Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Research Articles

Thrombectomy and stenting of pseudoaneurysm from transcarotid artery revascularization

Background: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is becoming an increasingly popular treatment of carotid stenosis. Despite this rapid adoption, little in the literature describes the associated complications of this procedure. Case Description: We report a case of a left M1 large-vessel occlusion following treatment of symptomatic, high-grade carotid stenosis with a TCAR procedure approximately three weeks earlier. The initial angiography demonstrated a pseudoaneurysm in the left common carotid artery at the site of TCAR access with a distal clot in the carotid stent. The clot within the stent was aspirated, and a mechanical thrombectomy was performed with a combination of a stent-retriever and aspiration catheter for thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B revascularization. Conclusion: The TCAR procedure offers a novel method for revascularization of carotid lesions; it does include its complications. While generally safe, access site complications such as pseudoaneurysms can always occur. Knowledge of this risk allows for appropriate surveillance and management should it occur.

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.

Intravascular Lithotripsy to facilitate Transcarotid Artery Revascularization in patients with heavily calcified carotid arteries

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an accepted (and approved) treatment for carotid artery stenosis in high-risk patients, and now standard risk patients under the guidelines of the recent CMS National Coverage Determination. However, it's applicability is limited by anatomic criteria, such as heavily calcified internal carotid arteries. We retrospectively reviewed two patients at our institution with heavily calcified internal carotid artery plaque who underwent intravascular lithotripsy and TCAR. These two cases demonstrate the feasibility of lithotripsy to modify heavy, calcified plaque prior to TCAR for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Impact of head and neck radiation on long-term outcomes after carotid revascularization

Radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis (RICS) is a well-described phenomenon seen after head and neck cancer radiation. Previously published literature suggests that compared to atherosclerotic disease, RICS may result in worse long-term outcomes and early restenosis. This study aims to evaluate the effect of radiation on long-term outcomes after various carotid revascularization techniques using a multi-center registry database. Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry for carotid artery intervention (carotid endarterectomy, CEA; transfemoral carotid artery stenting, CAS; transcarotid artery revascularization, TCAR), who are 65 years or older were included in the study. VQI Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) Medicare-linked database was used to obtain long-term procedure-specific outcomes. Primary endpoints were 3-year death, stroke, and reintervention. We performed propensity matching between patients with prior radiation and those without. Kaplan-Meier analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to analyze the outcome variables. A total of 56472 patients had undergone carotid revascularization (CEA, n=48307; TCAR, n=4593; CAS, n=3572), 1244 patients with prior radiation and 54925 patients without prior radiation. Prior radiation group was more likely to be male (71.9% vs. 60.3%, P<0.01), to receive a stent (47.5% vs. 13.5%, P<0.01), and to be on P2Y12 inhibitor (55.2% vs. 38.3%, P<0.01). Propensity matching was performed on 1223 patients (CEA, n=655; TCAR, n=292; CAS, n=287). There were no significant differences in 30-day outcomes for death, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular events for all three procedures (Table I). The prior radiation group had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.04) and 90-day readmission (23.5% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.01) after CEA. For long-term outcomes, prior radiation significantly increased mortality risk for CEA and CAS (HR 1.77, CI [1.38 - 2.27] and 1.56, CI [1.02 - 2.36], respectively). The 3-year risk of stroke for CEA in radiated patients was also significantly higher (HR 1.47, CI [1.03 - 2.09]) compared to non-radiated patients. Prior radiation did not significantly affect death and stroke in patients undergoing TCAR. Prior radiation also did not impact the rates of short and long-term reintervention after CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Prior head and neck radiation significantly increases the risk for mortality and stroke for CEA and the risk for mortality after CAS. Long-term outcomes for TCAR are not significantly affected by prior radiation. TCAR may be the preferred treatment modality for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis.

Transcarotid artery revascularization for in-stent restenosis complicated by flow reversal occlusion

We report a case of symptomatic high grade in-stent restenosis of a prior placed transradial carotid artery stent. We performed a Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) to treat this symptomatic restenosis. The TCAR was complicated by occlusion of our flow reversal system by a large atherosclerotic embolus. We performed a distal common carotid cutdown to retrieve the occlusive embolus and restored flow reversal. Completion neck and cerebral angiogram showed no filling defect, and our patient showed no neurologic deficit, and resolution of pre-operative symptoms.

Flow-Mediated Protection for the Treatment of Tandem Lesions via a Transcarotid Approach

In patients presenting with both internal carotid and proximal common carotid stenosis, there are many options for repair including open, endovascular, and hybrid approaches. For internal carotid artery lesions, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has shown an excellent safety profile and allows for a minimally invasive approach. A previous multicenter study assessing the safety of using the same ENROUTE neuroprotection device to treat concurrent proximal lesions of the common carotid artery showed 100% success and 0% stroke or TIA rate within 30 days in the initial sixteen patients. Here we describe the peri-operative and intra-operative technique to replicate this procedure.

