Carotid Artery Revascularization Research Articles

Enhanced Recovery Pathway After Carotid Artery Revascularization Surgery Optimizes Requested Level of Care Without Compromising Patient Outcomes

Enhanced Recovery Pathway After Carotid Artery Revascularization Surgery Optimizes Requested Level of Care Without Compromising Patient Outcomes

Outcomes of Carotid Artery Revascularization Procedures in Patients with High-grade Bilateral Stenosis

Outcomes of Carotid Artery Revascularization Procedures in Patients with High-grade Bilateral Stenosis

Comparing Post-operative Pain and Other Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is growing in popularity. Although major clinical end-points such as stroke rate and mortality are well-known, patient reported outcomes such as pain, and length of stay are among the purported benefits that are as yet untested. We sought to determine if there are differences in pain and other clinical outcomes when comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and TCAR. We performed a retrospective review of 326 patients undergoing TCAR (n = 50) or CEA (n = 276) from 2019-2023. Primary outcomes of interest were maximum pain numeric rating scales (NRS) reported in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative days (POD) zero and 1, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMMEs) received intraoperatively through POD1. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day emergency department (ED) returns/readmissions. Fifty TCAR and 150 CEA patients were included in the propensity score matched cohorts. TCAR patients reported lower pain-NRS in PACU (P < .001) and on POD0 (P = .002), but similar pain scores on POD1 (P = .112). Postoperatively, TCAR patients were less likely to receive opioids (52% vs 75.3%, P = .003) and received less OMME from PACU through POD1 (12.8 ± 16.2 vs 23.2 ± 27.2, P = .001). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, prior chronic opioid use, and prior carotid surgery, TCAR patients were approximately 70% less likely to receive post-operative opioids. No significant differences in LOS, 30-day ED returns/readmissions, or complications were observed between groups. Compared with CEA, patients undergoing TCAR reported lower pain scores and consumed fewer narcotics overall. However, the absolute difference was modest, and pain scores were low in both cohorts. Differences in pain and post-operative narcotic use may be of less importance when deciding between TCAR and CEA. Total non-opioid protocols may be feasible in both approaches.

How to Penetrate the Wall of an Unintentionally Deployed Wallstent in the External Carotid Artery for Stenting of an Internal Carotid Artery Lesion

AbstractCarotid artery stenting is increasingly performed among patients with proper indications for carotid artery revascularization. It has a low complication rate with a short recovery time. In this case, we report a new complication due to unintended stent deployment in the external carotid artery covering the ostium of the internal carotid artery requiring penetration and stenting of the deployed Wallstent wall to advance the second stent in the proper position in the internal carotid artery.

Early and Long-Term Results of Simultaneous and Staged Revascularization of Coronary and Carotid Arteries.

