Clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy from a large single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been practiced as an alternative for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting, specifically in high-risk patients. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients if done within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR surveillance project. A few registry studies (primarily from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) compared the early and up to 1-year outcomes of TCAR vs CEA or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. There is no large single-center study that reported late clinical outcomes. The present study compares intermediate clinical outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed collected data from TCAR surveillance project patients enrolled in our institution and compare it with CEA patients done by the same providers at the same time period. The primary outcome was combined perioperative stroke/death and late stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included combined stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and bleeding. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from stroke, stroke/death, and ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 646 procedures (637 patients) (404 CEA, 242 TCAR). There was no significant difference in the indications for carotid intervention. However, TCAR patients had more high-risk criteria, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. There was no significant differences between CEA vs TCAR in 30-day perioperative stroke (1% vs 2%), stroke/death rate (1% vs 3%; P = .0849), or major hematomas (2% vs 2%). The rate of CNI was significantly different (5% for CEA vs 1% for TCAR; P = .0138). At late follow-up (2 years), the rate of stroke was 1% vs 4% (P = .0273), stroke/death 8% vs 15% (P = .008), ≥80 % restenosis 0.5% vs 3% (P = .0139) for CEA patients vs TCAR patients, respectively. After matching 242 CEAs and 242 TCARs, the perioperative stroke rate was 1% for CEA vs 2% for TCAR (P = .5037), the stroke/death rate was 2% vs 3% (P = .2423), and the CNI rate was 3% vs 1% (P = .127). At late follow-up, rates of stroke were 1% for CEA vs 4% for TCAR (P = .0615) and stroke/death were 8% vs 15% (P = .0345). The rate of ≥80% restenosis was 0.9% for CEA vs 3% for TCAR (P = .099). The rates of freedom from stroke at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for CEA vs TCAR were 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99% vs 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively (P = .0806); stroke/death were 94%, 90%, 87%, and 86% vs 93%, 87%, 76%, and 75%, respectively (P = .0529); and ≥80% restenosis were 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98% vs 97%, 95%, 93%, and 93%, respectively (P = .1132). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar perioperative clinical outcomes. However, CEA was superior to TCAR for the rates of late stroke/death and had a somewhat lower rate of ≥80% restenosis at 2 years, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Differences in Perioperative Outcomes after Carotid Revascularization between White and Non-white Patients.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) continue to persist. We aimed to provide a large-scale analysis of racial disparities in perioperative outcomes of carotid revascularization in a nationally representative cohort of patients, with sub-analyses stratifying by procedure type and symptomatic status. METHODS: We studied all patients undergoing carotid revascularization between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. Univariate methods were used to compare patients' demographic and medical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare adjusted perioperative outcomes between white patients (WP) and non-white patients (NWP). Sub-analysis was performed stratifying by method of revascularization and symptomatic status. RESULTS: A total of 31,356 carotid revascularizations were performed in 26,550 (84.7%) white patients and 4,806 (15.3%) non-white patients. On adjusted analysis, NWP had increased odds of stroke (OR:1.2, 95%CI:1.1-1.5, P = 0.0496), unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.1-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.6, 95%CI:1.7-3.9, P < 0.001). On sub-analysis, NWP undergoing CAS had increased odds of stroke/death (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.1-4.3, P = 0.025), stroke (OR:2.9, 95%CI:1.3-6.0, P = 0.007), and stroke/TIA (OR:2.1, 95%CI:1.0-4.2, P = 0.025). NWP undergoing CEA had increased odds of unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.2-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.7, 95%CI:1.7-4.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NWP had higher rates of 30-day stroke, driven primarily by higher rates of perioperative stroke/death in NWP undergoing CAS. NWP undergoing CEA did not have higher rates of stroke/death after adjusted analysis, although they had higher rates of unplanned return to OR and restenosis. Upon stratification for symptomatic status, the stroke/death rate between NWP and WP was shown to be non-significant.

Perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral and transcervical carotid artery stenting in radiation-induced carotid lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available to guide the choice of intervention for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), either transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patients who had undergone these carotid artery interventions for RICS and the associated outcomes. METHODS: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting surveillance project registry and the SVS VQI CEA modules who had undergone carotid artery intervention (TCAR, TFCAS, or CEA) for RICS were included. Those aged >90 years and those with concomitant interventions (eg, coronary bypass) were excluded. A composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included death, MI, stroke, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and other local and systemic complications. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for presenting symptomatic status and comorbid medical conditions was conducted for the outcome variables, except for death, which was analyzed using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 1927 patients with RICS had undergone CEA (n = 1172), TCAR (n = 253), or TFCAS (n = 502). The CEA group had a higher rate of diabetes (31% vs 25% for TCAR and 25% for TFCAS; P = .01), hypertension (85% vs 82% for TCAR and 79% for TFCAS; P < .01), and peripheral vascular disease (8% vs 4% for TCAR and 4% for TFCAS; P < .01). The TCAR and TFCAS groups had higher rates of coronary artery disease (21% for CEA vs 30% for TCAR and 29% for TFCAS; P < .01). The patients who had undergone TFCAS were more likely to have had symptomatic lesions (57% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 41% for TCAR; P < .01) and prior stroke (55% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 40% for TCAR; P < .001). The composite outcome occurred in 3.2% of TCAR patients, 11.2% of TFCAS patients, and 11.1% of CEA patients (P < .01) with an odds ratio of 0.27 for TCAR, 0.91 for TFCAS, and 1.00 for CEA. However, no differences in the individual outcomes were noted for any procedure. TCAR exhibited the lowest odds ratio for CNI (0.15) compared with TFCAS at 0.9, both relative to CEA (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: RICS patients treated by TCAR in the SVS VQI had the lowest risk of the composite of stroke, death, and MI and CNI. Therefore, TCAR might be the preferred treatment modality. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes in this population and to elucidate the relationship of these procedures to the individual outcomes of stroke, MI, and death.

Role of risk scoring systems in predicting life expectancy after carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare and to test the performance of all available risk scoring systems (RSSs) designed to predict long-term survival rate in asymptomatic candidate patients for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for significant carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: Data on asymptomatic patients who underwent CEA in three high-volume centers were prospectively recorded. Through literature research using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, six RSSs were identified for the intent of the study. Primary endpoints were 3- and 5-year survival rates after CEA. All items used as variables to compose multiple RSSs were applied to every patient in the study population. The 3- and 5-year mortality prediction rates for each score were assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and predictive negative and positive value calculation, as well as univariable Cox proportional hazard models with the Harrell C index. RESULTS: During the study period, 825 CEAs in 825 asymptomatic patients were analyzed. All items used in RSSs were available in the dataset, with some concerns regarding their definition and application among RSSs. The 3- and 5-year survival rates of the study cohort were 94.5% and 90.3%, respectively. Among the six RSSs analyzed, no RSS demonstrated optimal results in terms of mortality rate prediction accuracy, although some scores had good diagnostic and risk of death precision. CONCLUSIONS: RSSs, when used alone, fail to optimally detect postoperative life expectancy in asymptomatic CEA patient candidates. Further prospective controlled studies are needed to compose and validate RSSs with better calibration to predict outcomes.

Contralateral Carotid Stenosis is a Predictor of Long-term Adverse Events in Carotid Endarterectomy.

