Neck radiation is not associated with increased risk of perioperative adverse events after transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear whether patients with prior neck radiation therapy (RT) are at high risk for carotid artery stenting (CAS). We aimed to delineate 30-day perioperative and 3-year long-term outcomes in patients treated for radiation-induced stenotic lesions by the transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) approach to determine comparative risk and to ascertain the optimal intervention in this cohort. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Vascular Quality Initiative CAS registry for patients with prior neck radiation who had undergone either TCAR or TFCAS. The Student t-test and the χ2 test were used to compare baseline patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox Hazard Proportional analysis were used to compare perioperative and long-term differences between patients with and without prior neck radiation following TCAR and TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to determine the incidence of 3-year adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 72,656 patients (TCAR, 40,879; TFCAS, 31,777) were included in the analysis. Of these, 4151 patients had a history of neck radiation. Patients with a history of neck radiation were more likely to be younger, white, and have fewer comorbidities than patients with no neck radiation history. After adjustment for confounding factors, there was no difference in relative risk of 30-day perioperative stroke (P = .11), death (P = .36), or myocardial infarction (MI) (P = .61) between TCAR patients with or without a history of neck radiation. The odds of stroke/death (P = .10) and stroke/death/MI (P = .07) were also not statistically significant. In patients with prior neck radiation, TCAR had lower odds for in-hospital stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.99; P = .05) and access site complications than TFCAS. At year 3, patients with prior neck radiation had an increased hazard for mortality after TCAR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51; P = .04) and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.58; P = .001). Patients with prior neck radiation also experienced an increased hazard for reintervention after TCAR (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.45-3.20; P < .001) and TFCAS (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02-2.73; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior neck radiation had a similar relative risk of 30-day perioperative adverse events as patients with no neck radiation after adjustment for baseline demographics and disease characteristics. In these patients, TCAR was associated with reduced odds of perioperative stroke/death/MI as compared with TFCAS. However, patients with prior neck radiation were at increased risk for 3-year mortality and reintervention.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision. METHODS: The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS. RESULTS: The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

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.

Ulceration location is associated with clinical course in carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Plaque ulceration in carotid artery stenosis is a risk factor for cerebral ischemic events; however, the characteristics that determine plaque vulnerability are not fully understood. We thus assessed the association between plaque ulceration sites and cerebrovascular ischemic attack. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 72 consecutive patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulcers. After excluding patients with pseudo-occlusion, a history of previous carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting before the ulcer was first discovered, follow-up data of less than 1 month, or carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting performed within 1 month after the ulcer was first discovered, 60 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into proximal and distal groups based on the ulcer location relative to the most stenotic point. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic events ("ischemic events"), such as amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack, or ischemic stroke due to carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulceration. The association between ulcer location and ischemic events was also assessed. RESULTS: In the patients with plaque ulcer, more patients had proximal than distal plaque ulcers (39 vs 21; P = .028). The median follow-up duration was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.5-6.2 years). Nineteen patients (32%) experienced ischemic event. Ischemic events occurred more frequently in the distal than in the proximal group (18% vs 59%; P = .005). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significantly shorter event-free time in the distal group (log-rank P = .021). In univariate analysis, distal ulcer location was associated with ischemic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.65; P = .03). Multivariate analysis using two different models also showed that distal ulcer location was independently associated with ischemic events (Model 1: OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.26-11.78; P = .03; Model 2: OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.49-12.49; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with carotid artery stenosis and plaque ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point are more likely to experience cerebrovascular ischemic attacks. Therefore, carotid plaques with ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point may be a potential indication for surgical treatment.

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.

Surveillance and risk factors for early restenosis following transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Restenosis 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.

