stroke following carotid revascularization, emphasizing the importance of vigilant in-hospital monitoring and follow-up even after discharging the patient.

Dual Institutional Experience with Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

Introduction

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid open and endovascular technique to treat carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to present a large cohort of patients who underwent TCAR at 2 high-volume TCAR health systems.

Methods

This study was a retrospective chart review of all instances of TCAR within the Memorial Hermann Health System and Indiana University Health, from December 2015-January 2022, using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection Device (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, CA). We report patient demographics, intraoperative metrics, 30-day results and long-term results.

Results

In all, 750 patients underwent TCAR in the designated time period. Average patient age was 73 years, with 68% being male. Overall, 53.9% of patients had coronary artery disease, 45.4% had diabetes, and 36.9% were symptomatic. Technical success was achieved in 98.8% of patients with conversion to open endarterectomy in 1.1%. Average reverse flow time was 9.1 minutes with length of stay greater than 1 day 38%. Ipsilateral stroke rate within 30 days was 2.3% and long-term cumulative stroke rate was 3.0%. Death within 30 days occurred in 1.2% of patients and in 5.9% over long-term follow up. In all, 1% of patients required reintervention.

Conclusions

TCAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for carotid artery stenotic disease. Its outcomes are similar to historical results associated with carotid endarterectomy, long considered the gold standard.

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.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

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.

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.

Controversies in Vascular Surgery

There have been significant advances in vascular surgery in recent years. These advances include procedural techniques, choice of procedure, and application of nonoperative management. Endovascular techniques have expanded greatly over the past decade. As a result, for many clinical scenarios there is more than 1 option for management, which has given rise to controversies in the choice of best management. This article reviews current controversies in the management of carotid artery disease, abdominal aortic aneurysms, acute deep venous thrombosis, and inferior vena cava filter placement.

Performance of Carotid Revascularization Procedures as Modified by Sex

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations on carotid revascularization postulate that women have both increased perioperative risks, such as stroke and death, as well as reduced benefit from intervention. These recommendations do not include data on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). This study strives to compare safety and benefits of TCAR, TFCAS (Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting), and CEA (Carotid Endarterectomy) with regard to patient sex.

METHODS

We performed retrospective analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) CEA and stenting registries, as well as TCAR Surveillance Project data. We compared outcomes after TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA based on sex. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke, death, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, stroke/TIA, and recurrent ipsilateral stroke and/or death at 1-year of follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 75,538 patients were included, of which 28,960 (38.3%) were female and 46,578 (61.7%) were male. TFCAS females had more than 2 times higher odds of stroke/death (OR:2.85, 95%CI: 2.21-3.67, P < 0.001) and stroke/death/MI (OR:2.23, 95%CI:1.75-2.83, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. Odds of TIA were also higher in both TFCAS females (OR:2.01, 95%CI:1.19-3.42, P = 0.010) and TCAR females (OR:1.91, 95%CI:1.09-3.35, P = .023) when compared to CEA females. However, only TFCAS females experienced increased odds of stroke/TIA (OR:1.96, 95%CI:1.45-2.65, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA females. TFCAS males had almost twice the odds of stroke/death (OR:1.74, 95%CI:1.39-2.16, P < 0.001) and 44% higher odds of stroke/death/MI (OR:1.44, 95%CI:1.19-1.75, P < 0.001), and more than 3-times increased odds of death (OR:3.45, 95%CI:2.53-4.71, P < 0.001) when compared to CEA males. Odds of in-hospital stroke were comparable between TFCAS and CEA after adjusting for covariates. TCAR males have half the odds of MI when compared to CEA males (OR:0.52, 95%CI:0.34-0.80, P = 0.003). At 1-year TCAR had comparable risk of stroke/death while TFCAS had increased risk of stroke/death when compared to CEA among both males and females.

CONCLUSION

TCAR performed similarly to CEA in both sexes regardless of symptomatic status. Stroke/death and stroke/death/MI rates were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic males and females treated by CEA or TCAR. The 1-year outcomes of TCAR were also comparable to CEA in both sexes. It seems that TCAR may be a safe alternative to CEA particularly in women when surgical risk prohibits CEA and while TFCAS is associated with substantial adverse outcomes.

Carotid Endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared to TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost effectiveness of TCAR is not well understood.

METHODS

Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in $US and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and MI as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared to CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base case risk 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared to CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base case $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.

