Relationship between CT-derived cervical muscle mass and quality, systemic inflammation, and survival in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia appears to be associated with inferior outcomes in surgical conditions. Chronic systemic inflammation confers an inferior long-term prognosis in cardiovascular disease and is associated with the development of sarcopenia. The aim of this study was to describe the prognostic role of sarcopenia assessed using computed tomography (CT)-derived body composition analysis and systemic inflammation in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis between 1 January 2011 and 1 October 2021 at four referral centres were included. The C3 skeletal muscle index and C3 skeletal muscle density were recorded from preoperative CT images. Systemic inflammation was assessed using the preoperative systemic inflammatory grade (SIG). The primary outcome was overall mortality during the study interval. RESULTS: A total of 618 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 69 (interquartile range 34-85) months. On univariable analysis, age greater than or equal to 75 years (P < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade greater than II (P < 0.001), low C3 skeletal muscle index (P = 0.002), low C3 skeletal muscle density (P < 0.001), SIG greater than or equal to 2 (P < 0.001), and low L3 derived skeletal muscle index (P < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality, whereas body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 was associated with decreased mortality (P = 0.023). On multivariable analysis, age 75 years or older (HR 2.17 (95% c.i. 1.58 to 2.97), P < 0.001), ASA grade greater than II (HR 2.06 (95% c.i. 1.35 to 3.12), P < 0.001), low C3 skeletal muscle density (HR 1.84 (95% c.i. 1.33 to 2.54), P < 0.001), and SIG greater than or equal to 2 (HR 1.63 (95% c.i. 1.33 to 1.99), P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Cervical CT-derived muscle mass and density, and markers of systemic inflammation, such as systemic inflammatory grade, may be associated with an inferior long-term prognosis after carotid endarterectomy.

Sex and outcomes after stenting and endarterectomy in asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if sex was an effect modifier in a pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients from CREST and ACT I. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 2544 patients aged <80 with ≥70 % asymptomatic carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA (nCREST = 1091; nACT-1 = 1453). The pre-specified primary endpoint in both trials was any stroke, myocardial infarction or death during the peri-procedural period, or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years of randomization. The secondary endpoint was any stroke or death during the peri-procedural period, or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years of randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the frequency of events for men or women between CAS and CEA for the primary or secondary endpoints. When assessing for an interaction of sex and risks between procedures, the treatment-by-sex interaction was not significant for either primary or secondary endpoints in the four-year period or the peri-procedural period. However, women had significantly fewer post-procedural events (ipsilateral stroke) with CAS than CEA (HR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.09-1.18) compared to men (HR = 2.09, 95 % CI: 0.78-5.61), p = 0.02 for interaction. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients comparing CAS to CEA, sex did not act as an effect modifier of treatment differences in the four-year primary stroke-MI-or-death endpoint or the secondary stroke-or-death endpoint. However, during the post-procedural period men treated with CAS were at higher risk than their female counterparts.

Off versus on pump myocardial revascularization in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a global cause of morbidity and mortality, often managed by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study addresses a critical decision-making dilemma in CABG procedures for patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis, comparing off-pump and on-pump techniques. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center analysis, employing propensity scored matched-pair methodology to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis undergoing off-pump or on-pump CABG. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of perioperative stroke. Secondary endpoints included postoperative delirium, intrahospital mortality, intensive care unit stay, length of hospitalization and long-term survival. RESULTS: The study involved 243 patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis operated between July 2009 and October 2018, subsequently propensity score matched into two groups of 78 patients each (off-pump and on-pump). The incidence of perioperative stroke was significantly higher in the On-Pump group compared to the off-pump group (10.3% vs. 1.3%, P=0.03). However, secondary endpoints, such as intrahospital mortality and length of hospitalization, showed no significant differences between the two groups. Long-term survival rates were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that off-pump CABG significantly reduces the risk of perioperative stroke in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis compared to on-pump CABG, without compromising long-term outcomes. These results support the preference for off-pump CABG in this high-risk patient population, highlighting the need for tailored surgical approaches based on individual patient risk profiles.

Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts short-term mortality in acute ischemic stroke with severe stenosis of internal carotid artery associated pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the relationship between systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and short-term mortality in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with internal carotid artery (ICA) severe stenosis and stroke associated pneumonia (SAP) patients. METHODS: Information on general demographic, laboratory data, CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or digital subtraction angiography were obtained. The predictive power was evaluated by assessing the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The logistic regression was performed to assess the association of SII and short-term mortality in severe stenosis ICA-AIS and SAP patients. RESULT: Among 342 patients with severe stenosis ICA-AIS and SAP, death occurred in 66 patients during 120 days follow-up. Multivariate regression analyses indicated that increased SII predicts higher mortality in 120 days follow-up, and the risk of short-term mortality in SII > 666.31 × 109/L group is increased 4.671-fold. Patients with SII > 666.31 × 109/L had higher proportion of male, hypertension, smoking, higher admission NIHSS score, higher systolic blood pressure, and higher proportion of 120 days mortality. Higher SII predicted a worse 120 days mortality was worked out by Kaplan-Meier methods. CONCLUSION: An elevated SII was remarkably associated with 120 days mortality in severe stenosis ICA-AIS and SAP patients.

Risk factors and operative risk of large vessel occlusion and stroke during cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative Large Vessel Occlusions (LVOs) occurring during and following surgery are of immense clinical importance. As such, we aim to present risk factors and test if the Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) mortality and stroke risk scores can be used to assess operative risk. METHODS: Using data containing 7 index cardiac operations at a single tertiary referral center from 2010 to 2022, logistic and multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that correlate to higher operative LVO and stroke rate. Odds ratios and confidence intervals were also obtained to test if the STS-Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) and -Predicted Risk of Stroke (PROS) scores were positively correlated to operative LVO and stroke rate. RESULTS: Multivariate modeling showed primary risk factors for an operative LVO were diabetes (OR: 1.727 [95 % CI: 1.060-2.815]), intracranial or extracranial carotid stenosis (OR: 3.661 [95 % CI: 2.126-6.305]), and heart failure as defined by NYHA class (Class 4, OR: 3.951 [95 % CI: 2.092-7.461]; compared to Class 1). As the STS-PROM increased, the relative rate of LVO occurrence increased (very high risk, OR: 6.576 [95 % CI: 2.92-14.812], high risk, OR: 2.667 [1.125-6.322], medium risk, OR: 2.858 [1.594-5.125]; all compared to low risk). STS-PROS quartiles showed a similar relation with LVO risk (quartile 4, OR: 7.768 [95 % CI: 2.740-22.027], quartile 3, OR: 5.249 [1.800-15.306], quartile 2, OR:2.980 [0.960-9.248]; all compared to quartile 1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes, carotid disease and heart failure are at high risk for operative LVO. Both STS-PROM and -PROS can be useful metrics for preoperative measuring of LVO risks.

Optimizing Treatment of Significant Carotid Artery Stenosis in Times of Logistic Restraints as a Result of COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 confronted medical care with many challenges. During the pandemic, several resources were limited resulting in renouncing or postponing medical care like carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Although according to international guidelines CEA is the first choice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) could potentially be a reasonable alternative especially during logistical restraints. PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of CAS versus CEA before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our hypothesis was that a CAS first approach yielded comparable outcomes compared to a CEA first approach. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with significant carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS between September 2018 and March 2023. Each consecutive period of 1.5 year marked a new (treatment) period: pre-COVID (CEA first strategy), during COVID (CAS first strategy) and post-COVID (patient-tailored approach). Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack or death within 30 days. Secondary outcome consisted of the rate of technical success, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction or other cardiac complications needing intervention, bleeding of the surgical site needing intervention, nerve palsy, unintended IC admission, pseudoaneurysm, restenosis, or occlusion. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. Out of 137 patients treated with CEA, 55, 36 and 46 were treated pre-COVID, during COVID and post-COVID, respectively. Out of 181 CAS procedures, 38, 59 and 84, respectively, were performed in each time period. Primary outcome occurred in 5.5%, 0% and 2.2% in the CEA group and 0%, 1.7% and 3.6% in the CAS group (P = 0.27; P = 1.00; P = 1.00, respectively). Overall technical success was 100% for CEA and 99.4% for CAS (P = 1.00). Rate of restenosis was the only secondary outcome measure which was significantly better after CAS compared to CEA in the pre- and post-COVID period (CEA vs. CAS, 12.7% vs. 7.9%, and 23.9% vs. 4.8% with a P-value of 0.03 and 0.03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes were comparable between CAS versus CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CAS showed better results in terms of other complications (i.e., restenosis rate) in the pre- and post-COVID period compared to CEA. Our results may support a CAS first approach when no relevant contra-indications exist without exposing the patient to complications associated with an open surgical approach. Discussion in a multidisciplinary team is advised.

Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study).

BACKGROUND: In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature. METHODS: Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

Navigating complexity with low-crossing profile dual-layer micromesh carotid stent: implications for contemporary carotid artery stenting outcomes (ROADSAVER study insights).

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be affected by certain technical and anatomical factors. However, it is not known whether the use of a dual-layer micromesh stent (DLMS) with a low-crossing profile could reduce the risks associated with complex vascular anatomies during CAS. METHODS: This study involved 1965 asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients who received the Roadsaver DLMS during CAS, as part of a prospective, multicenter observational ROADSAVER study, conducted from January 2018 to February 2021. The primary outcome was the 30-day rate of major adverse events (MAE; i.e. any death or stroke) after CAS. Procedural details and outcomes were compared between patients with complex anatomical features and those without. RESULTS: One or more complex anatomical characteristics were identified in 1639 (83.4%) patents. Patients with complex anatomies were older and had a higher prevalence of arterial hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and prior stroke. Between patients with or without complex anatomical features, no significant differences were found either in procedural techniques, or in 30-day MAE (age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for complexities vs. no complexities: 0.76 (0.35, 1.66); p=0.4905) and any stroke (age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for complexities vs. no complexities: 0.89 (0.37, 2.17); p=0.8032) incidence. Furthermore, neither the presence of specific types of anatomic complexity nor their number (per patient) markedly influenced the 30-day MAE and any stroke incidence. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients undergoing CAS with the Roadsaver DLMS, no significant difference in the occurrence of 30-day MAE and any stroke was observed between patients with or without high-risk anatomical features.

30-Day Risk Score for Mortality and Stroke in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence Based Carotid Plaque Morphology.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for determining carotid artery stenosis intervention is based on a combination of percent stenosis and symptomatic status. Few studies have assessed plaque morphology as an additive tool for stroke prediction. Our goal was to create a predictive model and risk score for 30-day stroke and death inclusive of plaque morphology. METHODS: Patients with a computed tomographic angiography head/neck between 2010 and 2021 at a single institution and a diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis were included in our analysis. Each computed tomography was used to create a three-dimensional image of carotid plaque based off image recognition software. A stepwise backward regression was used to select variables for inclusion in our prediction models. Model discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Additionally, calibration was performed and the model with the least Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was selected. The risk score was modeled from the Framingham Study. Primary outcome was mortality/stroke. RESULTS: We created 3 models to predict mortality/stroke from 366 patients: model A using only clinical variables, model B using only plaque morphology and model C using both clinical and plaque morphology variables. Model A used age, sex, peripheral arterial disease, hyperlipidemia, body mass index (BMI), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and history of transient ischemia attack (TIA)/stroke and had an AUC of 0.737 and AIC of 285.4. Model B used perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) volume, lumen area, calcified volume, and target lesion length and had an AUC of 0.644 and AIC of 304.8. Finally, model C combined both clinical and software variables of age, sex, matrix volume, history of TIA/stroke, BMI, PVAT, lipid rich necrotic core, COPD and hyperlipidemia and had an AUC of 0.759 and an AIC of 277.6. Model C was the most predictive because it had the highest AUC and lowest AIC. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that combining both clinical factors and plaque morphology creates the best predication of a patient's risk for all-cause mortality or stroke from carotid artery stenosis. Additionally, we found that for patients with even 3 points in our risk score model has a 20% chance of stroke/death. Further prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

Analysis of Surgeon and Center Case Volume and Stroke or Death after Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the annual hospital volume of cases may affect the number of adverse events after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke or death after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the Vascular Quality Initiative data of patients undergoing TCAR from 2016 to 2021. Surgeon and center volume were calculated based on the mean number of cases (MNC) performed yearly by each surgeon and center. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke or death. RESULTS: A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into 3 quantiles: low (MNC = 4), medium (MNC = 10), and high (MNC = 26). Center volume was also divided into low (MNC = 14), medium (MNC = 32), and high (MNC = 64). After adjusting for potential confounders, and when compared with high-volume centers, low and medium center volumes were not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke and death, stroke, death, or stroke with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Compared with high-volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.04, p = 0.008), and stroke and TIA (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9, p = 0.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke and death, stroke, and stroke with TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared with high surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, center volume was not associated with any differences in outcomes among patients undergoing TCAR. On the other hand, surgeons with low volume were associated with a higher risk of stroke, death, or MI and stroke or TIA when compared with high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