Contralateral carotid stenosis (clCS) has been described as a perioperative predictor of mortality after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, its predictive value on long-term cardiovascular events remains controversial. The study aims to assess the potential role of clCS as a long-term predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients who underwent CEA. From January 2012 to July 2020, patients undergoing CEA under regional anesthesia for carotid stenosis in a tertiary care and referral center were eligible from a prospective database, and a post hoc analysis was performed. The primary outcome consisted in the occurrence of long-term MACE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, and major adverse limb events. A total of 192 patients were enrolled. With a median 50 months follow-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (mean survival time (MST) 51.7 vs. 103.3, P < 0.010) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) (MST 75.1 vs. 90.3, P = 0.001) were associated with decreased survival time. After propensity score matching (PSM), CKD (MST 49.1 vs. 106.0, P = 0.001) and PAD (MST 75.7 vs. 94.0, P = 0.001) maintained this association. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, contralateral stenosis was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.035; 95% CI: 1.113-3.722, P = 0.021 and all-cause mortality (HR = 2.564; 95% CI: 1.276-5,152 P = 0.008). After PSM, only all-cause mortality (HR 2.323; 95% CI: 0.993-5.431, P = 0.052) maintained a significant association with clCS. On multivariable analysis, clCS (aHR 2.367; 95% CI: 1.174-4.771, P = 0.016), age (aHR 1.039, 95% CI: 1.008-1.070), CKD (aHR 2.803; 95% CI: 1.409-5.575, P = 0.003) and PAD (aHR 3.225, 95% CI: 1.695-6.137, P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased all-cause mortality. Contrary to MACE, clCS is a strong predictor of long-term all-cause mortality after CEA. However, MACE risk may compromise CEA benefits by other competitive events. Therefore, further studies are needed to establish the role of clCS on postoperative events and on patients' specific assessments in order to determine the best medical treatment and easy access to surgical intervention.

The Association of Body Mass Index with Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are obese or underweight are traditionally at higher risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. The effect of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is unclear. Our goal was to analyze the association of BMI with perioperative and long-term outcomes after elective CEA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was queried from 2003-2018 for patients undergoing elective CEAs. Patients were categorized into 5 BMI cohorts - underweight (UW, BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (NW, BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (OW, BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), obese (OB, BMI 30-39.9 kg/m2), and morbidly obese (MO, BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were assessed with univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: There were 89,079 patients included: 2% UW, 26% NW, 38.4% OW, 29.9% OB, and 3.6% MO. Overall, the mean age was 70.6 years, 60% were male, and 91.8% were of white race. There were significant differences among the BMI cohorts in regards to age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidities (all P < 0.05). For perioperative outcomes, the BMI cohorts differed significantly in reoperation for bleeding and 30-day mortality. On multivariable analysis, BMI was not associated with stroke or perioperative mortality. MO was associated with perioperative cardiac complications (Odds Ratios [OR] 1.26, 95% CI 1-1.57, P = 0.05). UW status was associated with increased return to the operating room (OR 1.89, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.28-2.78, P = 0.001), 30-day mortality (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1-2.86, P =0.05), 1-year mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.74, P = 0.01), and 5-year mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41, P =0.005). CONCLUSIONS: BMI status was not associated with perioperative stroke, cranial nerve injury, or surgical site infections. Patients with MO had higher perioperative cardiac complications. UW patients have lower short and long-term survival and should be a focus for long-term targeted risk factor stratification and modification.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peri-Procedural Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Interventions Following Thrombolysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after thrombolytic therapy (TT). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients who underwent CEA/CAS after TT. RESULTS: In 25 studies (n = 147 810 patients), 2 557 underwent CEA (n = 2 076) or CAS (n = 481) following TT. After CEA, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3 - 7.5) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.6). After CAS, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 14.9% (95% CI 11.9 - 18.2) and ICH was 5.5% (95% CI 3.7 - 7.7). In case control studies comparing CEA outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural death/stroke was non-significantly higher after TT (4.3% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% CI 0.74 - 7.47), but ICH was significantly higher after TT (2.2% vs. 0.12%; OR 7.82, 95% CI 4.07 - 15.02), as was local haematoma formation (3.6% vs. 2.26%; OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.33). In case control studies comparing CAS outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural stroke/death was significantly higher after TT (5.2% vs. 1.5%; OR 8.49, 95% CI 2.12 - 33.95) as was ICH (5.4% vs. 0.7%; OR 7.48, 95% CI 4.69 - 11.92). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated an inverse association between the time interval from intravenous (IV) TT to undergoing CEA and the risk of peri-procedural stroke/death (p = .032). Peri-operative stroke/death was 13.0% when CEA was performed three days after TT and 10.6% when performed four days after TT, with the risk reducing to within the currently accepted 6% threshold after six-seven days had elapsed. CONCLUSION: Peri-procedural ICH and local haematoma were significantly more frequent in patients undergoing CEA after TT (vs. no TT), although there were no randomised comparisons. Peri-procedural hazards were also significantly higher for CAS after TT. The inverse relationship between timing to CEA and peri-procedural stroke/death mandates careful patient selection and suggests that it may be safer to defer CEA for six-seven days after TT.

