Outcome of CAS under flow reversal and analysis for the intraprocedural flow of internal carotid artery.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) under flow reversal with dual protection using a proximal balloon and distal filter has been an established procedure for internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. This study investigates the effect of external carotid artery (ECA) occlusion on outcomes of CAS and ICA flow under flow reversal. METHODS: We reviewed 231 cases of CAS under flow reversal with ECA occlusion and 32 without. In the last 14 of 32 cases, the flow in the ICA under flow reversal was analyzed by ultrasound. The collateral index, which was defined as the total value of the maximum diameters of the ipsilateral anterior cerebral artery at the A1 segment and the anterior communicating artery, as well as those of the ipsilateral posterior cerebral artery at the P1 segment and the ipsilateral posterior communicating artery, and the maximum diameter of the ipsilateral ECA were correlated with the flow direction in the ICA. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the outcome of CAS between the groups with or without ECA occlusion. Among the 14 cases without ECA occlusion, antegrade flow in the ICA was observed in 6 cases (42.9 %). The group with the antegrade flow in the ICA exhibited a significantly lower collateral index (5.08±0.33 vs 6.71±0.28, p=0.01) and a significantly larger ECA diameter (4.66±0.51 mm vs 3.21±1.24 mm, p=0.01) than the group with the stagnant or retrograde flow in the ICA. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of CAS under flow reversal were acceptable even without ECA occlusion. The ECA occlusion may not be necessary for CAS under dual protection; however, distal filter protection should be used even under flow reversal.

Focal Non-aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage After Carotid Artery Stenting: A Case Report.

Minor non-aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) following carotid artery stenting (CAS) is exceedingly rare and less described, with its underlying mechanism elusive. Here, we present the case of a 75-year-old female who underwent CAS for progressive asymptomatic severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Her post-procedural course remained uneventful, with no intracranial hemorrhage detected on the following day's magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, a routine MRI on the seventh post-procedural day identified a small amount of SAH in the central sulcus on the operative side. In the absence of symptoms, the patient was discharged home after a computed tomography (CT) scan revealed no signs of hemorrhagic enlargement the following day. In this report, we document the rare occurrence of localized SAH post-CAS. There are limited reports of minor SAH following CAS, with the underlying mechanisms remaining unclear. In this report, the localization of SAH aligns with the most critical ischemic sites, indicating that the mechanism of focal SAH after CAS is associated with blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption due to a rapid increase in blood flow to small vessels with impaired vascular autoregulation. Focal convexity SAH is an easily overlooked finding, and the medical team performing carotid artery revascularization procedures should be aware of the potential for such SAH postoperatively and exercise caution during postoperative imaging interpretation.

Comparative Analysis of Balloon Angioplasty Alone versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Severe Extracranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Four-Year Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of balloon angioplasty alone (BAA) with carotid artery stenting (CAS) for severe extracranial carotid artery stenosis (ECAS). The primary outcomes assessed were restenosis requiring retreatment and symptomatic stroke occurrence within a four-year follow-up period. METHODS: A total of 77 patients with 89 carotid artery stenoses undergoing endovascular carotid revascularization (ECR) between January 2015 and December 2019 were included. Neuroradiological evaluations, including computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), were performed at defined intervals. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare patient characteristics, angiographic outcomes, and clinical outcomes between the BAA and CAS groups. RESULTS: The study demonstrated successful outcomes in both groups with low adverse event rates. The overall restenosis rate was 40.2%, but severe restenosis requiring retreatment occurred in only 10 cases (7 in BAA, 3 in CAS). No significant difference was found in retreatment rates between the two groups (p=0.53). Stroke occurrence within the four-year follow-up period was observed in three patients, with no statistically significant difference between BAA and CAS groups CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of BAA and CAS for severe ECAS. Despite slightly shorter intervals to restenosis in the BAA group, there was no significant difference in retreatment or stroke occurrence rates between the two procedures. BAA offers advantages in terms of retreatment options.

