Transcervical Carotid Stenting With Dynamic Flow Reversal Demonstrates Embolization Rates Comparable to Carotid Endarterectomy

Evaluation of Robotic-Assisted Carotid Artery Stenting in a Virtual Model Using Motion-Based Performance Metrics

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted carotid artery stenting (CAS) cases have been demonstrated with promising results. However, no quantitative measurements have been made to compare manual with robotic-assisted CAS. This study aims to quantify surgical performance using tool tip kinematic data and metrics of precision during CAS with manual and robotic control in an ex vivo model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Transfemoral CAS cases were performed in a high-fidelity endovascular simulator. Participants completed cases with manual and robotic techniques in 2 different carotid anatomies in random order. C-arm angulations, table position, and endovascular devices were standardized. Endovascular tool tip kinematic data were extracted. We calculated the spectral arc length (SPARC), average velocity, and idle time during navigation in the common carotid artery and lesion crossing. Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, movements of the deployed filter wire, precision of stent, and balloon positioning were recorded. Data were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities.

RESULTS

Ten participants performed 40 CAS cases with a procedural success of 100% and 0% residual stenosis. The median procedural time was significantly higher during the robotic-assisted cases (seconds, median [interquartile range, IQR]: 128 [49.5] and 161.5 [62.5], p=0.02). Fluoroscopy time differed significantly between manual and robotic-assisted procedures (seconds, median [IQR]: 81.5 [32] and 98.5 [39.5], p=0.1). Movement of the deployed filter wire did not show significant difference between manual and robotic interventions (mm, median [IQR]: 13 [10.5] and 12.5 [11], p=0.5). The postdilation balloon exceeded the margin of the stent with a median of 2 [1] mm in both groups. Navigation with robotic assistance showed significantly lower SPARC values (-5.78±3.14 and -8.63±3.98, p=0.04) and higher idle time values (8.92±8.71 and 3.47±3.9, p=0.02) than those performed manually.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted and manual CAS cases are comparable in the precision of stent and balloon positioning. Navigation in the carotid artery is associated with smoother motion and higher idle time values. These findings highlight the accuracy and the motion stabilizing capability of the endovascular robotic system.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Robotic assistance in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease is an emerging field and may be a tool for radiation protection and the geographic distribution of endovascular interventions in the future. This preclinical study compares the characteristics of manual and robotic-assisted carotid stenting (CAS). Our results highlight, that robotic-assisted CAS is associated with precise navigation and device positioning, and smoother navigation compared to manual CAS.

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.

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.

Use of transcarotid artery revascularization for mechanical thrombectomy and treatment of symptomatic high-grade carotid artery stenosis associated with free-floating thrombus: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Patients with symptomatic high-grade stenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA) associated with a free-floating thrombus (FFT) present a significant clinical challenge. In general, for patients with moderate to severe symptomatic ICA stenosis, carotid revascularization is recommended within 2 weeks of symptom onset; however, some physicians suggest that revascularization should be delayed in cases with FFT because some data suggest that early surgery with carotid endarterectomy or carotid stent poses a higher risk for stroke. Likewise, delayed revascularization with anticoagulation may increase risk of recurrent stroke. Few reports on the management of FTT included the use of a transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) approach for carotid revascularization with mechanical aspiration thrombectomy.

OBSERVATIONS

This report described the use of TCAR for direct mechanical thrombectomy and carotid stent placement for a patient with 80% right ICA stenosis along with a large FFT extending into the bulb and the external carotid artery.

LESSONS

The TCAR approach for mechanical thrombectomy and carotid stenting is a safe alternative for early revascularization with low periprocedural stroke risks.

Balloon Dilation Strategy Does Not Affect Outcomes for Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) in Prospective Trials

OBJECTIVES

Strategies of balloon dilation during trans-femoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) include pre-stent dilation only (PRE), post-stent dilation only (POST), or both pre- and post- dilation (PRE+POST). Concerns over higher neurological risk have been raised with POST and PRE+POST during TFCAS. Whether these concerns are applicable to Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) which utilizes proximal clamping and cerebral blood flow reversal during stent deployment and balloon angioplasty remains unknown. Our aim is to analyze outcomes of PRE, POST or PRE+POST balloon dilation strategies during TCAR.

