Female and male patients have similar outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials.

OBJECTIVE: Sex disparities in outcomes after carotid revascularization have long been a concern, with several studies demonstrating increased postoperative death and stroke for female patients after either carotid endarterectomy or transfemoral stenting. Adverse events after transfemoral stenting are higher in female patients, particularly in symptomatic cases. Our objective was to investigate outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) stratified by patient sex hypothesizing that the results would be similar between males and females. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER)1 (pivotal), ROADSTER2 (US Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket), and ROADSTER Extended Access TCAR trials. All patients had verified carotid stenosis meeting criteria for intervention (≥80% for asymptomatic patients and ≥50% in patient with symptomatic disease), and were included based on anatomical or clinical high-risk criteria for carotid stenting. Neurological assessments (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Modified Rankin Scale) were obtained before and within 24 hours from procedure end by an independent neurologist or National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale-certified nurse. Patients were stratified by sex (male vs female). Baseline demographics were compared using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests where appropriate; primary outcomes were combination stroke/death (S/D) and S/D/myocardial infarction (S/D/M) at 30 days, and secondary outcomes were the individual components of S/D/M. Univariate logistic regression was conducted. RESULTS: We included 910 patients for analysis (306 female [33.6%], 604 male [66.4%]). Female patients were more often <65 years old (20.6% vs 15%) or ≥80 years old (22.6% vs 20.2%) compared with males, and were more often of Black/African American ethnicity (7.5% vs 4.3%). There were no differences by sex in term of comorbidities, current or prior smoking status, prior stroke, symptomatic status, or prevalence of anatomical and/or clinical high-risk criteria. General anesthetic use, stent brands used, and procedure times did not differ by sex, although flow reversal times were longer in female patients (10.9 minutes male vs 12.4 minutes female; P = .01), as was more contrast used in procedures for female patients (43 mL male vs 48.9 mL female; P = .049). The 30-day S/D and S/D/M rates were similar between male and female patients (S/D, 2.7% male vs 1.6% female [P = .34]; S/D/M, 3.6% male vs 2.6% female [P = .41]), which did not differ when stratified by symptom status. Secondary outcomes did not differ by sex, including stroke rates at 30 days (2.2% male vs 1.6% female; P = .80), nor were differences seen with stratification by symptom status. Univariate analysis demonstrated that history of a prior ipsilateral stroke was associated with increased odds of S/D (odds ratio [OR], 4.19; P = .001) and S/D/M (OR, 2.78; P = .01), as was symptomatic presentation with increased odds for S/D (OR, 2.78; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective TCAR trial data demonstrate exceptionally low rates of S/D/MI, which do not differ by patient sex.

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

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

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.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage. RESULTS: A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Association between hospital ownership and patient selection, management, and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting : - Secondary data analysis of the Bavarian statutory quality assurance database.

BACKGROUND: This study analyses the association between hospital ownership and patient selection, treatment, and outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: The analysis is based on the Bavarian subset of the nationwide German statutory quality assurance database. All patients receiving CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis between 2014 and 2018 were included. Hospitals were subdivided into four groups: university hospitals, public hospitals, hospitals owned by charitable organizations, and private hospitals. The primary outcome was any stroke or death until discharge from hospital. Research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). RESULTS: In total, 22,446 patients were included. The majority of patients were treated in public hospitals (62%), followed by private hospitals (17%), university hospitals (16%), and hospitals under charitable ownership (6%). Two thirds of patients were male (68%), and the median age was 72 years. CAS was most often applied in university hospitals (25%) and most rarely used in private hospitals (9%). Compared to university hospitals, patients in private hospitals were more likely asymptomatic (65% vs. 49%). In asymptomatic patients, the risk of stroke or death was 1.3% in university hospitals, 1.5% in public hospitals, 1.0% in hospitals of charitable owners, and 1.2% in private hospitals. In symptomatic patients, these figures were 3.0%, 2.5%, 3.4%, and 1.2% respectively. Univariate analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between hospital groups. In the multivariable analysis, compared to university hospitals, the odds ratio of stroke or death in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA was significantly lower in charitable hospitals (OR 0.19 [95%-CI 0.07-0.56, p = 0.002]) and private hospitals (OR 0.47 [95%-CI 0.23-0.98, p = 0.043]). In symptomatic patients (elective treatment, CEA), patients treated in private or public hospitals showed a significantly lower odds ratio compared to university hospitals (0.36 [95%-CI 0.17-0.72, p = 0.004] and 0.65 [95%-CI 0.42-1.00, p = 0.048], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ownership was related to patient selection and treatment, but not generally to outcomes. The lower risk of stroke or death in the subgroup of electively treated patients in private hospitals might be due to the right timing, the choice of treatment modality or actually to better structural and process quality.