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

OBJECTIVES: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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). CONCLUSIONS: In 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.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Comparison Of The Treatment Strategies For Symptomatic Chronic Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The best management of symptomatic chronic internal carotid artery occlusion (CICAO) has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies for symptomatic CICAO. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted a search of articles on the treatment of CICAO published between January 2000 and October 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Twenty-two articles were eligible for meta-analysis using a random effects model to combine and analyze the data for the pooled rates of stroke and death, and the rates of procedural success and significant restenosis/occlusion. RESULTS: Total of 1193 patients from 22 publications were included in this study. 6 of them had bilateral internal carotid artery occlusion. The 30-day stroke and death rates were 1.1% (95%CI: 0%-4.4%) in the best medical treatment (BMT) group, 4.1% (95%CI: 0.7%-9.3%, I2=71.4%) in the extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass group, 4.4% (95%CI: 2.4% - 6.8%, I2 = 0%) in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) group, and 1.2% (95% CI: 0% - 3.4%, I2 = 0%) in the combined carotid endarterectomy and stenting (CEA+CAS) group. During follow-up of 16.5 (±16.3) months, the stroke and death rates were 19.5%, 1.2%, 6.6%, and 2.4% in BMT, EC-IC, CAS and CEA+CAS groups respectively. The surgical success rate was 99.7% (95%CI: 98.5%-100%, I2=0%) in EC-IC group, 70.1% (95%CI: 62.3%-77.5%, I2=64%) in CAS group, and 86.4% (95%CI: 78.8%-92.7%, I2=60%) in CEA+CAS group. The rate of post-procedural significant restenosis or occlusion was 3.6% in EC-IC group, 18.7% in CAS group, and 5.7% in CEA+CSA group. The surgical success rate was negatively associated by the length of internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Surgical success rate was significantly higher in the patients with occlusive lesion within C1 to C4 segments, comparing to those with occlusion distal to C4 segment (OR:11.3, 95%CI: 5.0-25.53, P<0.001). A proximal stump of ICA is a favorable sign for CAS. The success rate of CAS was significantly higher in the patients with an ICA stump than that in the patients without (OR=11.36, 95%CI:4.84-26.64, P<0.01). However, the success rate of CEA+CAS was not affected by the proximal ICA stump. CONCLUSIONS: For the management of symptomatic CICAO, BMT alone is associated with the highest risk of mid- and long-term stroke and death. EC-IC bypass surgery and CEA+CAS should be considered as the choice of treatment based on operator's expertise and patient's anatomy. CAS may be employed as an alternative option in high surgical risk patients, especially when proximal ICA stump exists.

The Effects of Carotid Revascularization on 1-Year Cognitive Performance in Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

PURPOSE: The impact of carotid revascularization on cognitive function for patients with severe carotid artery stenosis remains uncertain. This study is aimed to investigate the 1-year neurocognitive outcomes of patients who accept carotid revascularization and identify the risk factors associated with postoperative cognitive decline. METHODS: From April 2019 to April 2021, patients with ≥70% carotid artery stenosis who were treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) were recruited for this study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) instrument was used to evaluate cognitive function preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Logistic regression analysis was built to identify potential risk factors for postoperative long-term cognitive decline. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients who met the criteria were enrolled and completed 1-year follow-up. At 3, 6, and 12 months after carotid revascularization, the total MoCA score, attention, language fluency, and delayed recall score were significantly improved compared with the baseline scores (p<0.05). At 12 months, there was also a significant improvement in cube copying compared with baseline (p=0.034). Logistic regression analysis showed that the advancing age, left side, and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were independent risk factors for cognitive deterioration at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, carotid revascularization has a beneficial effect on cognition function in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis, while advancing age, left side, and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were significantly related to a decreased cognitive score after carotid revascularization. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study focused on the changes in cognitive function within 1 year after carotid revascularization in patients with severe carotid stenosis. Of course, carotid revascularization can improve the cognition function in these patients. On the other hand, we found the advancing age, left side and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were significantly associated with decreased cognitive scores at 1 year after carotid revascularization, which suggests that clinicians may need to be aware of patients with these characteristics.