METHODS

We analyzed the prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER1 (pivotal), ROADSTER2 (FDA indicated post-market), and Roadster Extended Access TCAR trials. All trial patients had high risk anatomic or clinical factors for carotid endarterectomy and were included unless they did not undergo stent deployment nor balloon dilation. For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients had >80% carotid stenosis, and symptomatic patients had >50% stenosis. Primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. Data were statistically analyzed with chi-square, ANOVA, and multivariable analysis as appropriate.

RESULTS

There were 851 patients (566 male) who underwent dilation by PRE (N=216), POST (N=249), or PRE+POST (N=386). Patients had carotid stenosis >70% (N=828, 97%), and 207 (24%) were symptomatic. Flow reversal times were longer in the PRE+POST group (PRE 10.2mins, POST 9.8mins, PRE+ POST 13.3mins, P<.001). The 30-day stroke rate for the whole cohort was 1.9%, mortality was 0.5%, and MI rate was 0.94%. Stroke rates for the PRE cohort (1.9%), POST cohort (2.0%), and PRE+POST cohort (1.8%, P=.98) were similar. Also, death rates at 30 days, and composite stroke/death/myocardial infarction rates were similar in the three cohorts. No significant differences in adverse outcomes were noted among the various dilation strategies for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Based on these prospective trial data, there is no difference in neurological complications due to balloon dilation strategy during TCAR. Balloon dilation technique best suited to the patient's specific lesion morphology should be utilized. Further studies are needed to evaluate the relationship of these dilation strategies to long term outcomes including stent patency, restenosis and reintervention.

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.

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.

Comparing Manual and Robotic-Assisted Carotid Artery Stenting Using Motion-Based Performance Metrics

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a minimally invasive endovascular procedure used to treat carotid artery disease and is an alternative treatment option for carotid artery stenosis. Robotic assistance is becoming increasingly widespread in these procedures and can provide potential benefits over manual intervention, including decreasing peri- and post-operative risks associated with CAS. However, the benefits of robotic assistance in CAS procedures have not been quantitatively verified at the level of surgical tool motions. In this work, we compare manual and robot-assisted navigation in CAS procedures using performance metrics that reliably indicate surgical navigation proficiency. After extracting guidewire tip motion profiles from recorded procedure videos, we computed spectral arc length (SPARC), a frequency-domain metric of movement smoothness, average guidewire velocity, and amount of idle tool motion (idle time) for a set of CAS procedures performed on a commercial endovascular surgical simulator. We analyzed the metrics for two procedural steps that influence post-operative outcomes. Our results indicate that during advancement of the sheath to the distal common carotid artery, there are significant differences in SPARC (F(1, 22.3) = 6.12, p = .021) and idle time (F(1, 22.6) = 6.26, p = .02) between manual and robot-assisted navigation, as well as a general trend of lower SPARC, lower average velocity, and higher idle time values associated with robot-assisted navigation for both procedural steps. Our findings indicate that significant differences exist between manual and robot-assisted CAS procedures. These are quantitatively detectable at the granular-level of physical tool motion, improving the ability to evaluate robotic assistance as it grows in clinical use.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

Safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularisation versus carotid endarterectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis study

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the transcarotid artery revascularisation (TCAR) with flow reversal technique has been developed to treat carotid artery stenosis. The superiority of TCAR over transfemoral carotid artery stenting has been demonstrated. However, the safety and efficacy of TCAR and carotid endarterectomy remain unclear. This study aims to introduce a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the morbidity and mortality rates between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. Herein, major databases will be searched, including Medline, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library, and randomised controlled trials and high-quality observational studies will be included. We will screen all studies published from January 2000 to March 2021. Bias risk will be evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria or Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies criteria, depending on the study type. Two reviewers will select eligible studies and extract the data independently. The primary outcome will include stroke or death during the perioperative period and follow-up. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore any potential sources of heterogeneity. Specific results will be described in a narrative form when available eligible studies are insufficient for meta-analysis. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will summarise and analyse the existing literature; hence, ethics approval will not be required. The final results may be published at a relevant academic conference or in a journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020178691.