Assessment of Plaque Characteristics by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Stent Restenosis following Carotid Artery Stenting: A Retrospective Study.

Background and objective: carotid artery stenosis contributes significantly to ischemic strokes, with management options including carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) ischemic stroke risk can be reduced. Controversies persist regarding their efficacy and factors influencing complications, and understanding the relationship between atherosclerotic plaque characteristics and stent restenosis after CAS is crucial. Methods: we conducted a retrospective study involving 221 patients who underwent CAS for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Comprehensive assessments of plaque morphology were performed using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) before CAS. Patient demographics, including smoking status and diabetes, were also recorded. Stent restenosis was diagnosed using various imaging modalities, including ultrasound, angiography, and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Results: plaque analysis using CEUS revealed a significant association between plaque grade and restenosis incidence (p < 0.001), particularly with grade 0 (11.1%) and grade 2 plaques (66.7%). Smoking was notably associated with plaque vascularization and restenosis (p < 0.001), while diabetes did not significantly impact plaque characteristics or restenosis risk (p > 0.05). The mean duration of restenosis was 17.67 months. Stenting was the most frequent treatment modality for restenosis (70.6%). However, no significant relationship was found between restenosis type and plaque morphology (p = 0.268). Furthermore, while no clear relationship was observed between plaque morphology and the type of restenosis, our findings underscored the importance of plaque characterization in predicting post-CAS outcomes. Conclusions: this study highlights the utility of CEUS in predicting stent restenosis following CAS. There was a significant association between stent restenosis within 12-24 months after the carotid stenting procedure and an elevated grade of plaque vascularization. Moreover, one of the main factors possibly determining the grade of plaque vascularization was smoking. Further research is warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and refine risk stratification in this patient population.

Transcarotid artery revascularization can safely be performed with regional anesthesia and no intensive care unit stay.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital resource use is under constant review, and the extent and intensity of postoperative care requirements for vascular surgical procedures is particularly relevant in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and its impact on staffed intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of regional anesthesia (RA) and low-intensity postoperative care for patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) at our institution. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR at a single institution from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed. Perioperative management (anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, neurovascular examination, nursing instructions) was standardized by use of an institutional protocol. Anesthetic modality was at the surgeon's preference. Patients were transferred to a postanesthesia care unit for 2 hours followed by the step-down unit, to a postanesthesia care unit for 4 hours followed by the floor, or alternatively transferred to the ICU. Intravenous (IV) blood pressure medications could be administered at all environments except the floor. Recovery location and length of stay were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. The mean age 72 ± 9 years and 59% were male. Thirty-six percent were symptomatic. RA was used for 84% with none converted to general anesthesia (GA) intraoperatively. Postoperatively, 7 of the 83 patients (8%) included in this study were monitored in an ICU overnight (decided perioperatively), mostly for patients with prior neurological symptoms, but in 1 case for postoperative neurological event and in another owing to pulseless electrical activity arrest. Six patients required IV antihypertensives and eight required IV vasoactive support postoperatively. The mean length of ICU stay was 3.7 ± 5.1 days. The mean length of hospital stay for all patients was 2.4 ± 3.3 days. The length of stay for patients undergoing TCAR with GA was higher than those undergoing TCAR with RA (4.2 ± 4.9 days vs 1.4 ± 1.2 days, respectively; P = .066). The incidence of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction was 2.4%. There was one postoperative stroke considered to be a recrudescence of prior stroke, and one respiratory arrest fatality in a frail patient with neck hematoma both of whom were treated under GA. CONCLUSIONS: Using perioperative care protocols, TCAR can safely be performed while avoiding both GA and an ICU stay in most patients.