Early outcomes of routine delayed shunting in carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: The role of shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients is unclear. The aim was to evaluate early outcomes of CEA with routine "delayed" shunt insertion, for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study of symptomatic patients undergoing CEA (2009-2020). All CEAs were performed under general anesthesia using a standardized technique, based on delayed routine shunt insertion after plaque removal. Primary endpoints were 30-days mortality and stroke. A logistic regression was performed to identify clinical and procedural factors associated with postoperative stroke. RESULTS: Two-hundred-sixty-three CEAs were performed for TIA (N.=178, 47%) or acute ischemic stroke (N.=85, 32%). Mean delay of surgery was 6±19 days, and early CEA (<48 hours) was performed in 98 cases (37%). Conventional CEA was performed in 171 patients (67%), eversion CEA in 83 (33%). Early (30-days) mortality was 0.3%. Stroke/death rate was 2.3%. Female sex (OR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.32-24.93; P=0.023), use of anticoagulants (OR=10.57, 95% CI: 2.67-51.86; P=0.001), preoperative stroke (OR=5.34, 95% CI: 1.62-69.21; P=0.006), and the presence of preoperative CT/MRI cerebral ischemic lesions (OR=5.96, 95% CI: 1.52-28.59; P=0.013) were associated with early neurological complications. Statin medication (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; P=0.019) and CEA timing <2 days (OR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.03-0.55; P=0.005) were protective from postoperative stroke. CEA outcomes were independent from time period (P=0.201) and operator's volume (P=0.768). A literature systematic review identified other four studies describing the CEA outcomes with routine shunting in symptomatic patients, with a large variability in the selection of patients, surgical technique, and description of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Routine delayed shunting after plaque removal seems to be a safe and effective technique, that contributed to maintain a low complication rate in neurologically symptomatic patients. Statin use and expedited timing were associated with improved outcomes using this technique.

Transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy and transfemoral stenting in octogenarians.

OBJECTIVE: Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) has higher combined stroke and death rates in elderly patients with carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may have similar outcomes to CEA. This study compared outcomes after TCARs relative to those after CEAs and TFCAS, focusing on elderly patients. METHODS: We included all patients with carotid artery stenosis and no prior endarterectomy or stenting who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 (TCAR commercially available) to December 2019. We categorized patients into age decades: 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and 80 to 90 years. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year composite rates of stroke or death. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated both outcomes after adjusting for patient demographics, clinical factors, symptomatology, hospital CEA volume, and clustering. RESULTS: We identified 33,115 patients who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR for carotid artery stenosis (35% in their 60s, 44% in their 70s, and 21% in their 80s), where one-half (50%) were symptomatic. The majority of patients had CEAs (80%), followed by TFCAS (11%) and TCARs (9.1%). The overall rate of 30-day stroke/death was 1.5% and of 1-year stroke/death was 4.4%. Octogenarians had the highest 30-day and 1-year stroke/death rates relative to their peers (2.3% and 6.3%, respectively). Among all patients, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for 30-day stroke/death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.62) and slightly higher for 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76). Among octogenarians, however, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for both 30-day stroke/death (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.59-2.13) and 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.85-1.94). TFCAS relative to CEAs had higher hazards of both 30-day stroke/death (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.10-2.89) and 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.35-2.54) in octogenarians. CONCLUSIONS: TCARs had similar outcomes relative to CEAs among octogenarians with respect to 30-day and 1-year rates of stroke/death. TCAR may serve as a promising less invasive treatment for carotid disease in older patients who are deemed high anatomic, surgical, or clinical risk for CEAs.

Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness. RESULTS: For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up.

