In-hospital versus postdischarge adverse events following carotid endarterectomy

Outcomes of redo vs primary carotid endarterectomy in the transcarotid artery revascularization era

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes following redo carotid endarterectomy (rCEA) have been shown to be worse than those after primary CEA (pCEA). Additional research has shown that outcomes are better with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for restenosis after CEA compared with rCEA and transfemoral carotid artery stenting; however, not all patients are eligible for TCAR or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Given the increasing utilization of endovascular techniques, this study aims to evaluate changes in outcomes of rCEA vs pCEA before and after the approval of TCAR by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2015.

METHODS

All patients between 2003 and 2023 who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included and categorized as pCEA or rCEA. Cochrane-Armitage trend testing was used to examine trends in proportion of rCEA compared with pCEA, and the Mann-Kendall trend test was used for perioperative outcomes following rCEA overtime. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital stroke/death, stroke, death, and stroke/death/myocardial infarction following rCEA vs pCEA after stratifying patients into two cohorts: 2003 to 2015 and 2016 to 2023 (before and after introduction of TCAR). Analysis was also performed based on preoperative symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 198,150 patients undergoing CEA, 98.4% were pCEA and 1.6% were rCEA. During the study period, the proportion of rCEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative decreased from 2.3% to 1.0% as endovascular methods became more available (P < .001). Trend testing of individual outcomes showed an increase in the stroke/death rate following rCEA over time (P = .019) despite an improvement in the death rate (P = .009). From 2003 to 2015, patients undergoing rCEA had higher odds of stroke/death compared with pCEA (2.4% vs 1.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.73; P = .007). Higher stroke/death rates after rCEA persisted only in asymptomatic patients (2.3% vs 1.1%; aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.19-3.25; P = .006); however, there was no difference in symptomatic patients (3.0% vs 2.0%; aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.51;3.01; P = .50). In the late period, rCEA had higher odds of stroke/death compared with pCEA (3.1% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.85-3.18; P < .001), and the association was seen in asymptomatic patients (1.9% vs 1.0%; aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.29-2.82; P < .001) and symptomatic patients (6.3% vs 2.0%; aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.17-4.64; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of rCEAs done yearly in the United States has been decreasing as endovascular options became available. As the rate of rCEA has decreased, outcomes have been worsening, with an increasing stroke/death rate seen over time, driven primarily by worse outcomes in symptomatic patients. Stroke/death rates for asymptomatic patients fall within Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, and so the choice between rCEA, CAS, or medical management should be made after shared decision-making between a patient and their surgeon. However, with an in-hospital stroke death rate of over 6% symptomatic patients should be selected very carefully, as some are less likely to benefit from rCEA.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In-Hospital Complications and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Timing of Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comprehensive analysis of in-hospital and long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms.

INTRODUCTION

Carotid revascularization performed within two weeks of symptoms has proven to reduce risk of recurrent stroke in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization within the two-week window has yet to be determined.

METHODS

We analyzed 2003-2016 data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION). Only revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0-2 days from latest symptom), early (3-14 days) or late (15-180 days). The primary in-hospital outcome was stroke/death. The primary long-term outcomes of interest were 5-year recurrent ipsilateral stroke/death. Multivariable logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox-regression were utilized to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18,970 revascularizations were included: 1,130 (6.0%) urgent, 4,643 (24.5%) early, and 13,197 (69.6%) late. Earlier CEA had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared to late CEA [urgent, aOR:1.9, 95%CI:1.3-2.8, p=0.001], [early, aOR:1.7, 95%CI:1.3-2.2, p<0.001]. No differences were seen in 5-year risk of stroke/death [urgent, aHR:0.95, 95%CI:0.79-1.15, p=0.592], [early, aHR:0.97, 95%CI:0.87-1.07, p=0.928].

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent and early CEA were associated with increased perioperative risk without difference in 5-year outcomes compared to late CEA. Short-term recurrent stroke prevention could not be assessed. Updated population-based studies comparing recurrent stroke prevention with urgent or early revascularization versus best medical management are warranted.