Triple platelet inhibition in intracranial thrombectomy with additional acute cervical stent angioplasty due to tandem lesion: a retrospective single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute stroke treatment with intracranial thrombectomy and treatment of ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis/occlusion ("tandem lesion", TL) in one session is considered safe. However, the risk of stent restenosis after TL treatment is high, and antiplatelet therapy (APT) preventing restenosis must be well balanced to avoid intracranial hemorrhage. We investigated the safety and 90-day outcome of patients receiving TL treatment under triple-APT, focused on stent-patency and possible disadvantageous comorbidities. METHODS: Patients receiving TL treatment in the setting of acute stroke between 2013 and 2022 were analyzed regarding peri-/postprocedural safety and stent patency after 90 days. All patients received intravenous eptifibatide and acetylsalicylic acid and one of the three drugs prasugrel, clopidogrel, or ticagrelor. Duplex imaging was performed 24 h after treatment, at discharge and 90 days, and digital subtraction angiography was performed if restenosis was suspected. RESULTS: 176 patients were included. Periprocedural complications occurred in 2.3% of the patients at no periprocedural death, and in-hospital death in 13.6%. Discharge mRS score was maintained or improved at the 90-day follow-up in 86%, 4.54% had an in-stent restenosis requiring treatment at 90 days. No recorded comorbidity considered disadvantageous for stent patency showed statistical significance, the duration of the endovascular procedure had no significant effect on outcome. CONCLUSION: In our data, TL treatment with triple APT resulted in a low restenosis rate, low rates of sICH and a comparably high number of patients with favorable outcome. Aggressive APT in the initial phase may therefore have the potential to prevent recurrent stroke better than restrained platelet inhibition. Comorbidities did not influence stent patency.

Long-term outcomes of carotid stenting in a single neurovascular center: up to 12-year retrospective analysis with a focus on the influence of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes in patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for symptomatic or asymptomatic high-grade stenosis. METHODS: A total of 1158 patients (asymptomatic, n = 636; symptomatic, n = 522) underwent CAS at our center between 2009 and 2020. A total of 560 patients or contacts (asymptomatic, n = 316; symptomatic, n = 244) were interviewed by telephone to evaluate long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Mortality from all causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke, as well as comorbidities influencing their occurrence, including overall survival and stroke-free survival, were examined. RESULTS: The overall survival rate for all-cause mortality was 91.6% at 1 year, 77.1% at 5 years, and 55.7% at 10 years. A total of 39 (6.9%) patients had an ischemic stroke during long-term follow-up. The stroke-free survival rates at 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years were 97.9%, 92.7%, and 86.6%, respectively. Stroke-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups (overall survival, p = 0.304; stroke-free survival, p = 0.336). Regular physical activity reduced the risk of stroke and death and was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. Age at treatment and diabetes mellitus were statistically significantly associated with death during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up data confirmed the effectiveness and durability of CAS as a therapy option for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. In patient selection for CAS, special consideration should be paid to patient age, ability to engage in physical activity, and diabetes mellitus.

Stenting with dual-layer CGuard stent in acute sub-occlusive carotid artery stenosis and in tandem occlusions: a monocentric study.

PURPOSE: Double-layer design carotid stents have been cast in a negative light since several investigations reported high rates of in-stent occlusions, at least in the acute setting of tandem occlusions. CGuard is a new generation double-layered stent that was designed to prevent periinterventional embolic events. The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of the CGuard in emergent CAS and for the acute treatment of tandem occlusions in comparison with the single-layer Carotid Wallstent (CWS) system. METHODS: All patients who underwent CAS with CGuard or CWS after intracranial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) between 11/2018 and 12/2022 were identified from our local thrombectomy registry. Clinical, interventional and neuroimaging data were analyzed. Patency of the stent was assessed within 72 h. Intracranial hemorrhage and modified Rankin score (mRS) at discharge were the main endpoints. RESULTS: In total, 86 stent procedures in 86 patients were included (CWS: 44, CGuard: 42). CGuard had a lower, but not statistically significant rate (p = 0.431) of in-stent occlusions (n = 2, 4.8%) when compared to the CWS (n = 4, 9.1%). Significant in-stent stenosis was found in one case in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcome at discharge between the two groups with a median mRS for CGuard of 2 (IQR:1-5) vs. CWS 3 (IQR:2-4). CONCLUSION: In our series, the rate of in-stent occlusions after emergent CAS was lower with the dual-layer CGuard when compared to the monolayer CWS. Further data are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of the design in more detail.

Carotid stenosis in logistic restraints 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, TIA 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 = .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 .03 and .03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: 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.