Carotid stenosis in logistic restraints Optimizing treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis in times of logistic restraints as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 confronted medical care with many challenges. During the pandemic, several resources were limited resulting in renouncing or postponing medical care like carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Although according to international guidelines CEA is the first choice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) could potentially be a reasonable alternative especially during logistical restraints. PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of CAS versus CEA before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our hypothesis was that a CAS first approach yielded comparable outcomes compared to a CEA first approach. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with significant carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS between September 2018 and March 2023. Each consecutive period of 1.5 year marked a new (treatment) period: pre-COVID (CEA first strategy), during COVID (CAS first strategy) and post COVID (patient tailored approach). Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA or death within 30 days. Secondary outcome consisted of the rate of technical success, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction or other cardiac complications needing intervention, bleeding of the surgical site needing intervention, nerve palsy, unintended IC admission, pseudoaneurysm, restenosis or occlusion. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. Out of 137 patients treated with CEA, 55, 36 and 46 were treated pre-COVID, during COVID and post-COVID, respectively. Out of 181 CAS procedures, 38, 59 and 84, respectively, were performed in each time period. Primary outcome occurred in 5.5%, 0% and 2.2% in the CEA group and 0%, 1.7% and 3.6% in the CAS group (p = .27; p = 1.00; p = 1.00, respectively). Overall technical success was 100% for CEA and 99.4% for CAS (p = 1.00). Rate of restenosis was the only secondary outcome measure which was significantly better after CAS compared to CEA in the pre- and post-COVID period (CEA vs CAS, 12.7% vs 7.9% and 23.9% vs 4.8% with a p-value of .03 and .03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Outcomes were comparable between CAS versus CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CAS showed better results in terms of other complications (i.e., restenosis rate) in the pre- and post-COVID period compared to CEA. Our results may support a CAS first approach when no relevant contra-indications exist without exposing the patient to complications associated with an open surgical approach. Discussion in a multidisciplinary team is advised.

A multi-center study of the MicroNET-covered stent in consecutive patients with acute carotid-related stroke: SAFEGUARD-STROKE.

Introduction: Acute carotid-related stroke (CRS), with its large thrombo-embolic load and large volume of affected brain tissue, poses significant management challenges. First generation (single-layer) carotid stents fail to insulate the athero-thrombotic material; thus they are often non-optimized (increasing thrombosis risk), yet their use is associated with a significant (20-30%) risk of new cerebral embolism. Aim: To evaluate, in a multi-center multi-specialty investigator-initiated study, outcomes of the MicroNET-covered (cell area ≈ 0.02-0.03 mm2) carotid stent (CGuard, InspireMD) in consecutive CRS patients eligible for emergency recanalization. Treatment, other than study device use, was according to center/operator routine. Material and methods: Seventy-five patients (age 40-89 years, 26.7% women) were enrolled in 7 interventional stroke centers. Results: The median Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was 9 (6-10). Study stent use was 100% (no other stent types implanted); retrograde strategy predominated (69.2%) in tandem lesions. Technical success was 100%. Post-dilatation balloon diameter was 4.0 to 8.0 mm. 89% of patients achieved final modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b-c/3. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use as intraarterial (IA) bolus + intravenous (IV) infusion was an independent predictor of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 13.9, 95% CI: 5.1-84.5, p < 0.001). The mortality rate was 9.4% in-hospital and 12.2% at 90 days. Ninety-day mRS0-2 was 74.3%, mRS3-5 13.5%; stent patency was 93.2%. Heparin-limited-to-flush predicted patency loss on univariate (OR = 14.3, 95% CI: 1.5-53.1, p < 0.007) but not on multivariate analysis. Small-diameter balloon/absent post-dilatation was an independent predictor of stent patency loss (OR = 15.2, 95% CI: 5.7-73.2, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This largest to-date study of the MicroNET-covered stent in consecutive CRS patients demonstrated a high acute angiographic success rate, high 90-day patency and favorable clinical outcomes despite variability in procedural strategies and pharmacotherapy (SAFEGUARD-STROKE NCT05195658).

Stenting with dual-layer CGuard stent in acute sub-occlusive carotid artery stenosis and in tandem occlusions: a monocentric study.