Sex differences in outcome after carotid revascularization in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Sex differences regarding the safety and efficacy of carotid revascularization in carotid artery stenosis have been addressed in several studies with conflicting results. Moreover, women are underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to limited conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of acute stroke treatments. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by literature search including four databases from January 1985 to December 2021. Sex differences in the efficacy and safety of revascularization procedures, including carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenoses were analyzed. RESULTS: Regarding CEA in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, the stroke risk in men (3.6%) and women (3.9%) based on 99,495 patients (30 studies) did not differ (P = .16). There was also no difference in the stroke risk by different time frames up to 10 years. Compared with men, women treated with CEA had a significantly higher stroke or death rate at 4 months (2 studies, 2565 patients; 7.2% vs 5.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.12; I2 = 0%; P = .03), and a significantly higher rate of restenosis (1 study, 615; 17.2% vs 6.7%; OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.66-4.75; P = .0001). For CAS in symptomatic artery stenosis, data showed a non-significant tendency toward higher peri-procedural stroke in women, whereas for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, data based on 332,344 patients showed that women (compared with men) after CEA had similar rates of stroke, stroke or death, and the composite outcome stroke/death/myocardial infarction. The rate of restenosis at 1 year was significantly higher in women compared with men (1 study, 372 patients; 10.8% vs 3.2%; OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.49-9.2; P = .005). Furthermore, CAS in asymptomatic patients was associated with low risk of a postprocedural stroke in both sexes, but a significantly higher risk of in-hospital myocardial infarction in women than men (8445 patients, 1.2% vs 0.6%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.23-3.28; I2 = 0%; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: A few sex-differences in short-term outcomes after carotid revascularization for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were found, although there were no significant differences in the overall stroke. This indicates a need for larger multicenter prospective studies to evaluate these sex-specific differences. More women, including those aged over 80 years, need to be enrolled in randomized controlled trials, to better understand if sex differences exist and to tailor carotid revascularization accordingly.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome. RESULTS: Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

Adjunctive techniques in endovascular repair of postcarotid endarterectomy pseudoaneurysm: Case report and literature review.

Pseudoaneurysm (PA) following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a rare and dangerous complication. In recent years endovascular approach has been preferred to open surgery as it is less invasive and reduces complications in an already operated neck, especially cranial nerve injuries. We report a case of large post-CEA PA causing dysphagia, successfully treated by deployment of two balloon-expandable covered stents and coil embolization of the external carotid artery. A literature review dealing with all cases of post-CEA PAs since 2000 treated by endovascular means is also reported. The research was conducted on Pubmed database using keywords "carotid pseudoaneurysm after carotid endarterectomy," "false aneurysm after carotid endarterectomy," "postcarotid endarterectomy pseudoaneurysm," and "carotid pseudoaneurysm."

Radial and ulnar approach for carotid artery stenting with Roadsaver™ double layer micromesh stent: Early and long-term follow-up.

AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) with a newly designed double-layer micromesh stent using wrist approach in patients with significant carotid disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2021, 105 patients undergoing CAS with Roadsaver™ stent were enrolled in a single center prospective study. Follow-up assessments included neurological exams, duplex ultrasound (DUS), and 12-lead ECG. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite rate of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints included procedure success, access site complications, device success, target lesion revascularization, and in-stent restenosis evaluated with DUS. Long-term outcomes up to 72 months of follow-up were assessed in all eligible patients. RESULTS: The study population was predominantly male (69.5%) with a median age of 68 ± 8 years. Patients were symptomatic in 80% of the cases, and 35% fulfilled the high-risk criteria for surgical endarterectomy. The right internal carotid artery was the target artery in 56 (53.4%), and the left in 49 (46.6%) of the cases. All procedures were successfully completed from the right wrist, with right radial access in 94 (89.5%) cases and ulnar artery access with previous radial artery occlusion in 11 (10.5%) cases. All patients were treated successfully with the study device. The primary endpoint was met with a 30-day major adverse event rate of 0.9% (1/105). Up to 72 months of follow-up (median 30 ± 20 months) there were no strokes, neurological deaths, or target lesion revascularization of the treated lesion. Doppler ultrasound examination revealed nonsignificant in-stent restenosis in two asymptomatic patients. There was no hand ischemia detected in any patient. CONCLUSION: Results from this study demonstrate the radial and ulnar access for CAS with double layer micromesh Roadsaver™ stent is safe and feasible and associated with favorable early and long-term follow-up.