Early-Term Complications after Carotid Endarterectomy and Their Risk Factors: Eight-Year Employment of Local Treatment Protocol of a Russian High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

More than 20,000 carotid endarterectomies are performed annually in the Russian Federation. Until now, no studies based on the national carotid data set have been published. The objectives of this study were to evaluate early outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and to identify potential risk factors for major adverse cardiovascular events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective analysis was based on data recorded in a single-center registry, including all carotid endarterectomies performed between 2010 and 2017. A univariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors for perioperative mortality, and predictors of stroke were determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Data from 1,832 patients with a mean age of 64.1 ± 7.6 years were analyzed. The combined in-hospital mortality was 0.65% (12/1,832). The rate of stroke was 0.7% (13/1,832), and the rate of myocardial infarction was 1.1% (20/1,832). The 30-day stroke-free survival was 99%. A history of stroke (p = 0.02) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; p = 0.0001) were found to be predictive of a lethal stroke. Previous myocardial infarction (p = 0.0001), an advanced stage of congestive heart failure (p = 0.0001), and angina pectoris (p = 0.01) were associated with cardiac-related mortality. Moreover, diabetes mellitus (p = 0.03), COPD (p = 0.0001), and carotid calcinosis (p = 0.006) increased the risk of poor survival due to myocardial infarction. The mean duration of clamping was found to be an independent predictor of any perioperative stroke (OR = 1.109; 95% CI 1.052-1.129; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present retrospective analysis of the local carotid surgery register showed appropriate outcomes after CEA regarding the cumulative incidence of MACE, which is comparable to previously published international register data. A previous history of stroke, myocardial infarction, COPD, a prolonged clamping time during CEA, and diabetes mellitus were found to be factors of high-risk for cardiovascular mortality. A prolonged clamping was identified as an independent predictor of any stroke.

Association Between Medicare Expenditures and Adverse Events for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, or Pneumonia in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Studies have shown that adverse events are associated with increasing inpatient care expenditures, but contemporary data on the association between expenditures and adverse events beyond inpatient care are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether hospital-specific adverse event rates are associated with hospital-specific risk-standardized 30-day episode-of-care Medicare expenditures for fee-for-service patients discharged with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used the 2011 to 2016 hospital-specific risk-standardized 30-day episode-of-care expenditure data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and medical record-abstracted in-hospital adverse event data from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System. The setting was acute care hospitals treating at least 25 Medicare fee-for-service patients for AMI, HF, or pneumonia in the United States. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service patients 65 years or older hospitalized for AMI, HF, or pneumonia included in the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System in 2011 to 2016. The dates of analysis were July 16, 2017, to May 21, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospitals' risk-standardized 30-day episode-of-care expenditures and the rate of occurrence of adverse events for which patients were at risk.

RESULTS

The final study sample from 2194 unique hospitals included 44 807 patients (26.1% AMI, 35.6% HF, and 38.3% pneumonia) with a mean (SD) age of 79.4 (8.6) years, and 52.0% were women. The patients represented 84 766 exposures for AMI, 96 917 exposures for HF, and 109 641 exposures for pneumonia. Patient characteristics varied by condition but not by expenditure category. The mean (SD) risk-standardized expenditures were $22 985 ($1579) for AMI, $16 020 ($1416) for HF, and $16 355 ($1995) for pneumonia per hospitalization. The mean risk-standardized rates of occurrence of adverse events for which patients were at risk were 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.6%) for AMI, 2.5% (95% CI, 2.5%-2.5%) for HF, and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.0%) for pneumonia. An increase by 1 percentage point in the rate of occurrence of adverse events was associated with an increase in risk-standardized expenditures of $103 (95% CI, $57-$150) for AMI, $100 (95% CI, $29-$172) for HF, and $152 (95% CI, $73-$232) for pneumonia per discharge.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hospitals with high adverse event rates were more likely to have high 30-day episode-of-care Medicare expenditures for patients discharged with AMI, HF, or pneumonia.

In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Outcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.

RESULTS

Of the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.

Outcomes for carotid endarterectomy in nonagenarians

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established procedure with prospective randomized data demonstrating the benefit of stroke prevention. With the aging of the population, there are limited data published for nonagenarians, especially for asymptomatic stenosis. This study investigated 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as late survival in symptomatic and asymptomatic nonagenarians with severe carotid stenosis undergoing CEA.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of a single vascular surgery group's registry involving multiple hospitals between November 1994 and June 2017 for all primary CEAs of patients ≥90 years old at the time of surgery. The exclusion criterion was redo surgery or bilateral CEAs. Demographic data, sex, symptoms, risk factors, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Survival analysis was conducted using SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for the specific end point 30-day morbidity or mortality and late survival.

