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

Abstract

BackgroundAddition 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. MethodsVQI (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. ResultsThere 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). ConclusionAlthough 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.