Carotid Restenosis Rate After Stenting for Primary Lesions Versus Restenosis After Endarterectomy With Creation of Risk Index.

PURPOSE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an option for carotid restenosis (CR) treatment with favorable outcomes. However, CAS has also emerged as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of patients with primary carotid stenosis. This study aimed to report CR rates after CAS was performed in patients with primary lesions versus restenosis after CEA, to identify predictors of CR, and to report both neurological and overall outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to September 2018, a total of 782 patients were divided into 2 groups: The CAS (prim) group consisted of 440 patients in whom CAS was performed for primary lesions, and the CAS (res) group consisted of 342 patients with CAS due to restenosis after CEA. Indications for CAS were symptomatic stenosis/restenosis >70% and asymptomatic stenosis/restenosis >85%. A color duplex scan (CDS) of carotid arteries was performed 6 months after CAS, after 1 year, and annually afterward. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 88 months, with a mean follow-up of 34.6±18.0 months. RESULTS: There were no differences in terms of CR rate between the patients in the CAS (prim) and CAS (res) groups (8.7% vs 7.2%, χ2=0.691, p=0.406). The overall CR rate was 7.9%, whereas significant CR (>70%) rate needing re-intervention was 5.6%, but there was no difference between patients in the CAS (prim) and CAS (res) groups (6.4% vs 4.7%, p=0.351). Six independent predictors for CR were smoking, associated previous myocardial infarction and angina pectoris, plaque morphology, spasm after CAS, the use of FilterWire or Spider Fx cerebral protection devices, and time after stenting. A carotid restenosis risk index (CRRI) was created based on these predictors and ranged from -7 (minimal risk) to +10 (maximum risk); patients with a score >-4 were at increased risk for CR. There were no differences in terms of neurological and overall morbidity and mortality between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in CR rate after CAS between the patients with primary stenosis and restenosis after CEA. A CRRI score >-4 is a criterion for identifying high-risk patients for post-CAS CR that should be tested in future randomized trials.

Feasibility of Intravascular Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Calcified Supra-Aortic Vessels: A Case Report and Literature Review.