RESULTS

There were 77 patients (44 male [57%]) who underwent CEA for symptomatic (44 [57%]) and asymptomatic (33 [43%]) internal carotid artery stenosis with a median age of 92 years; 23 women were symptomatic compared with 21 men, and 23 men were asymptomatic compared with 10 women. Symptomatic patients included amaurosis fugax (n = 3), stroke (n = 16), and transient ischemic attack (n = 25). CEAs were performed using the eversion technique under cervical block with selective shunting. The 30-day morbidity included one (2.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarction and one (2.3%) ischemic stroke in the symptomatic group compared with one (3%) patient having a nonfatal myocardial infarction and none with ischemic stroke in the asymptomatic group. One patient of the symptomatic group required return to the operating room for hematoma evacuation. The 30-day mortality was 2.3% in the symptomatic group compared with 6.1% in the asymptomatic group. There was no statistical difference in survival based on sex (P = .444). The symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had similar median survival of 27.7 months and 29.4 months (P = .987), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The aging population adds increasing difficulty in decision-making for surgical intervention on carotid stenosis. CEA in nonagenarians is associated with reasonably low 30-day rates of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in our small study. However, enthusiasm for asymptomatic CEA in this population must be tempered by low survival rates.

In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers.

METHODS

We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death.

RESULTS

A total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.

Risk of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

There is conflicting evidence regarding the association of diabetes mellitus (DM) and insulin use with outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Therefore, we sought to evaluate the risk of insulin-dependent DM (IDDM) and noninsulin-dependent DM (NIDDM) on 30-day outcomes after CEA.

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CEA from the Targeted Vascular module of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2015) and stratified patients on the basis of their preprocedural symptom status. We compared 30-day outcomes between nondiabetics and patients with NIDDM or IDDM, with 30-day stroke/death as the primary end point.

RESULTS

Of 16,739 CEA patients, 9784 (58%) were asymptomatic, of whom 6720 (69%) had no diagnosis of DM, 1109 (11%) had IDDM, and 1955 (20%) had NIDDM. Of the 6955 symptomatic patients, 4982 (72%) had no diagnosis of DM, 810 (12%) had IDDM, and 1163 (17%) had NIDDM. Among asymptomatic patients, patients with IDDM experienced higher rates of 30-day stroke/death compared with those without DM (3.4% vs 1.5%; P < .001), whereas those with NIDDM experienced rates similar to those of patients without DM (2.1% vs 1.5%; P = .1). Moreover, asymptomatic patients with IDDM and an anatomic high-risk criterion experienced a 30-day stroke/death rate of 6.6%. After adjustment, IDDM was associated with 30-day stroke/death in asymptomatic patients compared with patients without DM (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.4; P < .001), but NIDDM was not (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1; P = .1). In comparison, among symptomatic patients, those with IDDM and NIDDM experienced similar rates of 30-day stroke/death as patients without DM (4.9% vs 3.6% and 4.0% vs 3.6%; both P > .1). After adjustment, neither IDDM nor NIDDM was associated with 30-day stroke/death in symptomatic patients compared with symptomatic patients without DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of 30-day stroke/death after CEA in asymptomatic patients with IDDM exceed international vascular societies' guideline thresholds for acceptable outcomes in asymptomatic patients, especially those with anatomic high-risk criteria. Thus, asymptomatic patients with IDDM may not benefit from CEA, although more data are needed about the natural history of carotid disease in this population.

Weekend Effect in Carotid Endarterectomy

Background and Purpose- Patients undergoing surgery on the weekend may experience worse outcomes, but this weekend effect has not been studied in carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods- We identified patients undergoing isolated CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2003 and 2018. Our primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or perioperative death (stroke/death), stratified by symptom status. For asymptomatic patients, we also compared rates of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality metric prolonged length of stay (>2 days or failed discharge home). We calculated propensity scores and used multilevel, inverse probability weighted logistic regression clustering at the hospital level. Results- There were 86 123 repairs during the study period, 53% asymptomatic lesions and 47% symptomatic. Only 0.7% of asymptomatic patients underwent CEA on the weekend, compared with 3.1% of symptomatic patients. Patients undergoing weekend repairs were more often white, with lower rates of most comorbidities. In asymptomatic patients, weekend operations were associated significantly higher odds of stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 2.3 [1.1-4.8]; P=0.02), and prolonged length of stay (OR, 3.6 [2.7-4.7]; P<0.001). In symptomatic patients, weekend operations were associated with significantly higher adjusted odds of stroke/death (OR, 1.7 [1.2-2.4]; P=0.007) and longer postoperative length of stay (3.3 days versus 2.0 days, P=0.002). However, the difference in stroke/death was driven by patients presenting with stroke (OR, 2.2 [1.5-2.3]; P<0.001), rather than those presenting with transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.2 [0.6-2.1]; P=0.56). Conclusions- We found evidence of a significant weekend effect in CEA, as weekend operations in asymptomatic patients and patients who presented with stroke were associated with higher rates of stroke/death and prolonged length of stay. However, there was no evidence of such an effect in patients with transient ischemic attack. These data suggest that weekend CEA should be avoided except in the case of expedited revascularization after transient ischemic attack.