Carotid artery disease is prevalent among patients with coronary heart disease. The concomitant severe lesions in the carotid and coronary arteries may necessitate either simultaneous or staged revascularization involving coronary bypass and carotid endarterectomy. However, there is presently a lack of consensus on the optimal choice of surgical treatment tactics for patients with significant stenoses in both carotid and coronary arteries. The aim of the current study was to compare the 30-day and long-term outcomes of coronary and carotid artery revascularization surgery based on the simultaneous or staged surgical tactics. This single-center retrospective study involved 192 patients with concurrent coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis ≥ 70%, of whom 106 patients underwent simultaneous intervention (CABG + CEA) and 86 patients underwent staged CABG/CEA. The mean time between stages ranged from 1 to 4 months (mean 1.88 ± 0.9 months). The endpoints included death from any cause, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (death + non-fatal MI + non-fatal stroke) within 30 days after the last intervention and in the long-term follow-up period (median follow-up-6 years). The 30-day all-cause mortality, incidence of postoperative non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, and MACEs did not exhibit differences between the groups after single-stage and staged interventions. However, the overall risk of postoperative complications (adjusted for the risk of any complication per patient) (OR 2.214, 95% CI 1.048-4.674, p = 0.035), as well as the duration of ventilatory support (p = 0.004), was elevated in the group after simultaneous interventions compared with the staged intervention group. This difference did not result in an increased incidence of death and MACEs in the group after simultaneous interventions. In the long-term follow-up period, there were no significant differences observed when comparing simultaneous or staged surgical tactics in terms of overall survival (54.9% and 62.6% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P log-rank = 0.068), non-fatal stroke-free survival (45.6% and 33.6% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P log-rank = 0.364), non-fatal MI-survival (57.6% and 73.5% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P log-rank = 0.169), and MACE-free survival (7.1% and 30.2% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P log-rank = 0.060). The risk factors associated with an unfavorable outcome included age, smoking, BMI, LV EF, and atherosclerosis of the lower extremity arteries. This study revealed no significant difference in the impact of simultaneous CABG + CEA or staged CABG/CEA on the incidence of death, stroke, MI, and MACEs over a 30-day and long-term follow-up period. Although the immediate results indicated an increased risk of a complicated course (attributable to overall complications) and more prolonged ventilation after simultaneous CABG + CEA compared with staged CABG/CEA, this did not lead to an increase in fatal complications. Therefore, the implementation of either tactic is considered eligible and appropriate following a thorough operative risk assessment.

An evolution in carotid care: Contemporary TCAR data and optimization techniques

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the gold standard for revascularization of atherosclerotic extra-cranial carotid artery lesions. The introduction of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) led to multiple randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of an endovascular approach against traditional CEA in the management of carotid artery stenosis. The operative management of carotid artery stenosis continues to evolve, with the more recent introduction of TransCarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and a novel flow-reversal neuroprotection system. This manuscript reviews a brief history regarding carotid artery revascularization, as well as the indications, technical considerations, and clinical outcomes of the TCAR procedure. Technical considerationsThe preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative medical and technical considerations are explored. Topics of discussion will include the indications and contraindications for TCAR, anatomic requirements, instructions for use (IFU) and off-label utility, optimal pharmacologic regimen with carotid stent placement, standard deployment and suggestions for hostile anatomy, as well as recommended postoperative management and surveillance imaging. DiscussionThe Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) has published a consensus statement on the pathways available to obtain clinical competency and maintain technical proficiency with TCAR. Meta-analyses reviewing the contemporary technical success and clinical outcomes of TCAR have demonstrated high rates of procedural success and low rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. Studies have further illustrated comparable one-year rates of peri‑procedural stroke between TCAR and CEA, for asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid lesions, with both outperforming TFCAS. ConclusionManagement of extra-cranial carotid artery stenosis utilizing TCAR with the ENROUTE flow-reversal neuroprotection system has been widely adopted, yielding clinical outcomes and stroke prevention similar to traditional CEA and superior to TFCAS.

Service delivery in acute ischemic stroke patients: Does sex matter?

Women with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are older and have greater preexisting handicap than men. Given that these factors do not fully explain their poorer long-term outcomes, we sought to investigate potential sex differences in the delivery of acute stroke care in a large cohort of consecutive AIS patients. We analyzed all patients from ASTRAL (Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne) from March 2003 to December 2019. Multivariable analyses were performed on acute time metrics, revascularization therapies, ancillary examinations for stroke workup, subacute symptomatic carotid artery revascularization, frequency of change in goals of care (palliative care), and length of hospital stay. Of the 5347 analyzed patients, 45% were biologically female and the median age was 74.6 years. After multiple adjustments, female sex was significantly associated with higher onset-to-door (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.14) and door-to-endovascular-puncture intervals (aHR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05-1.25). Women underwent numerically fewer diagnostic examinations (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.85-1.04) and fewer subacute carotid revascularizations (aOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.33-1.18), and had longer hospital stays (aHR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.99-1.07), but these differences were not statistically significant. We found no differences in the rates of acute revascularization treatments, or in the frequency of change of goals of treatments. This retrospective analysis of a large, consecutive AIS cohort suggests that female sex is associated with unfavorable pre- and in-hospital time metrics, such as a longer onset-to-door and door-to-endovascular-puncture intervals. Such indicators of less effective stroke care delivery may contribute to the poorer long-term functional outcomes in female patients and require further attention.

Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis Presenting with Visual Field Deficits Managed via Transcervical Carotid Artery Revascularization

A 79-y.o. white male presented for evaluation complaining of trouble seeing in his peripheral vision while driving for the preceding two weeks...

Feasibility and Intermediate Results of Transcarotid Revascularization with a Prosthetic Conduit

IntroductionTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid technique with excellent initial outcomes. The technical success and safety of TCAR is heavily dependent on an anatomically suitable common carotid artery (CCA). Many patients do not meet anatomic criteria and therefore are not eligible for this therapy. We sought to extend the eligibility of TCAR to patients with unfavorable CCA anatomy via the adoption of a prosthetic arterial conduit. MethodsA single center retrospective study of patients with critical carotid artery stenosis who underwent TCAR via a prosthetic conduit between June 2019 and October 2021 was performed. All patients in the study were considered high-risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on anatomic features, such as restenosis post-CEA and neck radiation. Unfavorable CCA anatomy was defined as a clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance < 5 cm, a CCA diameter < 6 mm, and/or significant atherosclerotic disease at the intended arterial access site. The primary outcome of interest was technical success. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, intermediate and long-term patency, intermediate and long-term stroke and/or mortality and in-hospital length of stay. Follow-up ranged from 1-29 months. ResultsEight patients underwent ten TCAR procedures via a prosthetic conduit. A total of two procedures (20%) were performed on female patients and eight procedures (75%) were performed on male patients. The mean age was 65 years old (standard deviation (SD) 11 years). Technical success was 100%. The 30-day ipsilateral stroke rate was 0%. The 30-day patency was 90%. There was no re-exploration for hemorrhage and 30 day mortality was 0%. ConclusionsTCAR is an excellent option for carotid artery revascularization. Unfavorable CCA anatomy has limited its applicability. TCAR via a prosthetic conduit has the potential to expand eligibility for this promising therapy.

Carotid artery revascularization using second generation stents versus surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Meta-analyses and emerging randomized data indicate that second-generation ('mesh') carotid stents (SGS) may improve outcomes versus conventional (single-layer) stents but clinically-relevant differences in individual SGS-type performance have been identified. No comparisons exist for SGS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Thirty-day death (D), stroke (S), myocardial infarction (M), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke and restenosis in SGS studies were meta-analyzed (random effect model) against CEA outcomes. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed/EMBASE/COCHRANE. Forest plots were formed for absolute adverse evet risk in individual studies and for relative outcomes with each SGS deign versus contemporary CEA outcomes as reference. Meta-regression was performed to identify potential modifiers of treatment modality effect. Data were extracted from 103,642 patients in 25 studies (14 SGS-treated, 41% symptomatic; nine randomized controlled trial (RCT)-CEA-treated, 37% symptomatic; and two Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-CEA-treated, 23% symptomatic). Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard significantly reduced DSM versus RCT-CEA (-2.70% and -2.95%, P<0.001 for both) and versus VQI-CEA (-1.11% and -1.36%, P<0.001 for both). Gore stent 30-day DSM was similar to RCT-CEA (P=0.581) but increased against VQI-CEA (+2.38%, P=0.033). At 12 months, Casper/Roadsaver ipsilateral stroke rate was lower than RCT-CEA (-0.75%, P=0.026) and similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.584). Restenosis with Casper/Roadsaver was +4.18% vs. RCT-CEA and +4.83% vs. VQI-CEA (P=0.005, P<0.001). CGuard 12-month ipsilateral stroke rate was similar to VQI-CEA (P=0.850) and reduced versus RCT-CEA (-0.63%, P=0.030); restenosis was reduced respectively by -0.26% and -0.63% (P=0.033, P<0.001). Twelve-month Gore stent outcomes were overall inferior to surgery. Meta-analytic integration of available clinical data indicates: 1) reduction in stroke but increased restenosis rate with Casper/Roadsaver, and 2) reduction in both stroke and restenosis with CGuard MicroNET-covered stent against contemporary CEA outcomes at 30 days and 12 months used as a reference. This may inform clinical practice in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials powered for low clinical event rates (PROSPERO-CRD42022339789).