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenosis is considered a determinant factor for cerebrovascular events, estimated to be the cause of 10% to 20% of all ischemic strokes. Transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been offered as an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy to treat carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting the outcomes of patients who had undergone TCAR for carotid artery stenosis. The incidence of periprocedural adverse events was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies with 14,588 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-99%). The reasons for technical failure included an inability to cross the lesion and/or failure to deploy the stent. Access site complications occurred in 2% of all cases (95% CI, 1%-2%; 30 studies). Overall, the incidence of cranial nerve (CN) injuries was very rare, with only 33 of 8994 patients experiencing neurologic deficits attributed to CN involvement. Bleeding complications were reported by 20 studies and occurred in 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) of all cases. The overall periprocedural all-cause mortality and stroke rate was 0.5% and 1.3%, respectively. In-stent restenosis was observed in 4 of 260 patients (1.5%; 7 studies), and early (30-day) reocclusion or acute thrombosis of the target lesion occurred in 12 of 1243 patients (∼1%; 11 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have provided significant evidence that TCAR is a very promising and safe carotid revascularization approach with favorable technical success rates associated with low periprocedural stroke and CN injury rates.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effects of timing on in-hospital and one-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The current recommendations are to perform carotid endarterectomy within 2 weeks of symptoms for maximum long-term stroke prevention, although urgent carotid endarterectomy within 48 hours has been associated with increased perioperative stroke. With the development and rapid adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we decided to study the effect of timing on the outcomes after TCAR.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was searched for symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR from September 2016 to November 2019. These patients were stratified by the interval to TCAR after symptom onset: urgent, within 48 hours; early, 3 to 14 days; and late, >14 days. The primary outcome was the in-hospital rate of combined stroke and death (stroke/death), evaluated using logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcome was the 1-year rate of recurrent ipsilateral stroke and mortality, evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2608 symptomatic patients who had undergone TCAR were included. The timing was urgent for 144 patients (5.52%), early for 928 patients (35.58%), and late for 1536 patients (58.90%). Patients undergoing urgent intervention had an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, which was driven primarily by an increased risk of stroke. No differences were seen for in-hospital death. On adjusted analysis, urgent intervention resulted in a threefold increased risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-6.2; P = .01) and a threefold increased risk of stroke/death (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.4; P = .01) compared with late intervention. Patients undergoing early intervention had comparable risks of stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3; P = .40) and stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.1; P = .48) compared with late intervention. On subset analysis, the type of presenting symptoms was an effect modifier. Patients presenting with stroke and those presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax both had an increased risk of stroke/death when undergoing urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.6; P = .04; and OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .03, respectively). However only patients presenting with transient ischemic attack or amaurosis fugax had experienced an increased risk of stroke with urgent compared with late TCAR (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.4-17.5; P < .01). At 1 year of follow-up, no differences were seen in the incidence of recurrent ipsilateral stroke (urgent, 0.7%; early, 0.2%; late, 0.1%; P = .13) or postdischarge mortality (urgent, 0.7%; early, 1.6%; late, 1.8%; P = .71).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that TCAR had a reduced incidence of stroke when performed 48 hours after symptom onset. Urgent TCAR within 48 hours of the onset of stroke was associated with a threefold increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death, with no added benefit for ≤1 year after intervention. Further studies are needed on long-term outcomes of TCAR stratified by the timing of the procedure.

Critical Appraisal on the Quality of Reporting on Safety and Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Stenting With Flow Reversal

Transcarotid revascularization is an alternative to transfemoral carotid artery stenting, designed to avoid aortic arch manipulation and concomitant periprocedural stroke. This article aims to perform a detailed analysis on the quality of the currently available evidence on safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization. Although current evidence is promising, independent randomized controlled studies comparing transcarotid artery revascularization with carotid endarterectomy in recently symptomatic patients are lacking and will be necessary to establish the true value of transcarotid artery revascularization in carotid artery revascularization.