Transcarotid artery revascularization pearls and pitfalls

Transcarotid artery revascularization pearls and pitfalls

Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

Determinants of Mortality and Mid-Term Outcomes After Transcarotid Artery Revascularization and Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.

The potential benefit of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) over transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) has been studied in the perioperative period with lower rates of stroke and death; however, data on mid-term outcomes are limited. We aimed to evaluate 3-year outcomes after TCAR and tfCAS and determine the primary predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality following TCAR. Data from the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients undergoing TCAR or tfCAS from January 2016 to December 2022 were analyzed. 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbor method was used to adjust baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox Proportional Hazard Regression were used to evaluate long-term outcomes. Iterative stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis and Cox Proportional Hazard Regression were used to identify predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality, respectively, based upon preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors. A total of 70 237 patients were included in analysis (TCAR=58.7%, tfCAS=41.3%). Transcarotid artery revascularization patients were older and had higher rates of comorbid conditions and high-risk medical and anatomic features than tfCAS patients. Propensity score matching yielded 22 322 pairs with no major differences between groups except that TCAR patients were older (71.6 years vs 70.8 years). At 3 years, TCAR was associated with a 24% reduction in hazard of death compared with tfCAS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.71-0.82, p<0.001), for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. This survival advantage was established in the first 6 months (HR=0.59, 95% CI=0.53-0.62, p<0.001), with no difference in mortality risk from 6 months to 36 months (HR=0.95, 95% CI=0.86-1.05, p=0.31). Transcarotid artery revascularization was also associated with decreased hazard for 3-year stroke (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-0.99, p=0.04) and stroke or death (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.76-0.87, p<0.001) compared with tfCAS. The top predictors for 30-day and 1-year mortality were postoperative complications. The primary independent predictor was the occurrence of postoperative stroke. Transcarotid artery revascularization had a sustained mid-term survival advantage associated over tfCAS, with the benefit being established primarily within the first 6 months. Notably, our findings highlight the importance of postoperative stroke as the primary independent predictor for 30-day and 1-year mortal. The ongoing debate over the superiority of TCAR compared to tfCAS and CEA has been limited by a lack of comparative studies examining the impact of pre-operative symptoms on outcomes. Furthermore, data are scarce on mid-term outcomes for TCAR beyond the perioperative period. As a result, it remains uncertain whether the initial benefits of stroke and death reduction observed with TCAR over tfCAS persist beyond one year. Our study addresses these gaps in the literature, offering evidence to enable clinicians to assess the efficacy of TCAR for up to three years. Additionally, our study seeks to identify risk factors for postoperative mortality following TCAR, facilitating optimal patient stratification.

Patient Decision Making in the Era of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

ObjectiveThe National Coverage Determination (NCD) on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients undergo a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist prior to an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. MethodsWe performed longitudinal perioperative semi-structured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing CEA or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with 9 vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. ResultsWe identified three important domains that contribute to the participants’ ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, “wanting to feel better”, and the proceduralist’s experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants’ desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred CEA felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery time. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. ConclusionSDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction prior to carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Preoperative Risk Factors Impacting Length of Stay After Transcarotid Artery Revascularization

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), using interoperative flow reversal is a unique, hybrid operation utilized in treating critical carotid artery stenosis. Over the past decade, TCAR has been increasingly used to treat asymptomatic carotid artery disease and has a similar risk profile to traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness as well as quality outcomes in this expanded setting. The objective of this study is to develop a multivariate regression model to identify key preoperative variables and their impact factor on LOS after TCAR for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We hypothesized that high-risk preoperative patient factors historically identified in CEA would similarly impact LOS after TCAR. A multi-institution, retrospective study of all adult patients undergoing TCAR with flow-reversal for intraoperative neuroprotection was performed using the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from January 2016 to August 2021. Patients with prolonged preoperative hospitalization (preoperative LOS ≥ 1 day) were excluded to enhance the capture of carotid artery stenosis as the index admission. Univariate analysis was done on preoperative factors against LOS using nonparametric statistical tests. A multivariate model was then constructed using a negative binomial regression. The study population was split into 80% "training" data for model formulation and 20% "test" data for model validation. 13,483 patients undergoing TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis met the study's inclusion criteria with a median postoperative length of stay (LOS) of 1.82 days. Factors in VQI found to have a significant effect on LOS and retained in the multivariate model were lesion type (restenosis vs atherosclerotic), age, gender, COPD, preoperative beta blocker, calcific lesion burden, hypertension status, and race (p < 0.05). The model accurately predicted LOS after TCAR within 1 day for 86.04% and within 2 days for 94.51% of patients in the test population. This large-scale analysis from 2016-2021 spans a considerable expansion in the practice of TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease. All preoperative variables shown to significantly increase the postoperative LOS were derived from the VQI data set. As LOS is a measure of healthcare efficiency and cost-effectiveness, this model can be used to identify patients at risk for increased postoperative LOS. It has the potential to be incorporated into a patient/physician decision support tool to optimize resource planning and patient selection for elective TCAR.

Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative neuromonitoring in transcarotid artery revascularization

BackgroundIn recent years, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to carotid artery stenting. While intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) techniques such as electroencephalogram (EEG) and somatosensory...

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

BackgroundTranscarotid 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. MethodsThis 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. ResultsWe 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). ConclusionsIn 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.

Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Stratified by Institutional Designation: Academic Versus Community Hospitals

The extent of practice setting's influence on transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) outcomes is not yet established. This study seeks to assess and compare TCAR outcomes in academic and community-based healthcare settings. Retrospective review of prospectively-maintained, systemwide TCAR databases from two institutions was performed between 2015-2022. Patients were stratified based on the setting of surgical intervention (i.e. academic or community-based hospitals). Relevant demographics, medical conditions, anatomic characteristics, intra- and postoperative courses, and adverse events were captured for multivariate analysis. We identified 973 patients who underwent TCAR, 570 (58.6%) were performed at academic and 403 (41.4%) at community-based hospitals. An academic facility was defined as a designated teaching hospital with 24/7 service-line coverage by a trainee-led surgical team. Baseline comorbidity between cohorts were similar but cases performed at academic institutions were associated with increased complexity, defined by high cervical stenosis (P<.001), prior dissection (P<.01), and prior neck radiation (P<0.001). Intraoperatively, academic hospitals were associated with longer operative time (67 mins vs. 58 mins, P< 0.001), higher blood loss (55 mLs vs. 37 mLs, P<.001), and longer flow reversal time (9.5 mins vs. 8.4 mins, P<.05). Technical success rate was not statistically different. In the 30-day perioperative period, we observed no significant difference with respect to reintervention (1.5% vs. 1.5%, P =>.9) or ipsilateral stroke (2.7% vs. 2.0%, P=.51). Additionally, no difference in postoperative MI (academic 0.7% vs. community 0.2%, P<.32), death (academic 1.9% vs. community 1.4%, P<.57), or length of stay (1 day vs. 1 day, P<.62) was seen between the cohorts. Cases performed at academic centers were characterized by more challenging anatomy, more frequent cardiovascular risk factors, and less efficient intraoperative variables, potentially attributable to case complexity and trainee involvement. However, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes and adverse events between the cohorts, suggesting TCAR can be safely performed, regardless of practice setting.

Surveillance and risk factors for early restenosis following transcarotid artery revascularization

ObjectiveRestenosis after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a known complication. When identified in the early postoperative period, it may be related to technique. We evaluated our TCAR experience to identify potentially modifiable factors impacting restenosis. MethodsThis is a single-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing TCAR from November 2017 to July 2022. Restenosis was defined as >50% stenosis on duplex ultrasound (DUS) examination or computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis's test. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher's exact test. ResultsOf 61 interventions, 11 (18%) developed restenosis within the median follow-up of 345 days (interquartile range, 103-623 days). Among these patients, 82% (9/11) had >50% stenosis, and 18% (2/11) had >80% stenosis. Both patients with high-grade restenosis were symptomatic and underwent revascularization. Diagnosis of post-TCAR restenosis was via DUS examination in 45% (5/11), CTA in 18% (2/11), or both CTA/DUS examination in 36% (4/11). Restenosis occurred within 1 month in 54% (6/11) and 6 months in 72% (8/11) of patients. However, three of the six patients with restenosis within 1 month had discordant findings on CTA vs DUS imaging. Patient comorbidities, degree of preoperative stenosis, medical management, balloon size, stent size, lesion characteristics, and predilatation angioplasty did not differ. Patients with restenosis were younger (P = .02), had prior ipsilateral endarterectomy (odds ratio [OR], 6.5; P = .02), had history of neck radiation (OR, 18.3; P = .01), and lower rate of postdilatation angioplasty (OR, 0.11; P = .04), without an increased risk of neurological events. ConclusionsAlthough post-TCAR restenosis occurred in 18% of patients, only 3% of patients had critical restenosis and required reintervention. Patient factors associated with restenosis were younger age, prior endarterectomy, and history of neck radiation. Although early restenosis may be mitigated by improved technique, the only technical factor associated with restenosis was less use of postdilatation angioplasty. Balancing neurological risk, this factor may have increased application in appropriate patients. Diagnosis of restenosis was inconsistent between imaging modalities; current surveillance paradigms and diagnostic thresholds may warrant reconsideration.