PURPOSE: Double-layer design carotid stents have been cast in a negative light since several investigations reported high rates of in-stent occlusions, at least in the acute setting of tandem occlusions. CGuard is a new generation double-layered stent that was designed to prevent periinterventional embolic events. The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of the CGuard in emergent CAS and for the acute treatment of tandem occlusions in comparison with the single-layer Carotid Wallstent (CWS) system. METHODS: All patients who underwent CAS with CGuard or CWS after intracranial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) between 11/2018 and 12/2022 were identified from our local thrombectomy registry. Clinical, interventional and neuroimaging data were analyzed. Patency of the stent was assessed within 72 h. Intracranial hemorrhage and modified Rankin score (mRS) at discharge were the main endpoints. RESULTS: In total, 86 stent procedures in 86 patients were included (CWS: 44, CGuard: 42). CGuard had a lower, but not statistically significant rate (p = 0.431) of in-stent occlusions (n = 2, 4.8%) when compared to the CWS (n = 4, 9.1%). Significant in-stent stenosis was found in one case in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcome at discharge between the two groups with a median mRS for CGuard of 2 (IQR:1-5) vs. CWS 3 (IQR:2-4). CONCLUSION: In our series, the rate of in-stent occlusions after emergent CAS was lower with the dual-layer CGuard when compared to the monolayer CWS. Further data are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of the design in more detail.

Safety and Risk Factors of Carotid Artery Stenting with Simple Distal Filter Protection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Objective: Carotid artery stenting embolic protection devices offer various options, among which distal filter protection is the simplest and easiest to handle. However, compared to balloon protection systems, distal filter protection has more embolic complications. Therefore, we explored the risk factors of distal filter protection, intending to achieve a safer carotid artery stenting. This retrospective study was conducted to identify prognostic factors following carotid artery stenting with only distal filter protection from July 2010 to June 2021. Methods: Information on patient background, procedures and devices, and complications was collected using medical records. The data pertaining to 187 patients were analyzed after excluding the data of patients in whom other protection devices (8 cases) were used. We used FilterWire EZ as the first choice for embolic protection device and SpiderFX when the patients had difficult-to-cross lesions. Results: The patients' mean age was 71.9 ± 6.9 years, and 72 (38.5%) were symptomatic. Symptomatic (odds ratio: 2.02, p = 0.035) and difficult-to-cross lesions (odds ratio: 3.63, p = 0.0013) were factors independently associated with symptomatic complications. Conclusion: This retrospective single-center study established independent prognostic factors for carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection. For patients with symptomatic lesions and severe stenosis or bends that are difficult to pass through, it is necessary to be careful when performing carotid artery stenting with distal filter protection.

An extremely rare complication during carotid artery stenting using a Wallstent: Migration of a stent holder of a Carotid Wallstent.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an established treatment for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS). The Carotid Wallstent is commonly used as a stent device in CAS procedures. Rare complications associated with the use of the Carotid Wallstent in CAS procedures include delayed shortening and incomplete stent expansion due to displacement of a marker ring. However, there have been no previous reports of a stent holder becoming unpredictably detached from a Carotid Wallstent during a procedure, requiring the additional deployment of another Carotid Wallstent. CASE PRESENTATION: The case of a 72-year-old man with progressive ICS is described. Since the ICS was resistant to medical treatment, CAS was planned to prevent ischemic events. During the procedure, a Mo.Ma Ultra and a carotid guardwire were used for proximal and distal protection, respectively. Following the introduction of those protective devices, a Carotid Wallstent was deployed at the stenotic lesion of the ICS. After the deployment of the Carotid Wallstent, a stent holder unpredictably detached was identified in the lumen of the Carotid Wallstent. Since it was impossible to mechanically retrieve the detached stent holder, another Carotid Wallstent was deployed to trap the substance. Postoperatively, the substance was identified as a stent holder of the first Carotid Wallstent. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of an extremely rare complication concerning a Carotid Wallstent in CAS.

Carotid Interventions in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Narrative Review.

