Performance of Carotid Revascularization Procedures as Modified by Sex

What the National Coverage Determination for Carotid Artery Stenting Means for the Treatment of Patients with Carotid Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

In October 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services agreed to revisit its national coverage determination (NCD) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). We provide an overview of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion, and discuss the likely ramifications on patient care and outcomes in the future.

METHODS

We completed a narrative review of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion.

RESULTS

Arguments presented in favor of the CAS NCD expansion predominantly focused on the outcomes of 4 large multicenter randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2021 that reported similar outcomes for composite end points between patients undergoing CAS and carotid endarterectomy. The main arguments against expanding the CAS NCD centered around higher patient stroke risks with CAS, increasing health-care costs, premature decision-making, and the lack of a validated shared decision-making tool that can be readily applied to carotid revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

By expanding the indications for CAS to asymptomatic and standard-risk patients, they will be exposed to excess and unnecessary risks without any evident benefits, potentially leading to widespread adoption of a procedure driven by financial incentives rather than genuine patient benefits.

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.

A Contemporary Evaluation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services High-risk Indicators for Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Compare stroke/death outcomes across carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) high-risk criterion.

BACKGROUND

Existing literature has revealed inconsistencies with CMS risk guidelines. With recent approval for TCAR and TFCAS in standard-risk patients, an updated analysis of guidelines is needed.

METHODS

Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2016-2023) on CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR patients were used. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital stroke/death rates across procedures for high-risk criteria: contralateral occlusion (CLO), prior CEA, CAS, radiation, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD (on home O 2 ), unstable angina, recent MI (<6 mo), and age (≥75 years-old).

RESULTS

A total of 199,050 patients were analyzed, of whom 122,737 (62%) patients underwent CEA, 50,095 (25%) TCAR, and 26,218 (13%) TFCAS. TCAR had lower odds of stroke/death compared with CEA in patients with CLO [aOR=0.73 (95% CI: 0.55-0.98], P =0.035] and radiation [aOR=0.44 (95% CI: 0.23-0.82), P =0.010]. Contrary to CMS criteria, CEA patients did not have higher stroke/death in patients with prior CEA, CAS, neck surgery, moderate to severe CHF, severe COPD, unstable angina, recent MI, or age (≥75) compared with TCAR and TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

While CMS high-risk criteria have traditionally been recognized as contraindications for CEA, our study reveals inconsistencies-with CEA performing similarly to TCAR and significantly better than TFCAS in patients with prior CEA, moderate to severe CHF, recent MI, or age (≥75). As a result, the definition of high-risk criteria may warrant reconsideration.

The impact of sex on stroke care: From epidemiology to outcome

BACKGROUND

Carotid stenosis and atrial fibrillation are key risk factors for development of hemispheric strokes. In this review we aim to identify sex-specific differences in the pathophysiology and treatment of these risk factors and areas for future study.

KEY FINDINGS

Women are underrepresented in research studies of stroke in patients with carotid disease and atrial fibrillation. However, key differences have been found between men and women that suggest that the development of carotid disease and atrial fibrillation occur at later stages of life and are associated with higher severity of stroke. Some treatments, including surgical treatment, seem to have different rates of efficacy and women and women are at higher risk of surgical complications. This suggests that treatment recommendations may need to be sex specific.

CONCLUSION

Efforts should be made to address research and treatment gaps in women with stroke risk factors. This may lead to the development of sex-specific recommendations for stroke prevention and treatment.

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.

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.