Cost-Effectiveness of TransCarotid Artery Revascularization versus Carotid Endarterectomy

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ultrasound Examination Without Axial Imaging is Sufficient for Preoperative Planning in Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR)

BACKGROUND

Duplex ultrasound is frequently used to determine the degree of carotid stenosis. However, axial imaging is typically obtained for operative planning for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We examined if ultrasound alone is sufficient before TCAR.

METHODS

Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry between 2016 and 2021 was obtained. Patients were divided into 2 groups-those with preoperative ultrasound-alone (US) and those with additional axial imaging (AX). Perioperative outcomes were compared utilizing univariate Chi-square, independent t-test, multivariate logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

There were 3,418 patients identified: 682 in the US group and 2,736 in the AX group. More preoperative hypertension was reported in US (16.1% vs. 10.2%, P < 0.001) while cardiovascular disease (23% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.006) and prior ipsilateral stroke (22% vs. 32.7%, P = 0.002) were more prevalent in AX. More patients had history of contralateral carotid endarterectomy (13.6% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.035) or either ipsilateral (2.6% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.002) or contralateral (7.9% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.008) carotid artery stenting in the US group. Lower preoperative creatinine was reported in the US cohort (1.09 ± 0.01 vs. 1.18 ± 0.02, P < 0.001) while more were symptomatic in AX (28.2% vs. 36.2%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between lesion characteristics or operative decision making. A slightly higher total procedure time was seen in AX (73.7 ± 0.6 vs. 68.6 ± 1.3 min, P = 0.017). No differences were seen in perioperative transient ischemic attack/stroke or other immediate complications. At 2-year follow-up, both groups reported no significant differences in stroke-free survival (P = 0.750) and independent functional status remained near-identical (97.3% vs. 97.4%, P = 0.921). Kaplan-Meier analysis yielded no significant difference between mortality at 2 years (P = 0.563). Bivariate logistic regression modeling did reveal a statistically significant increase in likelihood of long-term ipsilateral stroke (odds ratio 1.77, P = 0.015) and non stroke-related complication in the postoperative period (odds ratio 4.81, P = 0.005). However, only a statistically significant relationship persisted in non-stroke complication when the model was controlled for between-group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in postoperative or long-term complications were noted with additional AX in preoperative TCAR planning. Thus, duplex ultrasound offers a safe and effective alternative for those with contraindication or axial imaging.

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.

Use of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting, and Carotid Endarterectomy in the US From 2015 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

A transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) device was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for carotid revascularization in patients at high risk for stroke, cranial nerve injury, or major cardiac event. It is unclear how the introduction of TCAR has changed the use of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS).

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the temporal changes in the operative approach to carotid revascularization (CEA vs TFCAS vs TCAR), and to identify patient and disease characteristics commonly associated with each approach.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study obtained data from the Vascular Quality Initiative database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR were included. Data were analyzed from January to April 2022.

EXPOSURES

Month and year of surgery as well as patient risk status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Number and proportion of carotid revascularization procedures by operative approach.

RESULTS

A total of 108 676 patients (mean [SD] age 56.6 [12.5] years; 66 684 men [61.4%]) were included in the analysis. The most common operative approach overall was CEA (n = 81 508 [75.0%]), followed by TFCAS (n = 15 578 [14.3%]) and TCAR (n = 11 590 [10.7%]). The number of procedures increased over the study period (16 754 in 2015 vs 27 269 in 2019; P < .001). In 2015, CEA was used in 84.9% of all cases, followed by TFCAS (14.4%) and TCAR (0.8%). In 2019, CEA was used in 64.8% of cases, followed by TCAR (21.9%) and TFCAS (13.3%). The proportional use of CEA decreased by 5.0% (95% CI, -7.4% to -2.6%) per year, and TCAR use increased by 5.3% (95% CI, 2.3%-8.3%) per year. Among patients at high risk, the change was greater: CEA use decreased by 7.8% (95% CI, -11.9% to -3.8%) per year, TFCAS decreased by 4.8% (95% CI, -9.5% to -0.14%) per year, and TCAR increased by 12.6% (95% CI, 7.1%-18.1%) per year. Multinomial logistic regression showed that patient risk status was the most important characteristic associated with TCAR compared with CEA (relative risk ratio, 36.10; 95% CI, 29.24-44.66; P < .001) and TFCAS (relative risk ratio, 14.10; 95% CI, 11.86-16.66; P < .001). Linear regression revealed no association between year of surgery and in-hospital myocardial infarction, stroke, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study indicate that TCAR has become the dominant carotid revascularization approach, surpassing TFCAS and CEA in patients at high risk for stroke, cranial nerve injury, or cardiovascular events. Patient high-risk status was the main characteristic associated with a stenting approach, highlighting the perceived importance of carotid stenting therapies in this patient population.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization: Is It Better than Carotid Endarterectomy?

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a novel carotid stenting method that avoids the manipulation of the aortic arch and uses a flow-reversal neuroprotection system that effectively reduces the risk of embolic events during carotid intervention. Studies have shown a lower risk of stroke or death compared with the transfemoral carotid stenting approach, and an equivalent risk of stroke or death compared with traditional carotid endarterectomy. TCAR has added benefits of lower risk of myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injuries, and shorter operative times compared with endarterectomy. TCAR has become widely adopted by vascular surgeons in the United States for the treatment of patients with high-risk medical comorbidities and those with challenging surgical anatomy.

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.

Transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with similar outcomes to carotid endarterectomy regardless of patient risk status

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting, including both transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), reimbursement has been limited to high-risk patients by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) since 2005. We aimed to assess the association of CMS high-risk status with perioperative outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), TFCAS, and TCAR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) patients who underwent carotid revascularization between 2015 and 2020. Patients were stratified by whether they met CMS CAS criteria, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association of procedure type (CEA, TFCAS, TCAR) with perioperative stroke.

RESULTS

Of 124,531 individuals who underwent carotid revascularization procedures, 91,687 (73.6%) underwent CEA, 17,247 (13.9%) underwent TFCAS, and 15,597 (12.5%) underwent TCAR. Among patients who met CMS CAS criteria (i.e., high-risk patients), the incidence of perioperative stroke was 2.7% for CEA, 3.4% for TFCAS, and 2.4% for TCAR (p<0.001). Among standard-risk patients, the incidence of perioperative stroke was 1.7% for CEA, 2.7% for TFCAS, and 1.8% for TCAR (p<0.001). After adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, the odds of perioperative stroke were lower for TCAR vs. CEA in high-risk patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82 (95% CI 0.68, 0.99)] and similar in standard-risk patients [aOR 1.05 (95% CI 0.84, 1.31)]. In contrast, the adjusted odds of perioperative stroke were higher for TFCAS vs. CEA in high-risk patients [aOR 1.23 (95% CI 1.03, 1.46)] and standard-risk patients [aOR 1.60 (95% CI 1.37, 1.86)]. In both populations, TFCAS and TCAR patients had significantly lower odds of MI than CEA patients (both, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative risks associated with CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in high-risk patients support the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria, while the risks associated with each revascularization approach in standard-risk patients suggest that distinguishing TCAR from TFCAS may be warranted.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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