Simultaneous carotid artery stenosis (CS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common condition among patients with several cardiovascular risk factors; however, its optimal management still remains under investigation, such as the assumption that carotid disease is causally related to perioperative stroke and that preventive carotid revascularization decrease the risk of this complication. Synchronous surgical approach to both conditions, performing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) during the same procedure, should still be considered in selective patients, in order to reduce the risk of perioperative stroke during coronary cardiac surgery. For the same purpose, staged approaches, such as CEA followed by CABG or CABG followed by CEA during the same hospitalization or a few weeks later have been described. Hybrid approach with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and CABG can also be an option in selected cases, offering a minimally invasive procedure to treat CS among patients whom CABG cannot be postponed. When carotid intervention is indicated in patients with concomitant CAD requiring CABG, a personalized and tailored approach is mandatory, especially in asymptomatic patients, in order to define the ideal surgical strategy. The aim of this paper is to summarize the current "state of the art" of the different approaches to carotid artery diseases in patients undergoing CABG.

Ulceration location is associated with clinical course in carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Plaque ulceration in carotid artery stenosis is a risk factor for cerebral ischemic events; however, the characteristics that determine plaque vulnerability are not fully understood. We thus assessed the association between plaque ulceration sites and cerebrovascular ischemic attack. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 72 consecutive patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulcers. After excluding patients with pseudo-occlusion, a history of previous carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting before the ulcer was first discovered, follow-up data of less than 1 month, or carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting performed within 1 month after the ulcer was first discovered, 60 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into proximal and distal groups based on the ulcer location relative to the most stenotic point. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic events ("ischemic events"), such as amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack, or ischemic stroke due to carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulceration. The association between ulcer location and ischemic events was also assessed. RESULTS: In the patients with plaque ulcer, more patients had proximal than distal plaque ulcers (39 vs 21; P = .028). The median follow-up duration was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.5-6.2 years). Nineteen patients (32%) experienced ischemic event. Ischemic events occurred more frequently in the distal than in the proximal group (18% vs 59%; P = .005). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significantly shorter event-free time in the distal group (log-rank P = .021). In univariate analysis, distal ulcer location was associated with ischemic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.65; P = .03). Multivariate analysis using two different models also showed that distal ulcer location was independently associated with ischemic events (Model 1: OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.26-11.78; P = .03; Model 2: OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.49-12.49; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with carotid artery stenosis and plaque ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point are more likely to experience cerebrovascular ischemic attacks. Therefore, carotid plaques with ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point may be a potential indication for surgical treatment.

Locoregional Versus General Anesthesia for Carotid Artery Stenting in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project.

OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be performed by transfemoral or transcervical (TCAR) approaches and with a variety of anesthetic techniques. No current literature clearly supports one anesthetic method over another. We therefore sought to evaluate the outcomes of CAS procedures based on anesthetic approach. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2011 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals undergoing CAS during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthetic type (locoregional versus general [GA]). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Locoregional anesthesia for CAS was used for 754 (65.5%) patients, with the remainder under GA. Demographic variables were comparable, as were the incidence of symptomatic presentation, high-risk anatomy or physiology, severity of the stenosis, and presence/severity of contralateral carotid disease. There was no difference in composite outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], and death) (7.0% v 6.1%, p = 0.53). The GA group had lower odds ratio of MI (0.12, p = 0.0362) but higher odds ratio of death (3.33, p = 0.008) and postoperative pneumonia (3.87, p = 0.0083), although on multivariable analysis the risk of death appeared confounded by respiratory variables. Multivariable and propensity score-weighted analyses did not identify a significant association of GA with the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CAS in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, GA was not associated with the composite outcome but was associated with increased rates of postoperative pneumonia and decreased rates of MI. Further investigation should attempt to better clarify these relationships.