Carotid artery revascularization

Carotid artery revascularization

Carotid endarterectomy compared with carotid artery stenting for extracranial carotid artery stenosis: a retrospective single-centre study

Aim: One of the main risk factors for an ischemic stroke is significant carotid artery stenosis, and extracranial severe carotid artery stenosis accounts for 20% of ischemic strokes. Prior to the development of carotid artery stenting (CAS), the only effective and reliable treatment for carotid artery stenosis was carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study compares the results of CAS and CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Methods: Between 2018 and 2022, hospital records of all patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization at the institution were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether CEA or CAS was performed for carotid revascularization. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias by equating the baseline clinical characteristics of the groups. To compare 30-day, 1-year, and long-term outcomes, rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, and composite endpoints were analyzed. Results: After PSM, 76 patients each in the CEA and CAS groups were compared. The mean age was 69.80 years ± 11.35 years and 121 (80%) were male. The patients were followed up for a mean of 33 months ± 6 months. The incidence of TIA in the perioperative period [9 (12%) vs. 4 (5%); P &lt; 0.05], TIA and composite endpoint at 1-year period [11 (15%) vs. 2 (3%); P &lt; 0.05 and 27 (36%) vs. 16 (21%); P &lt; 0.05, respectively] were significantly higher in the CAS group than in the CEA group. No difference was observed between the groups in the long-term. Conclusions: There was no noticeable difference between the CEA and CAS groups in the examination of cases with severe carotid artery stenosis in terms of 1-month, and 1-year results (apart from TIA and composite endpoints), or long-term outcomes. Extracranial carotid artery stenosis can be treated safely and effectively also by CAS.

Prevalence and adverse outcomes of pre-operative frailty in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularization: a meta-analysis

IntroductionFrailty can lead to a decrease in the patient's resistance to interference such as injury and disease, and cause a series of complications. An increasing number of studies have found that pre-operative frailty exacerbates the occurrence of adverse events after carotid artery revascularization, but an integrated quantitative analysis is currently lacking. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of pre-operative frailty on patients undergoing carotid artery revascularization.MethodAccording to the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched for relevant studies on Medline, Embase, Ovid, CINAHL, Web Of Science, and Cochrane Library from establishment until June 2023. Summarize the risk of adverse outcome events through OR and 95% CI.ResultsA total of 16 cohort studies were included, including 1692338 patients. Among patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization surgery, the prevalence of pre-operative frailty was 36% (95% CI = 0.18–0.53, P &amp;lt; 0.001). Compared with non frail individuals, frail individuals have an increased risk of mortality (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.40–3.92, P = 0.001, I2 = 94%), stroke (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.10–1.61, P = 0.003, I2 = 71%), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.51–2.30, P &amp;lt; 0.001, I2 = 61%), and non-home discharge (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.85–3.09, P &amp;lt; 0.001, I2 = 63%).ConclusionThe results of this article show that patients undergoing carotid artery revascularization have a higher prevalence of pre-operative frailty, which can lead to an increased risk of postoperative death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and non-home discharge. Strengthening the assessment and management of frailty is of great significance for patient prognosis.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=416234, identifier: CRD42023416234.