In-hospital versus postdischarge major adverse events within 30 days following lower extremity revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Studies using hospital discharge data likely underestimate postoperative morbidity and mortality after lower extremity revascularization because they fail to capture postdischarge events. However, the degree of underestimation and the timing of postdischarge complications are not well-characterized.

METHODS

We used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted vascular databases from 2011 to 2015 to tabulate 30-day adverse events (in hospital and after discharge) for lower extremity bypass (LEB) and percutaneous vascular interventions (PVIs) performed for claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

RESULTS

A total of 14,125 patients underwent lower extremity revascularization, 8909 patients (63%) with LEB and 5216 (37%) with PVI. For CLTI, total 30-day mortality was similar between PVI and LEB (2.3% vs 2.1%; P = .61), but in-hospital deaths only accounted for 43% of PVI mortality and only 65% of LEB mortality (P ≤ .001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 2.9% of PVI patients and 4.6% of LEB patients (P < .001), with postdischarge events accounting for 37% of PVI events and 18% of LEB (P ≤ .001). Although the 30-day reoperation rates were 14% for PVI and 18% for LEB (P < .001), almost one-half occurred after discharge (PVI 46% vs LEB 44%; P = .55). Any postoperative major adverse events (MAEs) occurred in 22% of patients after PVI and 31% after LEB, with more than one-half occurring after discharge (PVI 56% vs LEB 53%; P = .17). For claudicants, total 30-day mortality was 0.4% for PVI and 0.7% for LEB (P = .32), with the vast majority of events occurring after discharge (PVI 90% vs LEB 50%; P = .049). The 30-day reoperation rates were 5.2% for PVI and 8.0% for LEB (P < .001), with more than one-half occurring after discharge (PVI 63% vs LEB 53%; P = .09). Any MAEs occurred in 7.0% of patients after PVI and 17% after bypass, with the majority occurring after discharge (PVI 65% vs LEB 63%; P = .66).

CONCLUSIONS

Most MAEs occur less frequently after PVI than LEB. However, a significant number of major of adverse events after lower extremity revascularization occur after leaving the hospital, especially after PVI, which may overestimate its benefits compared with LEB if only in-hospital data are evaluated. These data demonstrate the importance of reporting 30-day rather than in-hospital outcomes when evaluating postoperative adverse events.

Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be used to prevent stroke due to arteriosclerotic lesions of the carotid artery. In Germany, legally mandated quality assurance (QA) enables the evaluation of outcome quality after CEA and CAS performed under routine conditions.

METHODS

We analyzed data on all elective CEA and CAS procedures performed over the periods 2009-2014 and 2012-2014, respectively. The endpoints of the study were the combined in-hospital stroke and death rate, stroke rate and mortality separately, local complications, and other complications. We analyzed the raw data with descriptive statistics and carried out a risk-adjusted analysis of the association of clinically unalterable variables with the risk of stroke and death. All analyses were performed separately for CEA and CAS.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 142 074 CEA procedures (67.8% of them in men) and 13 086 CAS procedures (69.7% in men). The median age was 72 years (CEA) and 71 years (CAS). The periprocedural rate of stroke and death after CEA was 1.4% for asymptomatic and 2.5% for symptomatic stenoses; the corresponding rates for CAS were 1.7% and 3.7%. Variables associated with increased risk included older age, higher ASA class (ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists), symptomatic vs. asymptomatic stenosis, 50-69% stenosis, and contralateral carotid occlusion (for CEA only).

CONCLUSION

These data reveal a low periprocedural rate of stroke or death for both CEA and CAS. This study does however not permit any conclusions as to the superiority or inferiority of CEA and CAS.

