Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Outperforms Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting Regardless of Aortic Arch Type or Degree of Atherosclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now approve reimbursement for Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of standard-risk patients with carotid artery occlusive disease. TFCAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy is known to be challenging with worse outcomes. Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) could be a preferable alternative in these patients owing to avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal during stent deployment. We aim to compare the outcomes of TCAR versus TFCAS across all aortic arch types and degrees of arch atherosclerosis. METHODS: All patients undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) between September 2016 and October 2023 were identified in the VQI database. Patients were stratified into four groups: Group-A (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-B (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch), Group-C (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-D (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch). The primary outcome was in-hospital composite stroke or death. ANOVA and χ2tests analyzed differences for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders, and backward stepwise selection was implemented to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final models. Kaplan Meier survival estimates, Log Rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models analyzed hazard ratios for one-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 20,114 patients were included [Group-A:12,980 (64.53%); Group-B: 1,175 (5.84%); Group-C: 5,124 (25.47%); Group-D: 835 (4.15%)]. TCAR was more commonly performed across the four groups (72.21%, 67.06%, 74.94% 69.22%; p<0.001). Compared to patients with mild arch atherosclerosis, patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis in Group-C and Group-D were more likely to be female, hypertensive, smokers, and have CKD. Patients with Type-III arch in Group-B and Group-D were more likely to present with stroke preoperatively. On multivariable analysis, TCAR had less than half the risk of stroke/death and one-year mortality compared to TFCAS in the patients with the mildest atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (group A) (OR=0.43,95%CI:0.31-0.61, p<0.001; HR=0.42,95%CI:0.32-0.57, p<0.001). Group-B patients with similar atherosclerosis but more complex arch anatomy had 70% lower odds of stroke/death with TCAR compared to TFCAS (OR=0.30,95%CI:0.12-0.75, p=0.01). Similar findings were also evident in patients with more severe atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (OR=0.66,95%CI:0.44-0.97, p=0.037). There was no significant difference in odds of stroke/death in patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis and complex arch (Group-D) (OR=0.91,95%CI:0.39-2.16, p=0.834). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR is safer than TFCAS in patients with simple and advanced arch anatomy. This could be related to the efficiency of flow reversal vs distal embolic protection. Current CMS decision will likely increase stroke and death outcomes of carotid stenting nationally if multidisciplinary approach and appropriate patient selection are not implemented.

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES IN ANEMIC PATIENTS UNDERGOING CAROTID REVASCULARIZATION.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anemia is associated with worse postoperative morbidity and mortality following major vascular procedures. Limited research has examined the optimal method of carotid revascularization in anemic patients. Therefore, we aim to compare the postoperative outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) among anemic patients. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of anemic patients undergoing CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2016-2023. We defined anemia as a preoperative hemoglobin level of <13 g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Logistic regression models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Our study included 40,383 (59.3%) CEA, 9,159 (13.5%) TFCAS, and 18,555 (27.3%) TCAR cases in anemic patients. TCAR patients were older and had more medical comorbidities than CEA and TFCAS patients. TCAR was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (aOR=0.45,95%CI:0.37-0.59],P<0.001), in-hospital MACE (aOR=0.58,95%CI:0.46-0.75,P<0.001) compared to TFCAS. Additionally, TCAR was associated with 20% reduction in the risk of 30-day mortality (aOR=0.80,95%CI:0.65-0.98,P=0.03), and similar risk of in-hospital MACE (aOR=0.86,95%CI:0.77-1.01, P=0.07) compared to CEA. Furthermore, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (aOR= 2,95%CI: 1.5-2.68,P<0.001), in-hospital MACE (aOR=1.7,95% CI:1.4-2,P<0.001) compared to CEA. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional national retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, TFCAS is associated with a high risk of 30-day mortality and in-hospital MACE compared to CEA and TCAR in anemic patients. TCAR was associated with lower risk of 30-day mortality compared to CEA. These findings suggest TCAR as the optimal minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in anemic patients.

What Is the Best Technique for Treating Carotid Disease?