Abstract 11771: Validity of an Administrative Claims-Based Measure of Low-Value Carotid Revascularization

Introduction: Low value care is defined as care where harms or costs outweigh benefits. Researchers, payers, and policymakers commonly use administrative claims data to identify low-value care, but the validity of many claims-based algorithms has not been assessed. Research Question: What is the validity of a commonly-used claims-based algorithm to identify low-value carotid artery revascularization (CAR) procedures, compared to a reference standard of chart review? Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to a large accountable care organization. We used administrative claims data linked to electronic health record data and identified all CAR procedures (endarterectomy or stenting) from 01/01/2020-12/31/2021. We excluded patients without claims history in the year prior to CAR. Using methods previously described by policymakers and researchers, we classified CAR as low-value by claims if patients did not have diagnosis codes for stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other neurologic symptoms such as vision changes or hemiplegia in the year prior to CAR. We then reviewed linked electronic health records to determine if cases were misclassified by the claims-based measure. Per recent guidelines, we classified CAR as low-value by chart review if it was performed in patients with less than 50% symptomatic stenosis or greater than 80% asymptomatic stenosis. Results: A total of 127 CAR cases (mean age 77 years; 63% men; 87% white) with complete electronic health record data were identified, and 48 (38%) were classified as low-value by the claims-based algorithm. Only 11 of the 48 cases classified as low-value by claims were confirmed to be low-value by chart review. The positive predictive value of the claims-based algorithm was 23%. Conclusions: A commonly-used claims-based measure to identify low-value CAR procedures had poor accuracy with a positive predictive value of 23%. Using administrative claims to identify low-value CAR procedures might overestimate the number of procedures considered to be low-value. This has implications for the current system of quality reporting, particularly when quality is tied to financial incentives.

Abstract 17231: Importance of Intra Plaque Hemorrhage During Carotid Artery Revascularization

Introduction: The American Heart Association currently estimates that every 3 minutes a person dies from a stroke. Carotid artery stenosis, a major risk factor for new and recurrent strokes, can be treated with carotid artery revascularization. Vascular emboli released during this procedure are non-invasively detected by transcranial doppler (TCD) ultrasound as micro embolic signals (MES). In this study we aim to show the relationship between carotid plaque characteristics and MES rates that were detected by TCD-monitoring throughout the stages of the carotid artery revascularization procedures. Methods: Before elective carotid revascularization 30 patients (mean age 72±8 years; 16 males, 14 females) underwent 3-T MRI. After localization of the carotid bifurcation using phase contrast imaging, Time-of-Flight, 3D T1 weighting, transverse T1 and T2 weightings and proton density sequences were acquired. The different plaque components: lipid core, intraplaque hemorrhage, calcification and the characterization of the fibrous cap were assessed. While 20 patients underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA), 10 patients had carotid artery stenting (CAS). CES was divided into 9 stages: 1- Pre-procedure, 2- Dissection, 3- IC clamp, 4- Shunt placement, 5- Shunt open, 6- Endarterectomy, 7- Clamped, 8- IC opened, 9- Post-procedure. Similarly, CAS was divided into 9 stages: 1- Pre-procedure, 2- Arch-carotid angiography, 3- Wire insertion, 4- Filter deployment, 5- Pre-dilation, 6- Stent deployment, 7- Post-dilation, 8- Final angiography, 9- Post-procedure. Patients were monitored continuously with TCD to detect pre-procedural, intra-procedural and post-procedural MES rates. Results: Intraplaque hemorrhage was observed in 18 patients (60%). Patients with intra plaque hemorrhage had more MES during carotid artery dissection/arch-carotid angiography (p=0.028) and IC clamping/wire insertion (p=0.009) compared to patients without intra plaque hemorrhage in the pre-procedural stage. Conclusions: Carotid plaques with intra plaque hemorrhage is associated with higher MES during carotid artery revascularization procedures.