Use of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization to Treat Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis Associated with Free-Floating Thrombus

BACKGROUND

Free-floating thrombus in the internal carotid artery (ICA) has traditionally been treated via an open surgical approach through a longitudinal incision and exposure similar to that for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In this case report, we present a novel use of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for the treatment of recurrent carotid stenosis associated with free-floating ICA thrombus.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We describe a 67-year-old female who presented with a diagnosis of right hemispheric stroke in evolution and prior history of right CEA and a mechanical mitral valve. Imaging confirmed high-grade recurrent stenosis of the right ICA with free-floating thrombus. TCAR was utilized to repair both the recurrent stenosis and the thrombus.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo CEA in the face of recurrent stenosis is a challenging clinical scenario, which in this instance, was further complicated by the presence of free-floating thrombus and active anticoagulation due to a mechanical mitral valve. This case report describes the successful management of ICA thrombus and restenosis with the novel use of TCAR.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting using the transcervical approach

INTRODUCTION

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) approach has emerged as an alternative when carotid endarterectomy or conventional CAS is contraindicated. The present study was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcomes included technical success, perioperative neurological event, myocardial ischemic events, death and their composite. Operational duration, flow reversal time and any local procedure related complication (carotid dissection and cranial nerve injury) were also recorded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were included, reporting on 3130 patients, undergoing TCAR. Thirty-five per cent of them were symptomatic. Technical success was 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P=0.11, I²=32%). Early (30-day) new neurological event rate was estimated at 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02; P=1.0, I²=0%, respectively) while early death rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; P=1.0, I²=0%). Myocardial ischemic (MI) event rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=0.97, I²=6.6%). The composite outcome of neurological event/MI/death at 30-day follow-up was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, P=0.79, I²=14%). Carotid dissection rate during the intervention was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03, P=0.58, I²=2.9%) while the post-operatively detected cranial nerve injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=1.0, I²=0%). Regarding the technical aspects of the procedures, operational and flow reversal time were at 73.8 min and 13.7 min, respectively (95% CI: 68.2-79.3, P=0.18, I²=37.6% and 95% CI: 11.3-16.1, P=0.48, I²=0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR is feasible with high technical success rate. The procedure presents low incidence of local complications, neurological events, myocardial complications and mortality during the early postoperative period and should be considered an acceptable alternative for patients treated for carotid artery stenosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization with Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The increased perioperative stroke and death risk of TFCAS has however prevented TFCAS from widespread acceptance as an alternative to CEA in high-risk patients. Recent research suggests that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may be associated with a low stroke and death risk and potentially meet the needs of patients at high surgical risk. We aimed to estimate the 30-day risk of stroke or death of TCAR and compare it to TFCAS and CEA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus for studies of patients treated with TCAR. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate. A logistic-normal random-effects model with logit transformation was used to estimate the pooled event rates after TCAR. Pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) of events comparing TCAR to TFCAS and CEA were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified with the chi-squared statistic of the likelihood ratio (LR) test that compares the random-effects and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine nonrandomized studies evaluating 4012 patients who underwent TCAR were included. The overall 30-day risks after TCAR were stroke/death, 1.89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50, 2.37); stroke, 1.34% (95% CI: 1.02,1.75); death, 0.76% (95% CI: 0.56, 1.08); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI: 0.23, 1.59); stroke/death/MI, 2.20% (95% CI: 1.31, 3.69); cranial nerve injury (CNI), 0.31% (95% CI: 0.12, 0.83). The failure rate of TCAR was 1.27% (95% CI: 0.32, 4.92). Two nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with lower risk of stroke and death as compared with TFCAS (1.33% vs. 2.55%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74 and 0.76% vs. 1.46%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84, respectively). Four nonrandomized studies suggested that TCAR was associated with a lower risk of CNI (0.54% and 1.84%, OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.74) than CEA, but no statistically significant difference in the 30-day risk of stroke, stroke/death, or stroke/death/MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing TCAR with dynamic flow reversal for carotid stenosis the 30-day risk of stroke or death was low. The perioperative stroke/death rate of TCAR was similar to that of CEA while CNI risk was lower. Larger prospective studies are needed to account for confounding factors and provide higher certainty.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of results of transcervical carotid artery stenting with flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