PURPOSE: To report a case of coronary-subclavian steal syndrome (CSSS) due to a history of a left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) artery coronary bypass (CABG) and a heavily calcified ostial left subclavian artery (LSA) occlusion, that was treated with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) technique and to summarize the current trends of IVL treatment for supra-aortic vessels. CASE REPORT: A 64-year-old woman with progressive intermittent angina pectoris and a history of LIMA to LAD bypass underwent coronary angiography which demonstrated complete ostial occlusion of the LSA. Via brachial access, the patient underwent Shockwave IVL balloon treatment of the LSA and stent-graft implantation. At 9 months follow-up, the patient showed symptoms resolution, and duplex ultrasound (DUS) demonstrated a patent LSA. CONCLUSIONS: The Shockwave IVL system was demonstrated to be a feasible treatment and justified for selective cases of highly calcified lesions in supra-aortic vessels. The present case report and the literature review, in a total of 47 patients resulted in a high technical procedural success rate, with a low rate of complications. Future studies with larger cohorts are warranted to confirm these findings and standardize this technology in this particular vascular field. CLINICAL IMPACT: The present study exemplifies a case of recanalization of the left subclavian artery in a patient with coronary-subclavian steal syndrome with a heavily calcified ostial lesion treated with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). In this paper, for the first time, a review of the contemporary literature on the use of IVL in supra-aortic vessels is reported, elucidating the feasibility of this technique in this vascular territory. Despite the heterogeneous features of the reported cases and the lack of a standardized protocol for the use of IVL in the management of highly calcified lesions of supra-aortic vessels, it was demonstrated to be a feasible technique, with a high technical success rate, being an advantageous tool for heavily calcified supra-aortic lesions.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Management of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS), including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), and best medical treatment (BMT), remains inconsistent in current practice. Early studies reported a benefit of CEA vs. BMT; however, the current risk-benefit profile of invasive therapy lacks consensus. By evaluating the effects of modern BMT vs. invasive intervention on patient outcomes, this study aimed to influence the future management of ACAS. METHODS: A systematic review and series of network meta-analyses were performed assessing peri-operative (within 30 days) and long term (30 days - 5 years) stroke and mortality risk between ACAS interventions. Total stroke, major, minor, ipsilateral, and contralateral stroke subtypes were assessed independently. Traditional (pre-2000) and modern (post-2000) BMT were compared to assess clinical improvements in medical therapy over the previous two decades. Risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were also assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen reports of 14 310 patients with > 50% ACAS were included. CEA reduced the odds of a peri-operative stroke event occurring vs. CAS (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 2.2 [0 - 20 fewer/1 000]). CEA and CAS reduced the long term odds of minor strokes (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 - 0.59 [20 fewer/1 000]) and ipsilateral strokes (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.39 [30 fewer/1 000]) vs. all BMT. CEA reduced the odds of major strokes and combined stroke and mortality vs. traditional BMT; however, no difference was found between CEA and modern BMT. CAS reduced the odds of peri-operative MI (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0. 26 - 0.91) and CNI (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 - 0.42) vs. CEA. CONCLUSION: Modern BMT demonstrates similar reductions in major stroke, combined stroke, and mortality to CEA. The overall risk reductions are low and data were unavailable to assess subgroups which may benefit from intervention. However, BMT carries the potential to reduce the requirement for surgical intervention in patients with ACAS.

Thrombosis or vasospasm: The utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring during TCAR.

OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has become more prevalent as a treatment modality for carotid stenosis. Many centers perform TCAR without any adjunctive neuromonitoring, for example, somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG). METHODS: We present a case of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with concomitant somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG) neuromonitoring in the setting of concerning intraoperative angiographic images. RESULTS: TCAR was undertaken for a 58 year-old man presenting with symptomatic left carotid stenosis and right ICA occlusion. Based on his comorbidities, pre-existing conditions, and the need for dual antiplatelet therapy, TCAR was offered as an alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy. Intraoperatively, following stent delivery, no flow was appreciated through the carotid stent or distal ICA. Neuromonitoring remained stable and was reassuring for distal ICA spasm with no-reflow phenomenon. The patient tolerated the procedure well and has had no stent-related complications through 10 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the utility of neuromonitoring with TCAR as an adjunct to intraoperative decision-making in the setting of suspected internal carotid artery (ICA) vasospasm versus thrombosis after stent delivery.

Effectiveness of carotid council in the treatment of carotid artery disease: Early-term outcomes of the multidisciplinary approach.

OBJECTIVES: Carotid arterial stenosis could be treated by surgical or percutaneous stenting. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the carotid council on the outcomes of patients with carotid artery disease. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the patients who had undergone carotid arterial revascularization from April 2014 to July 2022 in our hospital. All patients were evaluated in carotid council, which is constituted by neurologist, cardiologist and cardiovascular surgeon. Patient-specific treatment procedure was decided in the council. Demographics and early-term follow-up results of the patients were evaluated. RESULTS: Totally 95 procedures in 85 patients were analyzed during the study period. 27.4 % of the patients had significant contralateral carotid arterial stenosis. In 88 (92.6%) procedures, patients were treated by carotid endarterectomy, and 5 procedures were performed under regional anesthesia. Shunt usage was 6.0% during the surgery, and arteriotomy was repaired with primary sutures in 87.3%. Stent implantation was performed in 7 patients. There were 5 neurological adverse events after the carotid endarterectomy and 2 neurological events were after carotid arterial stenting. In each treatment group, one patient died after the procedure. In the follow-up period, restenosis was observed just in a patient who was treated with carotid endarterectomy and primary repair. CONCLUSION: Although carotid artery disease could be treated in accordance with the guidelines, treatment procedures should be patient-specific. Carotid councils might be helpful in giving patient-specific decisions, thereby providing the patient-based treatment procedure and improving the outcomes of the patients with carotid artery disease.