Abstract 17381: Relationship Between Amaurosis Fugax and Intraplaque Hemorrhage in Patient With Carotid Plaques

Introduction: The term amaurosis fugax is often used interchangeably to describe transient visual loss. However, it is employed widely in medicine to refer to any cause of transient monocular visual loss. Amaurosis fugax is associated with an imminent stroke and it could be linked to vascular thromboembolic events arising from the internal carotid arterial system. The aims of the study are to determine the plaque characteristics of patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization and the relationship of plaque characteristics with amaurosis fugax. Methods: Before elective carotid revascularization 44 patients (mean age 72±8 years; 25 males, 19 females) underwent 3-T MRI. After localization of the carotid bifurcation using phase contrast imaging, Time-of-Flight, 3D T1 weighting, transverse T1 and T2 weightings and proton density sequences were acquired. The different plaque components: lipid rich core, intraplaque hemorrhage, calcification and the characterization of the fibrous cap were assessed. Results: Carotid plaque samples had the following characteristics: Intraplaque hemorrhage (59%), surface defects (38.6%), stable fibrous cap (27.3%), lipid rich necrotic core (18%), and calcifications (11.4%). Amaurosis fugax history was identified in 7 patients (15.9%). Plaque samples from all 7 patients who had experienced amaurosis fugax revealed intraplaque hemorrhage. MRI revealed intraplaque hemorrhage in 19 (51%) patients without history of amaurosis fugax (p=0.016). The rest of the plaque characteristics did not show any statistically significant relationship with history of amaurosis fugax. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that intraplaque hemorrhage may be correlated to amaurosis fugax.

Abstract 17178: Rates of Micro Embolic Signals at Different Stages of Carotid Artery Revascularization

Background: The American Heart Association currently estimates that over 160,000 people die every year due to new or recurrent strokes, many from carotid artery stenosis. This association has led to increased use of carotid revascularization procedures such as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). In this study we aim to describe the different rates of micro embolic signals (MES) at different stages of carotid artery revascularization. Methods: Before elective carotid revascularization 57 patients (mean age 72±8 years; 15 males, 21 females) underwent 3-T MRI. After localization of the carotid bifurcation using phase contrast imaging, Time-of-Flight, 3D T1 weighting, transverse T1 and T2 weightings and proton density sequences were acquired. The different plaque components: lipid core, intraplaque hemorrhage, calcification and the characterization of the fibrous cap were assessed. While 34 patients underwent CEA, 20 patients had CAS. CES was divided into 9 stages: 1- Pre-procedure, 2- Dissection, 3- IC clamp, 4- Shunt placement, 5- Shunt open, 6- Endarterectomy, 7- Clamped, 8- IC opened, 9- Post-procedure. Similarly, CAS was divided into 9 stages: 1- Pre-procedure, 2- Arch-carotid angiography, 3- Wire insertion, 4- Filter deployment, 5- Pre-dilation, 6- Stent deployment, 7- Post-dilation, 8- Final angiography, 9- Post-procedure. Patients were monitored continuously with transcranial doppler (TCD) to detect pre-procedural, intra-procedural and post-procedural MES rates. Results: MES was detected in 20 (87%) patients undergoing CAS compared to 18 (53%) patients undergoing CES during the IC Clamp/Wire Insertion stage (p=0.004). Greater mean micro embolic signals were also found in symptomatic patients undergoing CAS than in asymptomatic patients during arch-carotid angiography (10.8 vs 2.4, p= 0.022), post-dilation (3.1 vs 1.1, p=0.047), and post-procedure (4.8 vs 1.3, p=0.044). Conclusion: MES is increased during the wire insertion stage of CAS in addition to post-dilation and post-procedure stages. Also, the finding of increased MES during arch-carotid angiography suggests that less invasive alternatives to diagnostic angiography should be considered in symptomatic patients.