An analysis of the recommendations of the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis

ObjectivePatients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis currently account for the majority of carotid interventions performed in the United States; therefore, the following article will review the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines perspective in treating patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. MethodsA systemic review and meta-analysis were conducted by the evidence practice center of the Mayo Clinic using a specified population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework. ResultsBased on published randomized trials and related supporting evidence, the following were noted: the SVS recommends that patients with asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis can be considered for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the reduction of long-term risk of stroke, provided the patient has a life expectancy of 3 to 5 years with risk of perioperative stroke and death not exceeding 3%. The type of carotid intervention should be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention. Data from CREST, ACT, and the Vascular Quality Initiative suggest that certain properly selected asymptomatic patients can be treated with carotid stenting with equivalent outcome to CEA in the hands of experienced interventionalists. The institutions and operator performing carotid stenting must exhibit expertise sufficient to meet the established American Heart Association guidelines for treatment of patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ie, combined stroke/death rate of less than 3%). ConclusionsSVS recommends that low surgical risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of ≥70% to be treated with CEA with best medical therapy over medical therapy alone for the long-term prevention of stroke/death (GRADE 1B). Carotid intervention should also be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention (ie, CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS).

Prospective evaluation of acute cerebral injury by DW-MRI following transcarotid artery revascularization using a double-layer micromesh stent.

Transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has demonstrated a low overall stroke rate in carotid artery stenting (CAS). Furthermore, the use of a double-layer micromesh stent is expected to reduce embolization and plaque prolapse. The combination of TCAR and the double layer stent may lead to improved results compared to previously reported outcomes. The objective of this study is to present the findings of a prospective study including patients treated with the Roadsaver stent and TCAR. Between January 2017 and May 2022, 85 patients were enrolled. Every patient underwent TCAR with the Roadsaver stent. As per our protocol, a neurological examination and an ultrasound were performed within 24 hours before and after the procedure, and again 30 days after. A diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was conducted 24 hours before the procedure and 48-72 hours after the procedure. The primary endpoint was the detection of new ischemic lesions on postoperative DW-MRI. The secondary endpoint was a composite of all strokes, death, and myocardial infarction within 30 days. Sixty-four patients (75.29%) were symptomatic, out of which 25 were treated within 14 days of the onset of the symptoms. Pre and postprocedural DW-MRI were performed in 83 patients. Postprocedural lesions were found in nine patients (10.84%). There were no strokes or death within 30 days, but two patients experienced a myocardial infarction. Our study suggests that the use of TCAR and the Roadsaver stent could be a safe alternative to carotid endarterectomy because it entails a low incidence of cerebral embolization, even in recently symptomatic and elderly patients.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis

BackgroundShared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis. MethodsWe conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease. ResultsFour publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option. ConclusionsFurther work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Association of stroke or death with severity of carotid lesion calcification in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveCarotid artery stenting (CAS) for heavily calcified lesions is controversial due to concern for stent failure and increased perioperative stroke risk. However, the degree to which calcification affects outcomes is poorly understood, particularly in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). With the precipitous increase in TCAR use and its expansion to standard surgical-risk patients, we aimed to determine the impact of lesion calcification on CAS outcomes to ensure its safe and appropriate use. MethodsWe identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent first-time transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and TCAR between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified into groups based on degree of lesion calcification: no calcification, 1% to 50% calcification, 51% to 99% calcification, and 100% circumferential calcification or intraluminal protrusion. Outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year composite stroke/death, as well as individual stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between degree of calcification and these outcomes. ResultsAmong 21,860 patients undergoing CAS, 28% patients had no calcification, 34% had 1% to 50% calcification, 35% had 51% to 99% calcification, and 3% had 100% circumferential calcification/protrusion. Patients with 51% to 99% and circumferential calcification/protrusion had higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.6; P = .034; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .004, respectively) compared with those with no calcification. Circumferential calcification was also associated with increased risk for in-hospital myocardial infarction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .003). In tfCAS patients, only circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher in-hospital stroke/death odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P = .013), whereas for TCAR patients, 51% to 99% calcification was associated with increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .025). At 1 year, circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher odds of ipsilateral stroke/death (12.4% vs 6.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; P = .002). ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing CAS, there is an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death for lesions with >50% calcification or circumferential/protruding plaques. Increasing severity of carotid lesion calcification is a significant risk factor for stroke/death in patients undergoing CAS, regardless of approach.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention

ObjectivesThe relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. MethodsWe identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. ResultsWe identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). ConclusionsIn patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.