The impact of carotid lesion calcification on outcomes of carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

The impact of carotid artery lesion calcification on adverse events following carotid artery stenting is not well-studied. Few reports associated heavily calcified lesions with high risk of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). With the advent of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we aimed to compare the outcomes of these two procedures stratified by the degree of lesion calcification.

METHODS

Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative database for carotid artery stenting. Patients with missing information on the degree of carotid artery calcification were excluded. Patients were stratified into two groups: >50% (heavy) calcification and ≤50% (no/mild) calcification. The Student t test and the χ² test were used to compare patients' baseline characteristics and crude outcomes, as appropriate. Clinically relevant and statistically significantly variables on univariable analysis were added to a logistic regression model clustered by center identifier.

RESULTS

A total of 11,342 patients were included. Patients with >50% calcification were older, had more comorbidities, and more contralateral occlusion. There were more patients with prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy in the ≤50% calcification group. In patients who underwent TCAR, there were no significant differences between those who had >50% vs ≤50% carotid calcification in the odds of in-hospital adverse outcomes. However, in patients with heavy calcification who underwent TFCAS, there was a 50% to 60% increase in the odds of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.5; P = .03), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .013), and stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.08; P = .039). Compared with TFCAS in patients with heavy calcification, TCAR was associated with a 40% to 90% reduction in the odds of contralateral stroke (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.4; P = .001), contralateral stroke/TIA (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.87; P = .024), any stroke/TIA (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .02), death (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.13-0.72; P = .006), stroke/death (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.8; P = .004), and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = .008). There were no significant differences in the odds of stroke and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis of patients undergoing TFCAS vs TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database, TCAR demonstrated favorable outcomes compared with TFCAS among patients with calcification greater than 50% of the carotid circumference. Advance burden of carotid artery calcification was associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing TFCAS but not TCAR. These results are consistent with previously demonstrated superiority of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection devices. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes and confirm the durability of TCAR in heavily calcified lesions.

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.

Ileal hemorrhagic infarction after carotid artery stenting: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Ileal hemorrhagic infarction after carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a fatal complication. The prognosis of ileal hemorrhagic infarction after CAS is very poor if not treated in a timely manner. We describe a rare case of ileal hemorrhagic infarction due to acute embolism of the mesenteric artery after CAS.

CASE SUMMARY

A 67-year-old man with acute ischemic stroke underwent CAS via the right femoral artery approach 21 d after intensive medical treatment. On the first day after surgery, the patient had abdominal distension and abdominal pain. Abdominal enhanced computed tomography revealed intestinal obstruction, severe stenosis of the superior mesenteric artery, and poor distal angiography. An exploratory laparotomy was performed, and pathological examination showed hemorrhagic ileal infarction. It was subsequently found that the patient had intestinal flatulence. With the guidance of an ultrasound scan, the patient underwent abdominal puncture, drainage, and catheterization. After 58 d of treatment, the patient was discharged from hospital with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 2 points, and a Modified Rankin Scale score of 1 point. At the 6-mo follow-up, the patient had an excellent functional outcome without stroke or mesenteric ischemia. Furthermore, computed tomography angiography showed that the carotid stent was patent.

CONCLUSION

Ileal hemorrhagic infarction is a fatal complication after CAS, usually caused by mesenteric artery embolism. Thus, more attention should be paid to the complications of embolism in the vascular system as well as the nervous system after CAS, and the complications should be identified and treated as early as possible.

Carotid Stenting: Flow Reversal Technique: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

Management options for carotid stenosis include medical management, carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting with distal filter protection, or stenting with either flow arrest or flow reversal techniques.1 Flow reversal with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) technique represents a hybrid approach with surgical access to the common carotid for endovascular placement of a stent in the internal carotid artery. This direct access to the carotid artery avoids navigating the challenging anatomy of the aortic arch with endovascular devices.2 Compared to transfemoral stenting, TCAR possesses lower risk of transient ischemic attack and stroke, and compared to carotid endarterectomy, there is less risk of cranial neuropathy.3,4  We present the case of an 87-yr-old man with recurrent severe stenosis (85%) of the right internal carotid artery. The patient had a remote history of bilateral endarterectomies for asymptomatic stenosis and was found with recurrence and progression of right internal carotid artery stenosis. Options were discussed and decision was made to proceed with TCAR after he consented for the procedure. The patient tolerated the procedure well with satisfactory revascularization. Exam remained unremarkable prior to discharge on postoperative day 1 and during follow-up at 1 mo. Patient consented to the publication of their image.