Transcervical carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as an alternative to transfemoral CAS. An earlier systematic review from our group (n = 12 studies; 739 transcervical CAS procedures [489/739 with flow reversal]) demonstrated that transcervical CAS is a safe procedure associated with a low incidence of stroke and complications. Since then, new studies have been published adding nearly 1600 patients to the literature. We aimed to update our early systematic review and also to perform a meta-analysis to investigate outcomes specifically after transcervical CAS with flow reversal.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes after transcervical CAS with flow reversal. Crude event rates for outcomes of interest were estimated by simple pooling of data. A proportion meta-analysis was also performed to estimate pooled outcome rates.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (n = 2110 transcervical CAS procedures with flow reversal) were identified. A high technical success (98.25%) and a low mortality rate (0.48%) were recorded. The crude rates of major stroke, minor stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction (MI) were 0.71%, 0.90%, 0.57%, and 0.57%, respectively; a cranial nerve injury occurred in 0.28% of the procedures. A neck hematoma was reported in 1.04% of the procedures, and a carotid artery dissection occurred in 0.76% of the interventions; in 1.09% of the cases, conversion to carotid endarterectomy was required. After a meta-analysis was undertaken, the pooled technical success rate was 98.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.19-99.70). A pooled mortality rate of 0.04% (95% CI, 0.00-0.29) was recorded. The pooled rate of any type of neurologic complications was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61), whereas the pooled rates of major stroke, minor stroke, and transient ischemic attack were 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.46), 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00-0.50), and 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00-0.22), respectively. The pooled rate of bradycardia/hypotension was 10.21% (95% CI, 3.99-18.51), whereas the pooled rate of MI was 0.08% (95% CI, 0.00-0.39). A neck hematoma after transcervical CAS was recorded in 1.51% (95% CI, 0.22-3.54) of the procedures; in 0.74% (95% CI, 0.05-1.95) of the interventions, conversion to CEA was required. Finally, a carotid artery dissection during transcervical CAS occurred in 0.47% (95% CI, 0.00-1.38) of the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that transcervical CAS with flow reversal is associated with high technical success, almost zero mortality, and low rates of major stroke, minor stroke, MI, and complications.

WIRION™ embolic protection system for carotid artery stenting and lower extremity endovascular intervention

Aim: To summarize all available literature regarding the Wirion™ embolic protection system (EPS) and present examples from our center. Materials & methods: A review of literture was performed about the utilization of Wirion EPS. Results: One study was identified investigating the outcomes of Wirion during carotid artery stenting. The study demonstrated 98.3% procedural success with stroke occurring in only 2.5%. Two single arm studies were identified investigating the efficacy of the Wirion filter during lower extremity endovascular interventions. The reported device success ranged from 95.1 to 97.3%. Conclusion: While carotid artery stenting should always be performed with adjunctive EPS in order to decrease the risk of cerebrovascular accidents, the routine use of EPS in femorpopliteal interventions remains an active area of investigation.

Carotid Artery Stenting in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The advance of therapies to reduce the stroke impact of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis has proved difficult over the last decade. Disagreement concerning the underlying randomized control trials has limited entry into the care arena of endovascular therapies. Recently, advances in percutaneous therapies for carotid artery disease have been reported and provide a substantial database supporting the further incorporation of endovascular-based therapies in patients who need revascularization and meet selection criteria. With a second randomized control trial now published, it is time for a re-evaluation of endovascular therapy as a component of carotid artery care. This review describes the advances in the field in the last 5 years, clarifying the current position of these therapies in the care of the patient with asymptomatic carotid artery disease.

