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.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Carotid Artery Stenting.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting has been used effectively to treat internal carotid artery stenosis since 1989 (Mathias et al. in World J Surg. 25(3):328-34, 2001), with refined and expanded techniques and tools presently delivering outstanding results in percutaneous endoluminal treatment of carotid artery stenosis. PURPOSE: This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is directed at interventional radiologists and details the guidelines for carotid artery stenting, as well as the different implementation techniques. In addition to updating all previously published material on the different clinical indications, it will provide all technical details reflective of European practice for carotid artery stenting. CIRSE Standards of Practice documents do not aim to implement a standard of clinical patient care, but rather to provide a realistic strategy and best practices for the execution of this procedure. METHODS: The writing group, which was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee, consisted of five clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in carotid artery stenting procedures. The writing group reviewed existing literature on carotid artery stenting procedures, performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select relevant publications in the English language from 2006 to 2022. RESULTS: Carotid artery stenting has an established role in the management of internal carotid artery stenosis; this Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for its safe performance.

Polymer-based drug-eluting stent treatment extends the time to reintervention for patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal artery disease: clinical evidence and potential economic value.

Aim: Use long-term follow-up data from the IMPERIAL study to determine whether drug-eluting polymer-based nitinol stent treatment can delay the time to repeat intervention for femoropopliteal artery disease and how such a delay may result in cost savings in a value-based episode of care. Patients & methods: The IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial was an international study of a paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stent (Eluvia, Boston Scientific, MA, USA) versus a polymer-free paclitaxel-coated stent (Zilver PTX, Cook Corporation, IN, USA) for treating lesions of the femoropopliteal arterial segment. Study patients (n = 465) had symptomatic lower limb ischemia. Safety and efficacy assessments were performed through 5 years. Mean time to first reintervention was calculated in post-hoc analysis for patients who underwent a clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) through 3 or 5 years following the index procedure. To simulate potential cost savings associated with differential CD-TLR burden over time, a cost-avoidance analysis using input parameters from IMPERIAL and US 100% Medicare standard analytical files was developed. Results: Among patients with a first CD-TLR through 3 years of follow-up, mean time to reintervention was 5.5 months longer (difference 166 days, 95% CI: 51, 282 days; p = 0.0058) for patients treated with Eluvia (n = 56) than for those treated with Zilver PTX (n = 30). Through the 5-year study follow-up period, CD-TLR rates were 29.3% (68/232) for Eluvia and 34.2% (39/114) for Zilver PTX (p = 0.3540) and mean time to first reintervention exceeded 2 years for patients treated with Eluvia at 737 days versus 645 days for the Zilver PTX group (difference 92 days, 95% CI: -85, 269 days; p = 0.3099). Simulated savings considering reinterventions occurring over 1 and 5 years following initial use of Eluvia over Zilver PTX were US $1,395,635 and US $1,531,795, respectively, when IMPERIAL CD-TLR rates were extrapolated to 1000 patients. Conclusion: IMPERIAL data suggest initial treatment with Eluvia extends the time patients spend without undergoing reintervention. This extension may be associated with cost savings in relevant time frames.

Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke with established large infarct (TENSION): 12-month outcomes of a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data showing the benefits of endovascular thrombectomy for stroke with large infarct are scarce. The TENSION trial showed the safety and efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with ischaemic stroke and large infarct at 90 days. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy at 12 months of endovascular thrombectomy in patients who were enrolled in the TENSION trial. METHODS: TENSION was an open-label, blinded endpoint, randomised trial done at 40 hospitals across Europe and one hospital in Canada. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and who had a large infarct, as indicated by an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score (ASPECTS) of 3-5 on standard-of-care stroke imaging. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either endovascular thrombectomy with medical treatment or medical treatment only up to 12 h from stroke onset. The primary outcome was functional outcome across the entire range of the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Here, we report the prespecified 12-month follow-up analyses for functional outcome (using the simplified modified Rankin Scale questionnaire), quality of life (using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-item [PROMIS-10] and EQ-5D questionnaires), post-stroke anxiety and depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]), and overall survival. Outcomes (except survival) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population; the survival analysis was based on treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094715, and is completed. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between July 17, 2018, and Feb 21, 2023, when the trial was stopped early for efficacy. 253 patients were randomly assigned, 125 (49%) to endovascular thrombectomy and 128 (51%) to medical treatment only. Median follow-up was 8·36 months (IQR 0·02-12·00). Endovascular thrombectomy was associated with a shift in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin Scale towards better functional outcome at 12 months (adjusted common odds ratio 2·39 [95% CI 1·47-3·90]). Endovascular thrombectomy was also associated with a better quality of life compared with medical treatment only, as reflected by median scores on the EQ-5D questionnaire index (0·7 [IQR 0·4-0·9] vs 0·4 [0·2-0·7]), median scores for health status on the EQ-5D questionnaire visual analogue scale (50 [IQR 35-70] vs 30 [5-60]), and median global physical health scores on the PROMIS-10 questionnaire (T-score 39·8 [IQR 37·4-50·8] vs 37·4 [32·4-44·9]); although there was not enough evidence to suggest a difference between groups in global mental health scores on PROMIS-10 (41·1 [IQR 36·3-48·3] vs 38·8 [31·3-44·7]) or the numbers of patients reporting anxiety (13 [22%] of 58 vs 15 [42%] of 36) and depression (18 [31%] vs 18 [50%]) on PHQ-4. Overall survival was slightly better in the endovascular thrombectomy group compared with medical treatment only (adjusted hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·99]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute ischaemic stroke from large vessel occlusion with established large infarct, compared with medical treatment only, endovascular thrombectomy was associated at 12 months after stroke with better functional outcome, quality of life, and overall survival. These findings suggest that the benefits of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with an ischaemic stroke and a large infarct are sustained in the long term and support the use of endovascular thrombectomy in these patients. FUNDING: European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.