The effect of institutional case volume on post-operative outcomes after endarterectomy and stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of yearly institutional case volume for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS) among symptomatic carotid stenosis patients on the rates of postoperative stroke and inpatient mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prior stroke ("symptomatic") undergoing CEA or CAS during an inpatient stay were identified from the National Inpatient Sample for years 2012-2015. The primary variable was volume of CEA or CAS performed annually by each institution. The primary outcome was a composite variable for in-hospital death or postoperative stroke. RESULTS: A total of 5,628 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis underwent CEA, while 245 underwent CAS. In the symptomatic CEA population, 519 (9.2 %) patients experienced postoperative stroke or mortality, and were more likely to be treated at centers with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 10 [IQR 5-15] versus 10 [7-20] cases, p < 0.001). In the symptomatic CAS population, 32 (13.1 %) patients experienced stroke or mortality, and these patients were also more likely to undergo treatment at hospitals with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 5 [IQR 5-7] versus 5 [5-10] cases, p = 0.044). Thresholds for yearly institutional volume found differences in adverse outcome between 0-9, 10-29, and ≥30 cases/year (11.7 % vs 8.4 % vs 6.0 %, p < 0.001) for CEA, and differences in postoperative stroke between 0-9 and ≥10 cases/year for CAS (11.0 % vs 1.4 %, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals performing higher volumes of CEA or CAS have fewer postoperative strokes. The threshold reported herein is ≥30 CEA procedures or ≥10 CAS procedures annually for appreciably improved outcomes.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Distal normal vessel diameter might be associated with silent brain infarcts after stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been the standard treatment for carotid stenosis because it is less invasive; however, the risk of periprocedural thromboembolism is high. We investigated the predictors for silent brain infarcts (SBIs), focusing on embolic protection in CAS. METHODS: This study was single-center retrospective study, and we obtained baseline demographics and clinical, laboratory, and periprocedural variables of patients who underwent CAS. Also, methods used for embolic protection (no EPD, distal EPD, or proximal balloon guiding catheter) during CAS were obtained. Distal normal vessel diameter was defined as the diameter of cervical internal carotid artery where the artery wall becomes parallel. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed before and after procedure to detect SBIs. The primary outcome was stented territory SBIs, and the secondary outcomes were any territories SBIs and stented territory SBIs in cases with EPD. RESULTS: A total of 196 CAS procedures with mean age 69.1 ± 9.9 years were included. After CAS, stented territory SBIs occurred in 53 (27.0 %) cases and any territories SBIs in 60 (30.6 %) cases. Univariable analyses revealed that distal normal vessel diameter (odds ratio = 1.71, 95 % confidence interval = 1.20-2.43, P = 0.003) was associated with the occurrence of stented territory SBIs after CAS. After adjusting for potential variables, larger distal normal vessel diameter (1.61 [1.10-2.36], P = 0.014) increased the occurrence of SBIs after CAS. Consistent results were obtained when the outcome was any territories SBIs or stented territory SBIs in cases with EPD. CONCLUSIONS: Distal normal vessel diameter was a predictor for the occurrence of SBI after CAS. The passable pore size of EPDs may vary depending on vessel diameter, and may impact the occurrence of SBIs.