Outcomes of carotid revascularization stratified by procedure in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 and dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Renal failure is a predictor of adverse outcomes in carotid revascularization. There has been debate regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with severe chronic kidney disease or on dialysis. METHODS: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), or CEA between 2016 and 2023 with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis were included. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure. Additional analyses were performed for patients on dialysis only and by symptomatology. Primary outcomes were perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) (SDM). Secondary outcomes included perioperative death, stroke, MI, cranial nerve injury, and stroke/death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed based on treatment assignment to TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA patients and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative symptoms. The χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of procedure with perioperative outcomes in the weighted cohort. Five-year survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: In the weighted cohort, 13,851 patients with an eGFR of <30 (2506 on dialysis) underwent TCAR (3639; 704 on dialysis), tfCAS (1975; 393 on dialysis), or CEA (8237; 1409 on dialysis) during the study period. Compared with TCAR, CEA had higher odds of SDM (2.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.61; P = .049), and MI (0.7% vs 1.5%; aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05; P = .001). Compared with TCAR, rates of SDM (2.8% vs 5.8%), stroke (1.2% vs 2.6%), and death (0.9% vs 2.4%) were all higher for tfCAS. In asymptomatic patients CEA patients had higher odds of MI (0.7% vs 1.3%; aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.97; P = .011) and cranial nerve injury (0.3% vs 1.9%; aOR, 7.23; 95% CI, 3.28-15.9; P < .001). Like in the primary analysis, asymptomatic tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death and stroke/death. Symptomatic CEA patients demonstrated no difference in stroke, death, or stroke/death. Although tfCAS patients demonstrated higher odds of death, stroke, MI, stroke/death, and SDM. In both groups, the 5-year survival was similar for TCAR and CEA (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 74.2%; aHR, 1.06; P = .3) and lower for tfCAS (eGFR <30, 75.1% vs 70.4%; aHR, 1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA and TCAR had similar odds of stroke and death and are both a reasonable choice in this population; however, TCAR may be better in patients with an increased risk of MI. Additionally, tfCAS patients were more likely to have worse outcomes after weighting for symptom status. Finally, although patients with a reduced eGFR have worse outcomes than their healthy peers, this analysis shows that the majority of patients survive long enough to benefit from the potential stroke risk reduction provided by all revascularization procedures.

Investigation of the weekend effect on perioperative complications and mortality after carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes for weekend surgical interventions are associated with higher rates of mortality and complications than weekday interventions. Although prior investigations have reported the "weekend effect" for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), this association remains unclear for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). We investigated the weekend effect for all three carotid revascularization methods. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients who underwent CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS between 2016 and 2022. χ2 and logistic regression modeling analyzed outcomes including in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality by weekend vs weekday intervention. Backward stepwise regression was used to identify significant confounding variables and was ultimately included in each final logistic regression model. Logistic regression of outcomes was substratified by symptomatic status. Secondary multivariable analysis compared outcomes between the three revascularization methods by weekend vs weekday interventions. RESULTS: A total of 155,962 procedures were analyzed including 103,790 CEA, 31,666 TCAR, and 20,506 TFCAS. Of these, 1988 CEA, 246 TCAR, and 820 TFCAS received weekend interventions. Logistic regression demonstrated no significant differences for TCAR and increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction for CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.65) and TFCAS (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09-1.96) weekend procedures. Asymptomatic TCAR patients had nearly triple the odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.06-7.68, P = .038). Similarly, odds of in-hospital death were nearly tripled for asymptomatic CEA (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.30-6.43, P = .009) and asymptomatic TFCAS (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.34-5.76, P = .006) patients. Secondary analysis demonstrated that CEA and TCAR had no significant differences for all outcomes. TFCAS was associated with increased odds of stroke and death compared with CEA and TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study, we found that weekend carotid revascularization is associated with increased odds of complications and mortality. Furthermore, asymptomatic weekend patients perform worse in the CEA and TFCAS procedural groups. Among the three revascularization methods, TFCAS is associated with the highest odds of perioperative stroke and mortality. As such, our findings suggest that TFCAS procedures should be avoided over the weekend in favor of CEA or TCAR. In patients who are poor candidates for CEA, TCAR offers the lowest morbidity and mortality for weekend procedures.