This is a comprehensive review of carotid artery revascularization techniques: Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA), Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS), and Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR). CEA is the gold standard and is particularly effective in elderly and high-risk patients. TFCAS, introduced as a less invasive alternative, poses increased periprocedural stroke risks. TCAR, which combines minimally invasive benefits with CEA's neuroprotection principles, emerges as a safer option for high-risk patients, showing comparable results to CEA and better outcomes than TFCAS. The decision-making process for carotid revascularization is complex and influenced by the patient's medical comorbidities and anatomic factors.

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 following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aim to study the associations between hospital as well as surgeon volume and the risk of stroke/death following 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/death. RESULTS: A total of 22,624 cases were included. Surgeon volume was divided into three 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 to high volume centers, low and medium center volume was not associated with any increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death, stroke, death, or stroke/TIA. Compared to high volume surgeons, low surgeons' volume was associated with a higher odd of stroke (OR: 1.5, 95%CI (1.1-2.04), P=0.008), and stroke/TIA (OR: 1.5, 95%CI (1.2-1.9), P=.002). However, medium surgeon volume was not associated with higher odds of stroke/death, stroke, and stroke/TIA. Neither low nor medium surgeon volume was associated with a difference in mortality compared to 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/MI and stroke/TIA when compared to high surgeon volume. There was no difference in outcomes between medium and high surgeon volume.

Clinical outcomes of celiac artery coverage vs preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Adequate proximal and distal seal zones are necessary for successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Often, the achievement of an adequate distal seal zone requires celiac artery (CA) coverage by endograft with or without preservation of CA blood flow. The outcomes of CA coverage without its flow preservation were studied only in small case series. This study aims to determine the difference in outcomes between CA coverage with vs without preservation of CA blood flow during TEVAR using a multi-institutional national database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for all TEVAR patients distally landing in zone 6. The cohort was divided into TEVAR with vs without CA flow preservation. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics, as well as postoperative mortality, morbidities, and complications, were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 25,549 reviewed patients, 772 had a distal landing in Zone 6, 212 of which (27.5%) had TEVAR without CA flow preservation, whereas 560 (72.5%) underwent TEVAR with CA flow preservation. Indications for TEVAR were aneurysm in 431 (55.8%), dissection in 247 (32.0%), or other in 94 (12.2%) cases. Patients who underwent TEVAR without CA flow preservation had statistically significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.3% vs 5.9%; P = .010), 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (8.0% vs 4.3%; P = .039), as well as a tendency of increased intestinal ischemia requiring intervention (1.9% vs 0.5%; P = .077). After adjusting for potential confounders, CA coverage without flow preservation was associated with more than a two-fold increase in the overall 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-5.92; P = .006) and 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.11-6.72; P = .029). In a sub-group analysis based on disease pathology, these results persisted only in the aneurysm group (30-day mortality [OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.01-5.48; P = .047]; 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.08-7.67; P = .034]), whereas there was no significant association between CA flow preservation status and the endpoints in the dissection subgroup (30-day mortality [OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.22-6.05; P = .856], 30-day disease/treatment-related mortality [OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.16-5.19; P = .911]). CONCLUSIONS: CA coverage during TEVAR without preservation of its blood flow is associated with significantly higher mortality in patients with aortic aneurysm, but not dissection. In patients with aortic aneurysm, CA flow should be preserved during TEVAR whenever feasible, whereas in patients with dissection, it may be safe to cover CA without preservation of its flow. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these findings and compare the open vs endovascular revascularization techniques on outcomes.