Neuroprotective association of preoperative renin-angiotensin system blocking agents use in patients undergoing carotid interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal medical management strategy in the periprocedural period for patients undergoing carotid artery interventions is not well described. Renin-angiotensin-system blocking (RASB) agents are considered to be among the first line anti-hypertensive agents; however, their role in the perioperative period is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of RASB agents on periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing carotid interventions-carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS), and transcervical carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). METHOD: The Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative database was queried for all patients undergoing CAS, CEA, and TCAR between 2003 and 2020. Patients were stratified into two groups based upon their use of RASB agents in the periprocedural period. The primary endpoint was periprocedural neurologic events (including both strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs)). The secondary endpoints were peri-procedural mortality and significant cardiac events, including myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, and congestive heart failure. RESULTS: Over 150,000 patients were included in the analysis: 13,666 patients underwent TCAR, 13,811 underwent CAS, and 125,429 underwent CEA for carotid artery stenosis. Overall, 52.2% of patients were maintained on RASB agents. Among patients undergoing CEA, patients on RASB agents had a significantly lower rate of periprocedural neurologic events (1.7% versus 2.0%, p =0.001). The peri-procedural neurological event rate in the TCAR cohort was similarly reduced in those treated with RASB agents, but did not reach statistical significance (2.0% vs 2.4%, p = 0.162). Among patients undergoing CAS, there was no difference in perioperative neurologic events between the RASB treated and untreated cohorts (3.4% vs 3.2%, p = 0.234); however, the use of RASB agents was significantly associated with lower mortality (1.2% vs 1.7%, p =0.001) with CAS. The use of preoperative RAS-blocking agents did not appear to affect the overall rates of adverse cardiac events with any of the three carotid intervention types, or periprocedural mortality following CEA or TCAR. On multivariable analysis, the use of RAS-blocking agents was independently associated with lower rates of post-procedural neurologic events in patients undergoing CEA (OR 0.819, CI 0.747-0.898; p = 0.01) and TCAR (OR 0.869, CI 0.768-0.984; p = 0.026), but not in those undergoing CAS (OR 0.967, CI 0.884-1.057; p = 0.461). CONCLUSION: The use of peri-procedural RASB agents was associated with a significantly decreased rate of neurologic events in patients undergoing both CEA and TCAR. This effect was not observed in patients undergoing CAS. As carotid interventions warrant absolute minimization of perioperative complications in order to provide maximum efficacy with regard to stroke protection, the potential neuro-protective effect associated with RASB agents use following CEA and TCAR warrants further examination.

Eptifibatide, an Older Therapeutic Peptide with New Indications: From Clinical Pharmacology to Everyday Clinical Practice.

Therapeutic peptides are oligomers or short polymers of amino acids used for various medical purposes. Peptide-based treatments have evolved considerably due to new technologies, stimulating new research interests. They have been shown to be beneficial in a variety of therapeutic applications, notably in the treatment of cardiovascular disorders such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). ACS is characterized by coronary artery wall damage and consequent formation of an intraluminal thrombus obstructing one or more coronary arteries, leading to unstable angina, non-ST elevated myocardial infarction, and ST-elevated myocardial infarction. One of the promising peptide drugs in the treatment of these pathologies is eptifibatide, a synthetic heptapeptide derived from rattlesnake venom. Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that blocks different pathways in platelet activation and aggregation. In this narrative review, we summarized the current evidence on the mechanism of action, clinical pharmacology, and applications of eptifibatide in cardiology. Additionally, we illustrated its possible broader usage with new indications, including ischemic stroke, carotid stenting, intracranial aneurysm stenting, and septic shock. Further research is, however, required to fully evaluate the role of eptifibatide in these pathologies, independently and in comparison to other medications.