An update on the incidence of perioperative outcomes after carotid endarterectomy, stratified by type of preprocedural neurologic symptom

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have decreased over time. Therefore, we aimed to provide an update on 30-day outcomes after CEA, stratified by type of preprocedural neurologic symptom.

METHODS

We included all CEAs from the Targeted Vascular module of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP, 2011-2015) and stratified patients based on type of preprocedural neurologic symptom, that is, asymptomatic, ocular transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemispheric TIA, and stroke. We compared 30-day outcomes across the groups, with 30-day stroke/death as our primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 16,739 CEA patients, 9784 were asymptomatic (58%). Among the 6955 symptomatic patients, 1216 (17%) had a preprocedural ocular TIA, 2635 (38%) a preprocedural hemispheric TIA, and 3104 (45%) a preprocedural stroke. Preprocedural stroke patients had higher 30-day stroke/death rates compared with those with a preprocedural hemispheric TIA, or ocular TIA, or asymptomatic patients (5.0% vs 3.3%, 1.9%, and 1.8%, respectively; all P < .001), primarily owing to differences in perioperative 30-day stroke rates, with 4.1% vs 2.5%, 1.4%, and 1.3%, respectively (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among symptomatic CEA patients, those with a preprocedural stroke had a high perioperative 30-day stroke/death rate, compared with those patients with either a preprocedural hemispheric or ocular TIA. Therefore, the common stratification applied to CEA patients, which groups all symptomatic patients, should be avoided, especially as the relative proportion of symptomatic patients with a preprocedural stroke vs those with a hemispheric or ocular TIA will affect the overall outcome for all symptomatic patients after CEA.

The impact of contralateral carotid artery stenosis on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Patients with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) have been excluded from randomized clinical trials because of a deemed high risk for adverse neurologic outcomes with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Evidence for this rationale is limited and conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes after CEA between patients with and without CCO and varying degrees of contralateral carotid stenosis (CCS).

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CEA from 2003 to 2015 in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) registry. Patients were stratified by preoperative symptom status and presence of CCO. Multivariable analysis was used to account for differences in demographics and comorbidities. Our primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death risk.

RESULTS

Of 15,487 patients we identified who underwent CEA, 10,377 (67%) were asymptomatic. CCO was present in 914 patients, of whom 681 (75%) were asymptomatic. Overall, the 30-day stroke/death was 2.0% for symptomatic patients (CCO: 2.6%) and 1.1% for asymptomatic patients (CCO: 2.3%). After adjustment, including symptom status, CCO was associated with higher 30-day stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.3; P = .001), any in-hospital stroke (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.6; P < .001), in-hospital ipsilateral stroke (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .02), in-hospital contralateral stroke (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.2-11.4; P < .001), and prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001). CCS of 80% to 99% was only associated with a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01), not with in-hospital stroke. Neither CCO nor CCS was associated with 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CCO increases the risk of 30-day stroke/death, in-hospital strokes, and prolonged length of stay after CEA, the 30-day stroke/death rates in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with CCO remain within the recommended thresholds set by the 14 societies' guideline document. Thus, CCO should not qualify as a high-risk criterion for CEA. Moreover, there is no evidence that patients with CCO have lower stroke/death rates after carotid artery stenting than after CEA. We believe that CEA remains a valid and safe option for patients with CCO and that CCO should not be applied as a criterion to promote carotid artery stenting per se.

Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in comparable medical risk patients

OBJECTIVE

In medically high-risk patients the choice between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be difficult. The purpose of this study was to compare risk-stratified outcomes of CAS and CEA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent isolated primary CEA (n = 11,336) or primary CAS (n = 544) at 29 centers in the Vascular Study Group of New England were analyzed (2003-2013); patients with previous ipsilateral CEA or CAS, or concomitant coronary artery bypass graft were excluded. A medical risk score based on predicted 5-year mortality was developed for each patient using a Cox proportional hazards model. Patients in the highest risk score quartile were termed high-risk (vs normal-risk for the other three quartiles). Medically high-risk patients had a 5-year survival of 65% and comprised 23% of CEA and 25% of CAS patients. Risk-stratified outcomes were compared within neurologically symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Among asymptomatic patients, rates of in-hospital stroke and/or death were not different between CAS and CEA in normal and high-risk cohorts, ranging from 0.7% in normal-risk CEA patients to 1.6% in high-risk CAS patients. In symptomatic patients, significantly worse outcomes were seen with CAS compared with CEA in normal-risk and high-risk patients. Normal-risk symptomatic patients had a stroke or death rate of 1.3% with CEA, but 5.2% with CAS (P < .01). In high-risk symptomatic patients, the stroke or death rate was 1.5% with CEA and 9.3% with CAS (P < .01). No significant differences were seen between asymptomatic CEA and CAS within risk strata across secondary outcome measures of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction, and ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, or death. However, symptomatic high-risk CAS patients had significantly greater rates of all secondary outcomes compared with CEA except death, and symptomatic normal-risk CAS patients had only significantly greater rates of death and stroke, death, or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Vascular Study Group of New England, asymptomatic normal- and high-risk patients do equally well after CEA or CAS. However, normal- and high-risk symptomatic patients have substantially worse outcomes with CAS compared with CEA. High medical risk alone might be an insufficient indication for CAS in symptomatic patients.