Low Risk of Neurological Recurrence while Awaiting Carotid Endarterectomy: Results From a Danish Multicentre Study.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of ipsilateral neurological recurrence (NR) was assessed in patients awaiting carotid endarterectomy (CEA) due to symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and whether current national guidelines of performing CEA within 14 days are adequate in present day practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study. Patients scheduled for CEA due to symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in a five year period, 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018, from four centres were included. Data from the Danish Vascular Registry (www.karbase.dk), operative managing systems, and electronic medical records were reviewed. RESULTS: In total, 1 125 patients scheduled for CEA were included and 1 095 (97%) underwent the planned surgery. During a median delay from index event to CEA of 11 days (interquartile range 8-16 days), 40 patients (3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5%-5%) experienced a NR. One third were minor strokes (n = 12, 30%); half were transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) (n = 22, 55%); and amaurosis fugax accounted for 15% (n = 6). Twenty-six (2%) CEA procedures was cancelled, of which one was due to a disabling recurrent ischaemic event (aphasia). There were no deaths or major strokes in the waiting time for CEA. Best medical treatment (BMT) with platelet inhibitory or anticoagulation drugs and a statin was initiated in nearly all patients (98%) at first assessment. The overall 30 day risk of a post-operative major event (death or stroke) was (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimate) 2.7% (95% CI 1.8-3.8), and not significantly correlated with the timing of surgery. Most (69%) occurred within the first three days. One, two, and three year mortality rate for CEA patients was (KM estimate) 4.8%, 7.8%, and 11.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: In symptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients awaiting CEA, very few NRs occurred within 14 days. Institution of immediate BMT in specialised TIA/stroke units followed by early, but not necessarily urgent, CEA is a reasonable course of action in patients with high grade symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Analysis of Medicare Payments and Patient Outcomes With Pre-Operative Imaging for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease. METHODS: We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use. RESULTS: A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources.

Preoperative Dependent Functional Status Is Associated With Poor Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting in Both Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Both Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are the most common procedures to treat patients with symptomatic, and asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. Poor preoperative functional status (FS) is increasingly being recognized as predictor for postoperative outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of preoperative functional status on the outcomes of patients who undergo CEA or CAS. METHODS: Data was obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from the years 2011-2018. All patients in the database who underwent CEA or CAS during this time period were identified. Patients were then further divided into 2 subgroups: FS-Independent and FS-dependent. Bivariate and multivariate analyses was performed for pre, intra and post-operative variables with functional status. Outcomes for treatment of symptomatic carotid disease were compared to those with asymptomatic disease among the cohort of functionally dependent patients. RESULTS: A total of 27,163 patients (61.2% Males, 38.8% Females) underwent CEA (n = 26,043) or CAS (n = 1,120) from 2011-2018. Overall, primary outcomes were as follows: mortality 0.77% (n = 210) and stroke 1.87% (n = 507).Risk adjusted multivariate analysis showed that FS-D patients undergoing CEA had higher mortality (AOR 3.06, CI 1.90-4.92, P < 0.001), longer operative times (AOR 1.36, CI 1.17-1.58, P< 0.001) higher incidence of unplanned reoperation (AOR 1.68, CI 1.19-2.37, P = 0.003), postoperative pneumonia (AOR 5.43, CI 1.62 - 18.11, P = 0.006) and ≥3 day LOS (AOR 3.05, CI 2.62-3.56, P < 0.001) as compared to FS-I patients. FS-D patients undergoing CAS had higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia (AOR 20.81, CI 1.66-261.54, P = 0.019) and higher incidence of LOS ≥3 days (AOR 2.18, CI 1.21-3.93, P < .01) as compared to FS-I patients. Survival analysis showed that the best 30-day survival was observed in FS-I patients undergoing CEA, followed by FS-I patients undergoing CAS, followed by FS-D patients undergoing CEA, followed by FS-D patients undergoing CAS. FS-D status increased mortality after CEA by 2.11%. When the outcomes of CAS and CEA were compared to each other for the cohort of FS-D patients, CAS was associated with higher incidence of stroke (AOR 3.46, CI 0.32-1.97, P= 0.046), shorter operative times (AOR 0.25, CI 0.12-0.52, P < 0.001) and higher incidence of pneumonia (AOR 11.29, CI 1.32-96.74, P = 0.027). Symptomatic patients undergoing CEA had higher LOS as compared to symptomatic patients undergoing CAS, and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or CAS. CONCLUSIONS: FS-D patients, undergoing CEA have higher mortality as compared to FS-I patients undergoing CAS. FS-D patients undergoing CAS have higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia and longer LOS as compared to FS-I patients. For the cohort of FS-D patients undergoing either CEA or CAS, CAS was associated with higher risk of stroke and reduced operative times. Risk benefit ratio for any carotid intervention should be carefully assessed before offering it to FS-D patients. Preoperative Dependent Functional Status Is Associated with Poor Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting in Both Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients.