Locoregional Versus General Anesthesia for Carotid Artery Stenting in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project.

OBJECTIVES: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be performed by transfemoral or transcervical (TCAR) approaches and with a variety of anesthetic techniques. No current literature clearly supports one anesthetic method over another. We therefore sought to evaluate the outcomes of CAS procedures based on anesthetic approach. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2011 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals undergoing CAS during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthetic type (locoregional versus general [GA]). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Locoregional anesthesia for CAS was used for 754 (65.5%) patients, with the remainder under GA. Demographic variables were comparable, as were the incidence of symptomatic presentation, high-risk anatomy or physiology, severity of the stenosis, and presence/severity of contralateral carotid disease. There was no difference in composite outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], and death) (7.0% v 6.1%, p = 0.53). The GA group had lower odds ratio of MI (0.12, p = 0.0362) but higher odds ratio of death (3.33, p = 0.008) and postoperative pneumonia (3.87, p = 0.0083), although on multivariable analysis the risk of death appeared confounded by respiratory variables. Multivariable and propensity score-weighted analyses did not identify a significant association of GA with the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CAS in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, GA was not associated with the composite outcome but was associated with increased rates of postoperative pneumonia and decreased rates of MI. Further investigation should attempt to better clarify these relationships.

In-stent restenosis estimation following carotid artery stenting: The robust predictive value of atherogenic index of plasma and other non-traditional lipid profiles.

OBJECTIVE: Atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis is a significant contributor to ischemic strokes, and carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a pivotal treatment option. However, in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a concern, impacting the long-term patency of CAS. This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of non-traditional lipid profiles, including the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), in ISR development. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study involved patients presenting at a tertiary healthcare facility with severe carotid artery disease between 2016 and 2020 who subsequently underwent CAS. A total of 719 patients were included in the study. The study cohort was divided into ISR and non-ISR groups based on restenosis presence, confirmed by angiography following ultrasonographic follow-up assessments. Non-traditional lipid indices, such as AIP, atherogenic index (AI), and lipoprotein combined index (LCI), were evaluated along with traditional risk factors. RESULTS: During a 24-month follow-up, ISR occurred in 4.03% of patients. To determine the predictors of restenosis, three different models were constructed in multivariate analysis for non-traditional lipid indices. Multivariate analysis revealed AIP as a robust independent predictor of ISR (OR: 4.83 (CI 95 % 3.05-6.63, p < .001). Notably, AIP demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to AI and LCI, with a higher Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.971. CONCLUSION: Non-traditional lipid profiles, especially AIP, were found to be associated with an increased risk of ISR and may serve as predictors of ISR in patients undergoing CAS.

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.

Utility of the triglyceride-glucose index for predicting restenosis following revascularization surgery for extracranial carotid artery stenosis: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are effective interventions for treating extracranial carotid artery stenosis (ECAS), but long-term prognosis is limited by postoperative restenosis. Carotid restenosis is defined as carotid stenosis >50% by various examination methods in patients after carotid revascularization. This retrospective cohort study examined the value of the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index for predicting vascular restenosis after carotid revascularization. METHODS: A total of 830 patients receiving CEA (408 cases, 49.2%) or CAS (422 cases, 50.8%) were included in this study. Patients were stratified into three subgroups according to TyG index tertile (high, intermediate, and low), and predictive value for restenosis was evaluated by constructing multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: Incidence of postoperative restenosis was significantly greater among patients with a high TyG index according to univariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis revealed a progressive increase in restenosis prevalence with rising TyG index. Multivariate Cox regression models also identified TyG index as an independent predictor of restenosis, while receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that TyG index predicted restenosis with moderate sensitivity (57.24%) and specificity (67.99%) (AUC: 0.619, 95% CI 0.585-0.652, z-statistic=4.745, p<0.001). Addition of the TyG index to an established risk factor model incrementally improved restenosis prediction (AUC: 0.684 (0.651-0.715) vs 0.661 (0.628-0.694), z-statistic =2.027, p = 0.043) with statistical differences. CONCLUSION: The TyG index is positively correlated with vascular restenosis risk after revascularization, which can be used for incremental prediction and has certain predictive value.