The impact of the present on admission indicator on the accuracy of administrative data for carotid endarterectomy and stenting

BACKGROUND

Administrative data are often hampered by coding errors, absent data, and the difficulty of distinguishing pre-existing conditions from perioperative complications. We evaluated whether the introduction of the present on admission (POA) indicator improved outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) using administrative data.

METHODS

State inpatient databases from California (2005-2008), New York (2008), and New Jersey (2008) were used to identify patients undergoing CAS and CEA. We first analyzed morbidity data without the POA indicator, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision complication codes (eg, 997.02, iatrogenic cerebrovascular infarction or hemorrhage, postoperative stroke) and diagnosis codes (eg, 433.11, occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery with cerebral infarction). Then, we applied the POA indicator to both diagnosis and complication codes and calculated the proportion of events that were labeled POA. Symptom status and perioperative stroke rate were compared using these coding approaches.

RESULTS

We identified 21,639 patients who underwent CEA and 3688 patients who underwent CAS. Without the POA indicator, the complication code for stroke indicated a postoperative stroke rate of 1.4% for CEA and 2.4% for CAS. After applying the POA indicator, 54% (CEA) and 62% (CAS) of these strokes were labeled POA. These POA strokes were either preoperative or intraoperative events. Proportion of symptomatic patients ranged from 7% to 16% for CEA and from 5% to 22% for CAS. Perioperative stroke rate was the lowest in the POA method (1.1% CEA, 1.8% CAS) compared with two other methods without POA information (1.4% and 9.5% CEA and 2.4% and 16.4% CAS). Kappa indicated a poor (0.2) to fair (0.7) agreement between these approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data has known limitations for assignment of symptom status and nonfatal perioperative outcomes. Given the uncertain timing of POA events as preoperative vs intraoperative and its apparent underestimation of the perioperative stroke rate, the use of administrative data even with the POA indicator for symptom status and non-fatal outcomes after CEA and CAS is hazardous.

Accuracy of administrative data versus clinical data to evaluate carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting

OBJECTIVE

Administrative data have been used to compare carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, there are limitations in defining symptom status, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk status, as well as complications. Therefore, we did a direct comparison between administrative data and physician chart review as well as between data collected for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and physician chart review for CEA and CAS.

METHODS

We performed an outcomes analysis on all CEA and CAS procedures from 2005 to 2011. We obtained International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes from hospital discharge records regarding symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke. We also obtained data on all CEA patients submitted to NSQIP over the same time period. One of the study authors (R.B.) then performed a chart review of the same patients to determine symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative strokes and the results were compared.

RESULTS

We identified 1342 patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2005 and 2011 and 392 patients who underwent CEA that were submitted to NSQIP. Administrative data identified fewer symptomatic patients (17.0% vs 34.0%), physiologic high-risk patients (9.3% vs 23.0%), and anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs 15.2%). Although administrative data identified a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.9% vs 2.0%), this was due to the fact that these data identified eight false positive and nine false negative perioperative strokes. NSQIP data identified more symptomatic patients compared with chart review (44.1% vs 30.3%), fewer physiologic high-risk patients (13.0% vs 18.6%), fewer anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs 6.6%), and a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.5% vs 1.8%, only one false negative stroke and no false positives).

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data are unreliable for determining symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke and should not be used to analyze CEA and CAS. NSQIP data do not adequately identify high-risk patients, but do accurately identify perioperative strokes and to a lesser degree, symptom status.