Frailty Measurement and Implications for Cerebrovascular Disease Management in a Veteran Based Population.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and objective preoperative assessment of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains difficult and variable. The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) is a validated medical record-based assessment of frailty that has been used to predict clinical outcomes for patients undergoing surgical procedures including CEA. We applied RAI to a veteran population following CEA for asymptomatic cerebrovascular disease and examined the factors related to post-operative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: After obtaining IRB approval, Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program data was queried for CEA procedures from 2002 to 2015 for ICD-9 codes indicating asymptomatic patients. RAI was then calculated based on Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program variable medical record extraction. Three groupings of patients were undertaken including non-frail (RAI < 30), frail (RAI 30-34) and very frail (RAI ≥ 35). Chi squared and ANOVA were used to assess cohort differences. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of post-operative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), any complication, and death. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2015, 37,873 asymptomatic patients underwent CEA. Over 98% (37,266) of the patients were male with an average age of 68.3 ± 8.55 years. The cohorts contained 82.8% (n = 31,362), 12.4% (n = 4,678), and 4.8% (n = 1,833) for the non-frail, frail and very frail groups respectively. Frailty was associated with increased rates of post-operative stroke, MI, any complication, death, and longer hospital length of stay (P< 0.001). Operative time did not significantly differ between the groups. Increasing frailty was associated with having one or more complications (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.50-1.90 for frail and OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.41-3.24 for very frail, (P< 0.001), post-operative stroke in frail (OR 1.33 95% CI 1.06-1.67) and very frail (OR 1.57 1 95% CI 1.14-2.16) patients, and MI in both frail (OR 1.68, CI 1.17-2.43) and very frail (OR 3.73, CI 2.52-5.51) patients. Frailty was also significantly associated with death with in very frail patients (OR 4.14, 95% CI 3.00-5.71, P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increasing frailty as determined by RAI was associated with worse post-operative outcomes in asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA. Higher RAI score cohorts were associated with higher rates of postoperative stroke, MI, complications, and death. We recommend the use of this frailty index as a screening tool to guide risk discussions with asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA.

Literature review of primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure.

BACKGROUND: Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies. RESULTS: The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion). CONCLUSIONS: Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure.

Evaluation of Factors Associated with, and Outcomes for Patients with Nonhome Discharge Destinations Following Carotid Endarterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Following a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedure, patients are discharged to their homes or other locations than home such as an acute care facility or skilled nursing facility based on their functional status and level of medical attention needed. Decision-making for discharge destination following a CEA to home or nonhome locations is important due to the differences in survival and postoperative complications. While primary outcomes such as mortality and occurrence of stroke following CEA have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of information characterizing outcomes of discharge destination and the factors associated. The purpose of this study was to explore the factors associated with discharge to nonhome destinations after CEA, and outcomes after discharge. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, we identified patients who underwent CEA from 2011 to 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on their discharge destination (home versus nonhome). Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with different discharge destinations. Postoperative complications associated with discharge to nonhome destinations were analyzed and mortality after discharge from hospital was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 25,094 patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study, of which 39% were females and 61% were males; median age was 71 years. Twenty four thousand one hundred twenty-five patients (93.13%) were discharged to home (Group I) and 1,779 (6.87%) were discharged to nonhome destinations (Group II). Following preoperative and intraoperative factors were associated with discharge to nonhome locations: older age, diabetes mellitus, functional independent status, transfer from other hospitals, symptomatic status, need for preoperative blood transfusions, severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis, elective CEA, need for intraoperative shunt and general anesthesia (all P< 0.05). Following postoperative complications had statistically significant association with discharge to nonhome destinations: postoperative blood transfusion, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, longer than 48 hours on ventilator, development of stroke, myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, and sepsis (all P< 0.05). Mortality after discharge from hospital was 0.39% (n = 100). Mortality among those who were discharged to home was 0.29% vs. 1.63% for those who were discharged to nonhome locations (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the patients after CEA are discharged back to their homes. This study identifies the factors which predispose patients discharged to locations, other than home. Patients who are not discharged home have higher mortality as compared to those who are discharged to their homes.