Outcomes of carotid artery stenting in patients with radiation arteritis compared with those with atherosclerotic disease.

OBJECTIVE: Head and neck malignancies are often treated with radiotherapy (RT). Nearly 80% of patients who have undergone RT will develop carotid radiation arteritis to some degree and 29% will develop stenosis >50%. Surgery in a radiated neck has higher rates of complications, and carotid artery stenting (CAS) has become the primary therapy. The outcomes for CAS in patients with radiation arteritis have not been rigorously evaluated. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the differences in perioperative outcomes, restenosis rates, the need for reintervention, and freedom from mortality between RT patients and patients with atherosclerotic disease who had undergone CAS. METHODS: The national Vascular Quality Initiative CAS dataset from 2016 to 2019 comprised the sample for analyses (n = 7343). The primary independent variable was previous head and/or neck RT. The primary endpoint was the interval to mortality. The secondary endpoints were the cumulative incidence of restenosis (>50% and >70% by duplex ultrasound) and reintervention. We also examined the following secondary perioperative endpoints: myocardial infarction, in-hospital mortality (death before discharge), neurologic events, ipsilateral stroke, and contralateral stroke. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess for mortality, and cumulative incidence function estimates were used for the nonfatal endpoints. RESULTS: Of the 7218 patients, 1199 (17%) had undergone prior RT. We found a significant difference in the 3-year estimates of mortality for those with and without prior RT (9.4% and 7.5%, respectively; P = .03). Furthermore, on adjusted analysis, we observed a 58% increase in the risk of mortality for those with prior RT (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.21). We did not observe any differences in the risk of perioperative complications (myocardial infarction, in-hospital mortality, ipsilateral or contralateral stroke), restenosis (>50% or >70%), or reintervention for the prior RT group compared with those without RT. CONCLUSIONS: The CAS patients with RT had significantly greater mortality at all time points compared with those without RT, even after adjusting for other covariates. No significant difference was found in the incidence of perioperative complications, reintervention, or restenosis between the two groups. The present study is unique because of the large sample size and length of follow-up. The results suggest that for this high-risk group, CAS provides the same patency as it does for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis and avoids potentially morbid cranial nerve injury and wound healing complications.

Carotid endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) has gained popularity as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), potentially combining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of procedural stroke compared with TFCAS. Emerging evidence shows TCAR to have excellent perioperative outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of TCAR is not well-understood. METHODS: Incorporating data from Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST), the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project, and local cost data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of these three treatment modalities (TFCAS, CEA, and TCAR) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in United States dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We accounted for perioperative stroke and myocardial infarction, as well as long-term risks of stroke and restenosis. Based on CREST, we assumed a start age of 69 years and a cost-effectiveness acceptability threshold of $100,000/QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, TCAR cost $160,642/QALY gained compared with CEA, greater than the frequently cited $100,000/QALY gained threshold. TFCAS was more expensive and less effective than other strategies, largely due to a greater periprocedural stroke risk. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if TCAR stroke risk was <0.9% (base-case risk, 1.4%), than it was economically favorable compared with CEA at its current procedural cost. Alternatively, if TCAR procedural costs were reduced by approximately $2000 (base-case cost, $15,182), it would also become economically favorable. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously over distributions, CEA was favored in 80% of model iterations at $100,000/QALY, with TCAR favored in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: At current cost and outcomes, TCAR does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold to replace CEA as the primary treatment modality for carotid stenosis. TFCAS is the least cost-effective strategy for carotid revascularization. Given these observations, TCAR should be limited to select patients, specifically those at high physiologic and anatomic risk from CEA. However, TCAR can become cost-effective if its cost is reduced. Given the current outcomes and cost, CEA remains the most cost-effective treatment for carotid revascularization.