Long-Term Patency Between Brachiocephalic and Brachiobasilic Fistulas: A Single Institution Review.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis access is a fundamental procedure performed by vascular surgeons. Commonly, upper extremity access is utilized via a brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) or brachiocephalic fistula (BCF). BCF is preferred due to ease compared to BBF without documented improved function. Few studies compare patency outcomes between BBF and BCF over time. Our goal was to evaluate the difference in outcomes between BBF and BCF. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients with BCF or BBF between 2019 and 2022. Patients were split by procedure: BCF and BBF. Data collected included demographics, vein size, tunneled catheter, and previous access. Primary outcomes included primary patency (PP), primary assisted patency (PAP) and secondary patency (SP). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, access abandonment, interventions and mortality. Linear regression, Kaplan-Meier, and log-rank test were performed. RESULTS: Our study had 184 patients, 109 (59%) with BCF and 75 (41%) with BBF. There were no differences in demographics except for body mass index and vein size (BBF: 4 vs. BCF: 3.6 mm, P = 0.020). There was no difference in PP at 1 year (41% vs. 47%, P = 0.547) or SP at 2 years (73% vs. 84%, P = 0.058) in BBF versus BCF. However, PAP was significantly greater in BCF (80% vs. 67%, P = 0.030) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes revealed no difference in wound complications (1% vs. 0%, P = 0.408), access abandonment (35% vs. 28%, P = 0.260), or number of interventions (1 vs. 1, P = 0.712) in BBF versus BCF. Mortality was significantly greater in the BBF patients (19% vs. 6%, P = 0.005). On adjusted analysis, BBF had 43 min longer operative time (P < 0.001) and 22 cc greater blood loss (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center review comparing BBF and BCF, no difference was seen between BBF and BCF in terms of PP or SP. Even with larger vein size, BBF did not confer a benefit in long term patency or access abandonment. Additionally, BBF did not confer decreased procedures to maintain patency and BBF had greater operative length and blood loss, as well as mortality. We believe this study demonstrates that for patients who must use an upper extremity location, when the cephalic vein is satisfactory, using the cephalic vein is preferred as it does not negatively impact long-term patency.

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.

Non-White Patients Have a Higher Risk of Stroke Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery revascularization has traditionally been performed by either a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent. Large data analysis has suggested there are differences in perioperative outcomes with regards to race, with non-White patients (NWP) having worse outcomes of stroke, restenosis and return to the operating room (RTOR). The introduction of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has started to shift the paradigm of carotid disease treatment. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing the difference in postoperative outcomes after TCAR between racial groups. METHODS: All patients from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent TCAR were included in our analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on race: individuals who identified as White and a second group that comprised all other races. Demographic and clinical variables were compared using Student's t-Test and chi-square test of independence. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on perioperative outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, restenosis, RTOR, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 22,609 patients: 20,424 (90.3%) White patients and 2185 (9.7%) NWP. After adjusting for sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of prior stroke or TIA, symptomatic status, and high-risk criteria at time of TCAR, there was a significant difference in postoperative stroke, with 63% increased risk in NWP (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.40, P = 0.014). However, we found no significant difference in the odds of MI, death, postoperative TIA, restenosis, or RTOR when comparing NWP to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that NWP have increased risk of stroke but similar outcomes of death, MI, RTOR and restenosis following TCAR. Future studies are needed to elucidate and address the underlying causes of racial disparity in carotid revascularization.

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.

Endovascular therapy versus bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in a real-world practice.

OBJECTIVE: The recent Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) study showed that bypass was superior to endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) deemed suitable for either approach who had an available single-segment great saphenous vein (GSV). However, the superiority of bypass among those lacking GSV was not established. We aimed to examine comparative treatment outcomes from a real-world CLTI population using the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database for patients with CLTI who underwent first-time lower extremity revascularization (2010-2019). We performed two one-to-one propensity score matchings (PSMs): ET vs bypass with GSV (BWGSV) and ET vs bypass with a prosthetic graft (BWPG). The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes were freedom from amputation and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three cohorts were queried: BWGSV (N = 5279, 14.7%), BWPG (N = 2778, 7.7%), and ET (N = 27,977, 77.6%). PSM produced two sets of well-matched cohorts: 4705 pairs of ET vs BWGSV and 2583 pairs of ET vs BWPG. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWGSV, ET was associated with greater hazards of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.43; P < .001), amputation (HR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.17-1.44; P < .001), and amputation/death (HR = 1.32, 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P < .001) up to 4 years. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWPG, ET was associated with greater hazards of death up to 2 years (HR = 1.11, 95% CI, 1.00-1.22; P = .042) but not amputation or amputation/death. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world multi-institutional Medicare-linked PSM analysis, we found that BWGSV is superior to ET in terms of OS, freedom from amputation, and amputation-free survival up to 4 years. Moreover, BWPG was superior to ET in terms of OS up to 2 years. Our study confirms the superiority of BWGSV to ET as observed in the BEST-CLI trial.