Anesthetic choice during transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy affects the risk of myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients.

Early and long-term prognosis in patients with and without type 2 diabetes after carotid intervention: a Swedish nationwide propensity score matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate early and long-term outcomes after treatment of carotid artery stenosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared to patients without T2D. DESIGN/METHOD: This observational nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study investigated all T2D patients treated for carotid stenosis registered in the National Swedish Vascular Surgery and the National Diabetes Registries. Data was collected prospectively for all patients after carotid intervention, during 2009-2015. We estimated crude early (within 30-days) hazard ratios (HRs) risk of stroke and death, and long-term HRs risk, adjusted for confounders with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for stroke and death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by using inverse probability of treatment weighting matching. RESULTS: A total of 1341 patients with T2D and 4162 patients without T2D were included; 89% treated for symptomatic carotid stenosis, 96% with carotid endarterectomy. There was an increased early risk, HRs (95% CI), for stroke in T2D patients 1.65 (1.17-2.32), whereas risk for early death 1.00 (0.49-2.04) was similar in both groups. During a median follow-up of 4.3 (T2D) and 4.6 (without T2D), with a maximum of 8.0 years; after propensity score matching there was an increased HRs (95% CI) of stroke 1.27 (1.05-1.54) and death 1.27 (1.10-1.47) in T2D patients compared to patients without T2D. Corresponding numbers for MACE were 1.21 (1.08-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2D run an increased risk for stroke, death, and MACE after carotid intervention. They also have an increased perioperative risk for stroke, but not for death.

Monocyte-Chemoattractant Protein-1 Levels in Human Atherosclerotic Lesions Associate With Plaque Vulnerability.

[Figure: see text].

Hybrid and Total Endovascular Approaches to Tandem Carotid Artery Lesions Have Similar Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Addition of ipsilateral proximal endovascular intervention (PEI, common carotid/innominate) increases the risk of perioperative stroke/death for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS). However, these approaches have not been directly compared and is the subject of this study. METHODS: VQI (2005-2020) was queried for CEA and CAS with PEI, excluding emergent, bilateral, and repeat procedures, patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, ICA lesions with stenosis<50%, and transcarotid ICA stents. Primary outcome were the composite of perioperative stroke/death and long-term stroke/reintervention/death. Operative approach was evaluated with logistic regression, adjusted propensity scores, symptomatic status, and stenosis>70%. Long-term outcomes were compared with Kaplan-Meier Analysis. RESULTS: There were 1,433 patients (795 endovascular;638 hybrid); mean age 69.8±9.4 years. Patients undergoing hybrid procedures were more likely to be female (49.4% vs. 37.5%; P < 0.001), less likely to have diabetes (29.5% vs. 38.2%; P P< 0.001), less likely to have a prior ipsilateral CEA (3.8% vs. 32.2%; P< 0.001), less likely to be symptomatic (34.6% vs. 52.8%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have >70% stenosis (77.3% vs. 95.6%%; P < 0.001). Perioperative stroke/death was 3.6% for hybrid and 3.9% for endovascular approaches (P = 0.77). In the multivariable model, hybrid operative approach (compared to the total endovascular approach) was not significantly associated with stroke/death (OR 1.29; 95%CI: 0.55-3.07; P = 0.56). For the 981 patients with long-term follow-up (556 endovascular; 425 hybrid), 1-year freedom from stroke/reintervention/death was 94.0% (95%CI: 90.9%-96.0%) for hybrid approach vs. 92.3% (95%CI: 89.5%-94.4%) for endovascular approach (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Although simultaneous repair of tandem carotid lesions portends worse outcomes when compared to CEA or CAS alone, there was no difference in short or long-term stroke and death rates with a hybrid or totally endovascular approach.  Therefore, it is reasonable to use either approach in the select patients who require simultaneous repair of both lesions.