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

Carotid endarterectomy is less expensive than transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is safe and effective for treatment of carotid stenosis, with comparable short-term outcomes with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Few peer-reviewed studies evaluated the comparative costs of these two procedures. The objective of this study was to compare the costs of these procedures at a single institution.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of patients receiving TCAR or CEA at a single tertiary care center from August 2018 to July 2023. Patient characteristics, demographics, and procedure cost data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Stay costs were calculated using estimates derived from literature and adjusted for inflation. A subset of patient charts from June 2022 to July 2023 were used to calculate a baseline procedure cost for the TCAR and CEA cohorts, with individual implant cost from each chart added to obtain estimated procedure cost. Patients with insufficient chart data or who were converted from TCAR to CEA were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Of 187 patients, 51 received TCAR and 136 received CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were significantly older (74 vs 70 years; P = .007) and more likely to have a history of prior ipsilateral carotid intervention (9.8% vs 0.7%; P = .003), contralateral carotid intervention (18% vs 13%; P = .003), or neck surgery (35% vs 18%; P = .01). Procedure length was shorter in the TCAR group (104 vs 130 minutes; P = .002). No differences were found between TCAR and CEA in postoperative rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or in-hospital mortality. Of the 56 patients for whom procedure cost data was collected, TCAR was found to have a higher procedure cost ($9114 for TCAR; $1409 for CEA; P < .001) and higher net hospitalization cost ($14,090 for TCAR; $7512 for CEA; P < .001). In the entire cohort, there were no differences in duration of post-procedure intensive care unit stay (1.5 vs 2.88 days; P = .2), hospital stay (2.18 vs 1.96 days; P = .4), or in stay cost ($5525 vs $5178; P = .06). There were significant differences in estimated procedure cost ($9100 for TCAR; $1412 for CEA; P < .001) and estimated net hospitalization cost ($14,625 for TCAR; $6591 for CEA; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the cost to undergo TCAR was significantly higher than CEA at this institution. When factored into the net cost of hospitalization, TCAR more than doubled the net cost of perioperative stay. Further analysis is warranted to determine areas of cost optimization for carotid revascularization.

An International, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues about TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics.

METHODS

A 3-round Delphi consensus process was performed, including 29 experts. The aim of round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed that TCAR can or can probably or possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hr. It was felt that TCAR cannot or should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can or can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA or TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians or interventionalists or vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and RCTs should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision.

METHODS

The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS.

RESULTS

The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

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.

Adoption and Diffusion of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in Contemporary Practice

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the FDA approved transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) for high-risk patients with carotid stenosis. This was granted in the absence of level 1 evidence to support TCAR. We aimed to document trends in TCAR utilization, its diffusion over time, and the clinical phenotypes of patients undergoing TCAR, CEA, and TF-CAS.

METHODS

We used the Vascular Quality Initiative to study patients who underwent TCAR. We calculated the number of TCARs performed and the percent of TCAR utilization versus CEA/TF-CAS. Using data from before TCAR was widespread, we calculated propensity scores for patients to receive CEA. We applied this model to patients undergoing carotid revascularization from 2016 to 2022 and grouped patients by the procedure they ultimately underwent, examining overlap in score distribution to measure patient similarity. We measured the trend of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR.

RESULTS

We studied 31 447 patients who underwent TCAR from January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2022. The number of centers performing TCAR increased from 29 to 606. In 2021, TCAR represented 22.5% of carotid revascularizations at centers offering all 3 procedures. The percentage of patients that underwent TCAR who met approved high-risk criteria decreased from 88.5% to 80.9% (P<0.001). Those with a prior ipsilateral carotid procedure decreased from 20.6% in 2016 to 12.0% in 2021 (P<0.001). Patients undergoing TCAR after stroke increased from 19.7% to 30.7% (P<0.001). Propensity-score overlap was 55.4% for TCAR/CEA, and 58.6% for TCAR/TF-CAS, demonstrating that TCAR patients have a clinical phenotype mixed between those who undergo CEA and TF-CAS. The average in-hospital stroke/death risk after TCAR was 2.3% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2022 (P trend: 0.954).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR now represents nearly 1-in-4 procedures at centers offering it. TCAR was increasingly performed among standard-risk patients and as a first-line procedural option after stroke. The absence of level 1 evidence underscores the importance of high-quality registry-based analyses to document TCAR's real-world outcomes and durability.

Adapting to Evolving Technologies and Treatment Guidelines in a Procedural Trial: A Qualitative Review of the CREST-2 Experience

Multiple challenges confront procedural trials, including slow enrollment, lack of equipoise among patients and physicians, and failure to achieve adequate masking. Nonetheless, randomized clinical trials provide the best evidence of efficacy. The evolution of technology, techniques, and standards of care during the conduct of procedural trials challenges external validity. In this study, we review how a multicenter trial of revascularization of asymptomatic carotid arteries for stroke prevention has managed changes in treating carotid stenosis and medical management of atherothrombotic disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02089217.

Estimated Cost of Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Compared With Carotid Endarterectomy and Transfemoral Carotid Stenting

Objectives

Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death than transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). TCAR infers a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and a similar risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). There have been no comparative studies on the cost of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA, which may have important implications for institutional support for the new modality to address carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to compare the estimated cost profiles of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA.

Methods

A review was performed on Medicare patients who underwent TCAR, TF-CAS, or CEA between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Acute stroke presentations and elective procedures were included. Cost data were obtained from the hospital’s finance department. Quantitative variables were compared using analysis of variance, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square analysis.

Results

In total, 21 TCAR, 97 TF-CAS, and 26 CEA patients were initially identified. After removing the non-Medicare patients, 17 TCAR, 57 TF-CAS, and 13 CEA patients were included in the analysis. In-hospital stroke, MI, and mortality included three deaths in TF-CAS patients. At 30 days, the stroke rates for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA groups were 0%, 1.8%, and 0%, respectively.

The payments for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $15,400 ± 2,100, $23,400 ± 11,800 and $14,300 ± 5,700 (p=0.001), respectively. The estimated costs for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $10,500 ± 3,300, $13,800 ± 14,300, and $12,400 ± 6,000 (p=0.575), respectively. The profit margins for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $5,100 ± 3,100, $9,600 ± 12,100, and $1,900 ± 6,400 (p=0.032), respectively.

There was no significant difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.635) or age (p=0.485) among the three groups. The length of hospital stay was not significantly different (p=0.107).

The TF-CAS maintained the highest profit margin (p<0.001) when matched for the same diagnosis-related code (without complications or comorbidities).

Urgency classification within the TF-CAS group included 45 elective, four urgent, and eight emergent cases. The profit margin was significantly higher for the elective group than for the emergent group (p=0.002) but not different for elective versus urgent (p=0.503) or urgent versus emergent (p=0.102). All patients who underwent TCAR and CEA were elective.

Conclusion

The hospital reimbursement and profit margins are higher for TF-CAS than for TCAR. With the increasing data now demonstrating similar outcomes with TF-CAS and CEA, further research is required to examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of TCAR and how this will compare to TF-CAS.