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

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

Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) by surgeons has been variable, with some still performing traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas others have shifted to mostly TCAR. Our goal was to evaluate the association of relative surgeon volume of CEA to TCAR with perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA and carotid artery stent registries were analyzed from 2021 to 2023 for symptomatic and asymptomatic interventions. Surgeons participating in both registries were categorized in the following CEA to CEA+TCAR volume percentage ratios: 0.25 (majority TCAR), 0.26 to 0.50 (more TCAR), 0.51 to 0.75 (more CEA), and 0.76 to 1.00 (majority CEA). Primary outcomes were rates of perioperative ipsilateral stroke, death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding. RESULTS: There were 50,189 patients who underwent primary carotid revascularization (64.3% CEA and 35.7% TCAR). CEA patients were younger (71.1 vs 73.5 years, P < .001), with more symptomatic cases, less coronary artery disease, diabetes, and lower antiplatelet and statin use (all P < .001). TCAR patients had lower rates of smoking, obesity, and dialysis or renal transplant (all P < .001). Postoperative stroke after CEA was significantly impacted by the operator CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .04), with surgeons who perform majority TCAR and more TCAR having higher postoperative ipsilateral stroke (majority TCAR odds ratio [OR]: 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.96, P = .01; more TCAR OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.96, P = .04), as compared with those who perform majority CEA. Similarly, postoperative stroke after TCAR was significantly impacted by the CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .02), with surgeons who perform majority CEA and more CEA having higher stroke (majority CEA OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.27, P = .05; more CEA OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-2.00, P = .004), as compared with those who perform majority TCAR. There was no association between surgeon ratio and perioperative death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The relative surgeon CEA to TCAR ratio is significantly associated with perioperative stroke rate. Surgeons who perform a majority of one procedure have a higher stroke rate in the other. Surgeons offering both operations should maintain a balanced practice and have a low threshold to collaborate as needed.

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

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

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

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the racial disparities in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Race-based disparities in health care have been related to a myriad of prevailing factors among minorities in the United States. This study aims to study the race-based differences in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: The PROSPERO database registered the review protocol (CRD42023428253). A systematic English literature review was performed using literature databases PubMed and Scopus from inception till June 2023. The review was designed on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and included studies reporting mortality, stroke, or composite outcome of mortality and stroke after CEA for carotid artery disease, regardless of any degree of stenosis including both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the overall mortality was computed, and a P value of < .05 was designated as statistically significant. Interstudy heterogeneity was evaluated by Q-metric and quantified using Higgins I2 statistics. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified which included a total of 574,055 patients who underwent CEA from 1998 to 2022. Eleven of 12 studies reported 30-day mortality as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,797 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated a statistical significance in 30-day mortality between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.18; P = .011) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 56.3%). Eleven of 12 studies reported stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,801 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P = .111) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 35.9%). Five of 12 studies reported composite mortality or stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in composite mortality or stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24-1.59; P = .467) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-White patients have a relatively higher risk of mortality; however, no significant difference was observed between the racial groups in terms of stroke or a composite outcome of mortality or stroke. The odds of mortality in non-White patients have been persistent throughout recent studies.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

The effect of controlled vs uncontrolled hypertension on outcomes of carotid revascularization procedures.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled HTN (uHTN) on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with cHTN and those with uHTN. Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure of ≥130/80 mm Hg. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension or HTN, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>1 day), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN, 11,347 [32.7%]), 8199 TFCAS (uHTN, 2307 [28.1%]), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN, 4990 [28.8%]) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between patients with cHTN and patients with uHTN for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared with patients with cHTN, patients with uHTN had significantly more comorbidities. uHTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI after CEA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.87; P < .001), TFCAS (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; P < .001), and TCAR (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73; P = .003) compared with cHTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with a prolonged LOS after all carotid revascularization methods. For the subanalysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.37; P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.25-6.19; P < .001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.57-10.93; P < .001), and extended LOS (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.32; P < .001) compared with CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study show that patients with uHTN are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared with patients with cHTN, highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes, whereas CEA and TCAR proved to be safer interventions. Patients with uTHN with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared with those treated with TFCAS.

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

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