Risk factors associated with microembolization after carotid intervention

BACKGROUND

Microembolization after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been documented and may confer risk for neurocognitive impairment. Patients undergoing stenting are known to be at higher risk for microembolization. In this prospective cohort study, we compare the microembolization rates for patients undergoing CAS and CEA and perioperative characteristics that may be associated with microembolization.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CAS and CEA were prospectively recruited under local institutional review board approval from an academic medical center. All patients also received 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging with a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence preoperatively and within 24 hours postoperatively to identify procedure-related new embolic lesions. Preoperative, postoperative, procedural factors, and plaque characteristics were collected. Factors were tested for statistical significance with logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 107 patients who underwent CAS and 95 underwent CEA. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to have microemboli than patients undergoing CEA (78% vs 27%; P < .0001). For patients undergoing CAS, patency of the external carotid artery (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-117.6; P = .04), lesion calcification (OR, 5.68; 95% CI, 1.12-28.79; P = .04), and lesion length (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.01; P = .05) were all found to be independent risk factors for perioperative embolization. These factors did not confer increased risk to patients undergoing CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CAS are at higher risk for perioperative embolization. The risk for perioperative embolization is related to the length of the lesion and calcification. Identifying the preoperative risk factors may help to guide patient selection and, thereby, reduce embolization-related neurocognitive impairment.

Secular Trends in Procedural Stroke or Death Risks of Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, stroke risk associated with carotid disease has decreased, reflecting improvements in medical therapy and a more rigorous control of vascular risk factors. It is less clear whether the procedural risk of carotid revascularization has declined over time.

METHODS

We analyzed temporal changes in procedural risks among 4597 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis treated with carotid artery stenting (n=2326) or carotid endarterectomy (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials between 2000 and 2008, using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each source trial. Models were additionally adjusted for age and other baseline characteristics predicting treatment risk. The primary outcome event was any procedural stroke or death, occurring during or within 30 days after revascularization.

RESULTS

The procedural stroke or death risk decreased significantly over time in all patients (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; P=0.006). This effect was driven by a decrease in the carotid endarterectomy group (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P=0.003), whereas no significant decrease was found after carotid artery stenting (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04; P=0.33). Carotid endarterectomy patients had a lower procedural stroke or death risk compared with carotid artery stenting patients, and the difference significantly increased over time (interaction P=0.031). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the results remained essentially the same.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of stroke or death associated with carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis decreased over an 8-year period, independent of clinical predictors of procedural risk. No corresponding reduction in procedural risk was seen in patients treated with stenting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S), NCT00004732 (CREST), ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE), and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

Direct Transcervical Access vs the Transfemoral Approach for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the safety profile of transcervical access (TCA) in comparison with the transfemoral approach (TFA) in carotid artery stenting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to current guidelines. Eleven eligible studies including 11,592 patients (10,736 in the TFA group and 856 in the TCA group) were identified through a search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases up to October 2018. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and quantified using the Egger method.

RESULTS

The TFA group had a statistically significantly higher risk of periprocedural (30-day) stroke compared with the TCA group (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.63, p=0.027; I2=0%). Also, patients in the TFA group had a significantly higher risk of developing new ischemic lesions (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.48 to 5.96, p=0.002; I2=0%) on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). No differences in terms of transient ischemic attack (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.10, p=0.268; I2=5.9%), myocardial infarction (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.35; p=0.242; I2=0%), local hematoma (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.25, p=0.389; I2=0%), or mortality (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92, p=0.449; I2=0%) were identified between the groups.

CONCLUSION

TCA is associated with a significantly lower risk for periprocedural stroke and DW-MRI ischemic lesions compared with TFA. Other periprocedural outcomes were similar between the groups.