The Double Burden: Deciphering Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia in End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) poses significant challenges in clinical management due to its unique pathology and poor treatment outcomes. This review calls for a tailored classification and risk assessment for these patients to guide better revascularization choices with early minor amputation as a first-line strategy in advanced stages. METHODS: This review consolidates key findings from recent literature on CLTI in ESRD, focusing on disease mechanisms, treatment options, and patient outcomes. It evaluates the literature to clarify the decision-making process for managing CLTI in ESRD. RESULTS: CLTI in ESRD patients often results in worse clinical outcomes, such as nonhealing wounds, increased limb loss, and higher mortality rates. While the literature reveals ongoing debates regarding the optimal revascularization method, recent retrospective studies and meta-analyses suggest potential benefits of endovascular treatment (EVT) over open bypass surgery (OB) in reducing mortality and wound complications, with comparable amputation-free survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of revascularization methods in ESRD patients with CLTI is complex, necessitating individualized strategies. The importance of early detection and timely intervention is critical to decelerate disease progression and improve revascularization outcomes. There is a shift in these treatment strategies toward less invasive endovascular procedures, acknowledging the limitations these patients face with open revascularization surgeries. Considering early minor amputations after revascularization could prevent worse consequences, reflecting a shift in the approach to managing CLTI in ESRD patients.

The obesity paradox exists for perioperative complications and mortality following lower extremity arterial bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The obesity paradox refers to a phenomenon by which obese individuals experience lower risk of mortality and even protective associations from chronic disease sequelae when compared with the non-obese and underweight population. Prior literature has demonstrated an obesity paradox after cardiac and other surgical procedures. However, the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and perioperative complications for patients undergoing major open lower extremity arterial revascularization is unclear. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for individuals receiving unilateral infrainguinal bypass between 2003 and 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship of BMI categories (underweight [<18.5 kg/m2], non-obese [18.5-24.9 kg/m2], overweight [25-29.9 kg/m2], Class 1 obesity [30-34.9 kg/m2], Class 2 obesity [35-39.9 kg/m2], and Class 3 obesity [>40 kg/m2]) with 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and adverse cardiovascular events. We adjusted the models for key patient demographics, comorbidities, and technical and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2020, 60,588 arterial bypass procedures met inclusion criteria for analysis. Upon multivariable logistic regression with the non-obese category as the reference group, odds of 30-day mortality were significantly decreased among the overweight (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.78), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), and Class 3 obese (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97) patient categories. Conversely, odds of 30-day mortality were increased in the underweight patient group (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.13). Furthermore, a BMI-dependent positive association was present, with odds of surgical site infections with patients in Class 3 obesity having the highest odds (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.60-2.76). Finally, among the adverse cardiovascular event outcomes assessed, only myocardial infarction (MI) demonstrated decreased odds among overweight (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96), Class 1 obese (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93), and Class 2 obese (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) patient populations. Odds of MI among the underweight and Class 3 obesity groups were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The obesity paradox is evident in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass procedures, particularly with odds of 30-day mortality and MI. Our findings suggest that having higher BMI (overweight and Class 1-3 obesity) is not associated with increased mortality and should not be interpreted as a contraindication for lower extremity arterial bypass surgery. However, these patients should be under vigilant surveillance for surgical site infections. Finally, patients that are underweight have a significantly increased odds of 30-day mortality and may be more suitable candidates for endovascular therapy.