Sex differences in outcomes of carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Existing evidence is inconclusive on whether women after carotid artery stenting (CAS) experience worse outcomes than men. METHODS: The outcomes of women and men were compared using the data from nationwide retrospective registry between 2015 and 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of ischemic stroke and all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, all-cause death, acute occlusion, and acute myocardial infarction. Functional outcomes were the achieving an mRS score of 0-1 and 0-2. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days after CAS. RESULTS: In total, 9792 patients (1330 women, 8862 men; mean age, 73.8 vs 73.5 years, p = 0.17) were analyzed. Symptomatic stenosis was common in men (52.0% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.03), while ≥50% stenosis after CAS was common in women (3.2% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.005). The primary outcome was no significantly difference in women and men (2.0% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.75-1.88).The incidence of all-cause death was higher in women (0.9% vs. 0.5%; aOR, 2.45; 95%CI, 1.11-5.39). Functional outcomes were significantly less common in women than in men (mRS0-1, 72.6% vs. 74.8%; aOR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.63-0.95; mRS0-2, 82.1% vs. 85.6%; aOR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.60-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there was no significant sex differences in the incidence of ischemic stroke and all-cause death at 30 days. However, women have higher rate of all-cause death and poorer functional outcomes at 30 days than men.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Association between Asian race and perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization varies with Asian procedure density.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization are understudied in Asian patients. We aimed to assess whether disease severity and postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization differ between Asian and White patients, and whether this varies with Asian procedure density. METHODS: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting datasets from 2003 to 2021. Regions were divided into tertiles based on Asian procedure density. Propensity scores were used to match Asian and White patients based on patient factors and procedure type. The primary outcome variable was a collapsed composite of in-hospital ipsilateral stroke/death/myocardial infarction. χ2 tests were used to assess association between Asian race and disease severity, center and surgeon volume, and 1-year outcomes. Logistic and Cox regressions were performed between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1766 Asian and 159,608 White patients underwent carotid revascularization, and we identified 2704 patients (1352 Asian and 1352 White) in the matched cohorts. Among propensity matched patients, all-comer Asian patients more commonly had >80% ipsilateral stenosis (63% vs 52%; P < .001) and a moderate/severe preoperative Rankin score (7.6% vs 5.1%; P = .007). The rate of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction was higher in Asian patients (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .012), and this disparity was more pronounced in the lowest tertile of Asian procedure density (4.3% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Logistic regression in the propensity-matched cohort demonstrated Asian race was associated with lower odds of intervention at highest volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.3; P < .001) and by highest volume surgeons (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .001). Asian race was associated with higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .031), and there was a significant interaction between Asian procedure density and the relationship between Asian race and this outcome (interaction P = .001). After accounting for center and surgeon volume, the association of Asian race and the composite outcome was mitigated (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.7-3.3; P = .300). Cox regression between the matched cohorts demonstrated that Asian race was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = .001) and higher risk of 1-year reintervention (hazard ratio, 16; 95% CI, 1.8-142; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients are more likely to present with a higher degree of carotid stenosis, higher preoperative risk, and experience worse perioperative outcomes. The association of Asian race with perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction varies with Asian procedure density and is also confounded by center and surgeon volume. These results highlight the importance of understanding referral patterns and cultural effects on outcomes disparities in Asian patients.

Real-World Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) are comparable to those of carotid endarterectomy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis, but real-world outcomes are not well-known. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the real-world clinical outcomes of CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide retrospective registry study of 156 centers between January 2015 and December 2019. We enrolled consecutive patients with CAS managed by certified specialists from the Japanese Society of Neuroendovascular Therapy. Outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause death at 30 days after CAS. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, all-cause death, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and procedural complications. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,792 patients (symptomatic, n = 5,351; asymptomatic, n = 4,441). The mean age was 73.5 years, and men were dominant (86.4%). Embolism protection devices were used in 99% of patients. The primary outcome was not significantly different between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups (120 [2.2%] vs 65 [1.5%]; adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.92-1.83). The incidences of symptomatic ICH, any ICH, acute in-stent occlusion, and hyperperfusion syndrome were significantly more prevalent in the symptomatic group (47 [0.9%] vs 8 [0.2%], aOR: 4.41 [95% CI: 1.68-11.6]; 73 [1.4%] vs 12 [0.3%], aOR: 3.56 [95% CI: 1.71-7.39]; 45 [0.8%] vs 19 [0.4%], aOR: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.08-4.40]; and 102 [1.9%] vs 36 [0.8%], aOR: 1.78 [95% CI: 1.17-2.71], respectively). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate after specialist-involved CAS at 30 days was low in real-world practice.

Radical Neck Dissection Following Internal Carotid Artery Endovascular Stenting: Case Report and Review of Literature.

Carotid artery involvement by head and neck cancer is mostly considered as unresectable disease. Mostly, these cases are treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. But when there is recurrent disease, choices are limited. Recent advances in vascular reconstruction and intervention radiology lead the way of addressing these cases with reconstruction or endovascular stenting. We tried to address this challenge in the present case. Endovascular stent provided the protection needed while dissecting over internal carotid artery. Such uncommonly performed techniques should be highlighted for further research.