Recent advances in the treatment of carotid artery disease

Transfemoral carotid stenting has struggled to become a suitable alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid disease because of higher perioperative stroke risks, even with use of embolic protection devices. To reduce the perioperative stroke rates associated with carotid stenting, several advancements in stent design, embolic protection systems, and technical approaches have been developed. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) was also recently introduced as a novel carotid artery stenting option which circumvents several of the high embolic-risk maneuvers found in transfemoral carotid stenting and employs a flow reversal system that provides continuous embolic protection throughout the procedure. Early results from this technique have shown low stroke/death rates comparable to carotid endarterectomy while maintaining the minimally invasive benefits of carotid stenting. TCAR has a strong potential to become the preferred method of carotid stenting in the near future and may challenge carotid endarterectomy as the preferred carotid artery revascularization method.

Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection Device: A Single-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) performed without an embolic protection device (EPD) in a selected group of asymptomatic patients with primary internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2015 and May 2018, 77 patients (mean age 77 years; 60 men) underwent CAS without any embolic protection device. Forty-seven (61%) patients had primary ICA stenosis and were excluded from CEA because of high surgical risk; the other 30 (39%) patients had post-CEA restenosis (n=26) or a distal ICA flap after eversion CEA (n=4). The mean ICA stenosis was 82%. All procedures were performed from a femoral artery access. Pre- and/or postdilation were used in 64 patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications (death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) during the procedure and within 30 days; the secondary outcome was the incidence of restenosis in follow-up.

RESULTS

No relevant bradycardia was encountered during CAS. The combined rate of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction at 30 days was 1.3%. The single stroke patient recovered fully after 2 months. Over a follow-up that ranged to 3 years (mean 24±18 months), no further neurological events were recorded. One (1.3%) patient had a >70% restenosis after 6 months; the lesion was dilated, successfully restoring the lumen contour.

CONCLUSION

In our series, endovascular treatment of carotid stenosis without the use of protection devices in patients with primary stenosis or postsurgical restenosis can achieve satisfactory safety and efficacy outcomes. The choice of performing CAS without using EPDs should follow a tailored approach based on the appropriate patient anatomy and specific clinical parameters to minimize neurological complications.

Proximal embolic protection versus distal filter protection versus combined protection in carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Proximal embolic protection devices (P-EPD) and distal filters (DF) are used to prevent distal cerebral embolizations during carotid artery stenting (CAS). We compared their comparative effectiveness in regards to prevention of intraprocedural and periprocedural adverse events, including ischemic lesions (ipsilateral and contralateral), stroke, transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and death. We also compared the combination of the two neuroprotection strategies vs. a single strategy in regards to ischemic lesions and stroke.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and eligible studies were identified through search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of a random effects model. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies involving 16,307 patients were included. There was a significant reduction in ischemic lesions with the use of P-EPD among observational studies (RR: 0.66 [0.45-0.97]). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcomes between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a number of studies reporting outcomes on the comparison between P-EPD and DF for CAS. P-EDP can reduce distal embolization phenomena resulting into ischemic lesions when compared to DF based on the results from real-world studies. P-EPD was not superior however, in regards to periprocedural stroke, TIA and death. Further studies are anticipated to provide a clear answer to this debate.

External Validation of Randomized Trial Outcomes Following Carotid Interventions in the Modern Era

An essential prerequisite of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is “external validation,” that is, results obtained in the “real world” closely replicate those from RCTs. In this respect, contemporary administrative data set registries reporting outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS) have recently reported death/stroke rates that exceed the accepted risk thresholds for intervening. The current article evaluates this controversy and offers reasons why this might continue to happen, namely: (1) difference in interventionists’ competence/experience, (2) patient selection, and (3) advances in CAS technology/technique. As CAS is a continuously evolving technique, the results obtained from patients recruited into the landmark RCTs (as early as the late 1990s) do not reflect contemporary practice. Although RCTs are not always the perfect solution, the process of randomization ensures minimization of selection bias. A possible way forward may be the introduction of prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registries.