Patients with Prior Exposure to a Combination of Statins & Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACE-Is)/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) Have Better Outcomes after Carotid Revascularization than Patients with Prior Exposure to Statins Alone: A MultiCenter Analysis

Statin use has been studied and confirmed to have a beneficial impact on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes. The benefits of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease are well-known; however, the impact of continuing or withholding ACE-Is/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on CEA and CAS outcomes is not addressed well in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative statin use combined with ACE-Is/ARBs in patients undergoing CEA or CAS on mortality and morbidity using a multi-institutional database. Using the data of all patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization, including CEA, transcarotid artery revascularization, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative data, we determined as our primary outcome 30-day mortality/stroke after carotid revascularization based on periop exposure to statins alone, or the combination of statins and ACE-Is/ARBs. Secondary outcomes were postop myocardial infarction and postop congestive heart failure. Poisson regression with robust variance was used to determine postop outcomes comparing the combination of statin and ACE-Is/ARBs group with statins alone group. A total of 131,285 patients were included in the study, with 59,860 (46%) patients receiving statin only, and 71,425 (54%) receiving both statin and ACE-Is/ARBs preoperatively. Both patient groups differed significantly in preop clinical and demographic characteristics. After adjusting for potential confounders, the statins plus ACE-I/ARB group had a 12% lower risk of postop mortality/stroke (Incident Rate Ratio comparing Statin/ACE group to Statins Only group [IRR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.95, P=0.001), 18% lower risk of postop congestive heart failure (IRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P=0.029), and similar risk of postop myocardial infarction (IRR 1.05 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.20, P=0.54) compared to the statin-only group. Statins combined with ACE-Is/ARBs perioperatively offer better protection compared to statins alone in patients undergoing carotid revascularization surgery. We recommend the continuation of ACE-Is/ARBs use in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, especially if they have concurrent hypertension. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the benefit of adding ACE-Is/ARBs.

Novel Biomarkers and Imaging Indices for the "Vulnerable Patient" with Carotid Stenosis: A Single-Center Study.

We investigated the relationship of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI), and Gray-Scale Median (GSM) score with the severity and vulnerability of carotid atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up of carotid artery revascularization. We enrolled 262 patients undergoing carotid revascularization therapy (GRT), 109 asymptomatic patients with low-grade carotid stenosis (40-70%) receiving conservative treatment (GCT), and 92 age- and sex-matched control subjects without carotid atherosclerosis (GCO). All participants underwent carotid ultrasound and we assessed at baseline clinical parameters, metabolic profile, CAVI, GSM, and circulating levels of hsCRP, MMP-3,-7,-9, and TIMP-1. Both GRT and GCT presented with elevated CAVI, MMPs, and TIMP-1 levels compared to GCO (p < 0.001). The escalation highly correlated to the presence of symptoms or paralleled the degree of carotid stenosis (p < 0.001). During follow-up (mean duration: 55 months), 51 GRT patients experienced MACE unrelated to the revascularization procedure. Within GRT, diabetes (HR: 2.07; CI: 1.55-2.78, p < 0.001), smoking (HR: 1.67; CI: 1.35-1.95, p < 0.001), high CAVI (HR: 1.22; CI: 1.09-1.43, p = 0.023) and MMP-9 (HR: 1.44; CI: 1.29-2.15, p = 0.005), and low GSM (HR: 1.40; CI: 1.16-2.12, p = 0.002) independently predicted MACE occurrences, despite the optimum medical therapy. Novel imaging and biochemical biomarkers were positively associated with atherosclerosis severity, while CAVI, MMP-9, and low GSM showed a positive, independent relationship with MACE after carotid revascularization, describing "vulnerable patients".

Comparing Pain and Other Patient-reported Outcomes in Carotid Artery Revascularization: Carotid Endarterectomy vs Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

Comparing Pain and Other Patient-reported Outcomes in Carotid Artery Revascularization: Carotid Endarterectomy vs Transcarotid Artery Revascularization