Long-term outcomes in the smoking claudicant after peripheral vascular interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Emphasis on tobacco cessation, given the urgent and emergent nature of vascular surgery, is less prevalent than standard elective cases such as hernia repairs, cosmetic surgery, and bariatric procedures. The goal of this study is to determine the effect of active smoking on claudicating individuals undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Our goal is to determine if a greater emphasis on education should be placed on smoking cessation in nonurgent cases scheduled through clinic visits and not the Emergency Department. METHODS: This study was performed using the multi-institution de-identified Vascular Quality Initiative/Medicare-linked database (Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network [VISION]). Claudicants who underwent PVI for peripheral arterial occlusive disease between 2004 and 2019 were included in our study. Our final sample consisted of a total of 18,726 patients: 3617 nonsmokers (19.3%) (NSs), 9975 former smokers (53.3%) (FSs), and 5134 current smokers (27.4%) (CSs). We performed propensity score matching on 29 variables (age, gender, race, ethnicity, treatment setting [outpatient or inpatient], obesity, insurance, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, previous coronary artery bypass graft, carotid endarterectomy, major amputation, inflow treatment, prior bypass or PVI, preoperative medications, level of treatment, concomitant endarterectomy, and treatment type [atherectomy, angioplasty, stent]) between NS vs FS and FS vs CS. Outcomes were long-term (5-year) overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), freedom from reintervention (FR), and amputation-free survival (AFS). RESULTS: Propensity score matching resulted in 3160 well-matched pairs of NS and FS and 3750 well-matched pairs of FS and CS. There was no difference between FS and NS in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.09; P = .43), FR (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; P = .35), or AFS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.03; P = .12). However, when compared with CS, we found FS to have a higher OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .01), less FR (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P = .003), and greater AFS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional Medicare-linked study looking at elective PVI cases in patients with peripheral artery disease presenting with claudication found that FSs have similar 5-year outcomes in comparison to NSs in terms of OS, FR, and AFS. Additionally, CSs have lower OS and AFS when compared with FSs. Overall, this suggests that smoking claudicants should be highly encouraged and referred to structured smoking cessation programs or even required to stop smoking prior to elective PVI due to the perceived 5-year benefit.

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.

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

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

Small Arteriovenous Anastomosis in Fistula Creation: Establishing a Functional Vascular Access while Minimizing Steal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The size selection of the arteriovenous (AV) anastomosis in dialysis access creation requires a careful balance: the diameter must be large enough to accommodate sufficient flow for hemodialysis but small enough to minimize the complication of steal syndrome. Steal syndrome affects up to 10% of patients after creation of dialysis access with sometimes devastating consequences. Conventional teaching recommends a 7-10 mm anastomosis. We sought to assess the efficacy of using a smaller (5-6 mm) anastomosis in new arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation. METHODS: We conducted a comparative retrospective analysis of patients who underwent fistula creation with a small versus regular size anastomosis at any upper extremity anatomic site between March 2019 and October 2020 at our institution. Anatomic sites included radiocephalic, brachiocephalic, and brachiobasilic. All AV anastomoses were measured intraoperatively to be 5-6 mm in diameter for the small size groups and 8-10 mm for the regular size group. Endpoints included steal syndrome, functional patency, primary patency, and secondary patency. RESULTS: Out of 110 patients who underwent an AVF creation, 59.1% received a 5-6 mm anastomosis with a median follow-up time of 10 ± 6 months. Patients' demographics and comorbidities were relatively similar between the 2 groups except for a higher rate of hyperlipidemia (55.4% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.008) in the small size group. Patients in the small size group were more likely to undergo a radiocephalic fistula (40% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) and to have a smaller mean vein diameter on preoperative duplex ultrasound (3.2±1 mm vs. 3.9±1 mm, P = 0.0016) when compared to their regular size counterparts. During follow-up, none of the patients in the small group developed steal syndrome (0% vs. 9%, P = 0.015). At 1 year, patients in the regular size group achieved higher rates of primary patency (67.9% vs. 46.9%, P = 0.02); however, no difference was seen in 1-year primary-assisted patency (84.9% vs. 73.6%, P = 0.3), secondary patency (89.6% vs. 79.5%, P = 0.3), or functional patency (87.7% vs. 82.2%, P = 0.64) between the small and regular size groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-6 mm anastomosis in the creation of new AVFs of the upper extremities appears to be a technically safe option for dialysis access. Our experience suggests that smaller anastomosis still creates enough flow to maintain a functional AV access while minimizing the incidence of steal syndrome. Additionally, even with smaller vein sizes preoperative, adequate dialysis access can be created via a small sized anastomosis, including distal arm access. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of small anastomosis fistulas.