One swallow does not a summer make but many swallows do: accumulating clinical evidence for nearly-eliminated peri-procedural and 30-day complications with mesh-covered stents transforms the carotid revascularisation field

Atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis (CS) continues to be a common cause of acute ischaemic stroke. Optimised medical therapy (OMT), the first-line treatment modality in CS, may reduce or delay - but it does not abolish - CS-related strokes. As per current AHA/ASA and ESC/ESVS/ESO guidelines, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a less-invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for CS revascularisation in primary and secondary stroke prevention. Ten-year follow-up from the CREST trial in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic CS confirmed equipoise of CAS and CEA in the primary endpoint. Nevertheless CAS - using a widely open-cell, first-generation stent and first-generation (distal/filter) neuroprotection - has been criticised for its relative excess of (mostly minor) strokes by 30 days, a significant proportion of which were post-procedural. Atherosclerotic plaque protrusion through conventional carotid stent struts, confirmed on intravascular imaging, has been implicated as a leading mechanism of the relative excess of strokes with CAS vs. CEA, including delayed strokes with CAS. Different designs of mesh-covered carotid stents have been developed to prevent plaque prolapse. Several multi-centre/multi-specialty clinical studies with CGurad MicroNet-Covered Embolic Prevention Stent System (EPS) and RoadSaver/Casper were recently published and included routine DW-MRI cerebral imaging peri-procedurally and at 30 days (CGuard EPS). Data from more than 550 patients in mesh-covered carotid stent clinical studies to-date show an overall 30-day complication rate of ~1% with near-elimination of post-procedural events. While more (and long-term) evidence is still anticipated, these results - taken together with optimised intra-procedural neuroprotection in CAS (increased use of proximal systems including trans-carotid dynamic flow reversal) and the positive 12-month mesh-covered stent data reports in 2017 - are transforming the carotid revascularisation field today. Establishing effective algorithms to identify the asymptomatic subjects at stroke risk despite OMT, and large-scale studies with mesh-covered stents including long-term clinical and duplex ultrasound outcomes, are the next major goals.

Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents: New options in the armamentarium of carotid artery stenting

In the last 25 years, the very existence of carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been threatened on a number of occasions. The initial disappointing results that even lead to the discontinuation of an early randomized controlled trial have improved considerably with time. Novel devices, advanced stent and equipment technology, alternative types of access and several types of filters/emboli protecting devices have been reported to reduce stroke/death rates during/after CAS and improve CAS outcomes. The present review will provide a description of the various technology advances in the field that aim to reduce stroke and death rates associated with CAS. Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents are currently the most promising tools in the armamentarium of CAS.

Transcervical Carotid Stent Placement in the Setting of a Hostile Neck and a Type III Aortic Arch

Previous radical neck dissection and neck irradiation pose considerable operative risks in patients requiring carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid disease. Carotid stenting is an acceptable alternative for these patients but carries a higher risk of cerebrovascular accidents especially in patients with type III aortic arch anatomy. Herein, we present a technically challenging case of a patient with an irradiated neck and a history of radical neck dissection who presented with a symptomatic high-grade left internal carotid artery stenosis in the setting of a type III aortic arch. He was treated via a hybrid approach for carotid artery stenting.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal

Purpose: To report a study evaluating the safety and efficacy of stenting via direct carotid access with flow reversal using the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System. Methods: Between March 2009 and June 2012, 75 patients (mean age 72.6 years; 45 men) underwent carotid artery stenting with the ENROUTE System; the majority of patients (63, 84%) were asymptomatic. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 30 days. Efficacy outcomes included acute device success, procedure success, and tolerance to flow reversal. Fifty-six (74.7%) patients underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) before and after the procedure to assess the development of new ischemic brain lesions. Results: Acute device and procedure success were achieved in 68 (90.6%) patients. The reverse flow circuit was established in 71 (94.6%) patients; only 5 patients demonstrated transient intolerance to flow reversal that did not interfere with completion of the procedure. The mean time on flow reversal was 19.1 minutes. In the DW-MRI substudy, 10 (17.9%) of 56 patients had ipsilateral new white lesions with a mean volume of 0.17 mL. At 30 days, no major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death occurred; 1 patient had experienced a minor stroke that was adjudicated as not related to either the device or procedure. Conclusion: Results of the PROOF study demonstrate the safety and efficacy of transcarotid revascularization with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System.