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.

Predictors of 30-Day Stroke and Death After Transcarotid Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Much of the previous robust analyses of the results associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) derives from industry-sponsored trials or the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). This investigation was performed to identify preoperative predictors of 30-day stroke and death using institutional databases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of carotid revascularization databases created at two high-volume TCAR centers and maintained independently of the VQI carotid module between December 2015 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate regression analyses, followed by multivariate regression analyses, were performed to identify potential predictors of adverse events. RESULTS: During the study period, 750 TCAR procedures were performed at our combined health systems, resulting in 24 (3.2%) individuals who experienced either stroke and/or death in the perioperative period. Of these, we observed nine (1.2%) mortality events and 18 (2.4%) strokes. On univariate analysis, candidate protectors of stroke/death were found to be coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.01; P = 0.05) and protamine reversal (0.51; 0.21-1.21; P = 0.15). Candidate predictors of the primary outcome were anticoagulant usage (3.03; 1.26-7.24; P = 0.01), postprocedural debris in the filter (2.30; 0.97-5.43; P = 0.06), symptomatic carotid lesion (2.03; 0.90-4.50), and cardiac arrhythmia (1.98; 0.80-4.03; P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, two predictors remained, cardiac arrhythmia (4.21; 1.10-16.16; P = 0.04) and symptomatic carotid lesion (14.49; 1.80-116.94; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A symptomatic carotid lesion, and to a lesser extent cardiac arrhythmia, are strong predictors of 30-day stroke/death after TCAR. Surgeons should be cognizant of the increased risk of adverse events in the perioperative period in these patients.

Transcarotid revascularization in obese patients.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive hybrid surgical carotid stenting technique which utilizes cerebral flow reversal as embolic protection during carotid lesion manipulation. This investigation was performed to define the perioperative risks associated with this operation in the obese patient. METHODS: A retrospective review of tandem carotid revascularization databases maintained at two high-volume health systems was performed to capture all TCARs performed between 2015 and 2022. A threshold of body mass index of 35 kg/m2 defined the "obese" patient. Demographics, intraoperative, perioperative, and follow-up characteristics were compared using univariate analysis. RESULTS: We performed 793 TCAR procedures that qualified for study inclusion within the prespecified time. After applying our obesity definition, 129 patients qualified as obese and were compared to the remainder. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics as comparable Charlson Comorbidity Indices were noted between groups; however, obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. Intraoperative, case complexity in the obese patients did not seem to be increased, as measured by operative time (68.4 ± 23.0 vs 64.2 ± 25.8 min, p = 0.09), fluoroscopic time (4.9 ± 3.2 vs 4.6 ± 3.6 min, p = 0.38), and estimated blood loss (40.6 ± 49.0 vs 46.6 ± 49.4 min, p = 0.22). Similarly, no disparities were observed with respect to ipsilateral stroke (3.1 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.29), contralateral stroke (0 vs. 0.2%, p > 0.99), death (0 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.61), and stroke/death (3.1 vs. 3.0%, p > 0.99) in the 30-day perioperative period. Both cohorts were followed for approximately 1 year (12.0 ± 13.4 vs 11.6 ± 13.4 months, p = 0.76). During this period, rates of ipsilateral stroke (3.1% vs. 2.7%, p > 0.99), contralateral stroke (1.1 vs. 0.8%, p > 0.99), and death (4.7 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.68) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: TCAR performed in the obese population was not more challenging by intraoperative characteristics and did not result in a statistically higher incidence of adverse events in the perioperative phase.

Prediction of postprocedural filter debris after transcarotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a technique in which cerebral flow reversal is utilized as embolic protection during carotid stenting. The presence, or absence, of filter debris created during TCAR could potentially be a surrogate to characterize carotid lesions at high risk for embolization and, therefore, explored in this investigation. METHODS: A retrospective review of TCARs performed within the Indiana University and Memorial Hermann (McGovern Medical School at UTHealth) Health Systems to capture demographics and preoperative variables. A mixed effect multivariate logistic regression model was created to discern the best predictors of intraoperative filter debris. RESULTS: During the study period, from December 2015 to December 2021, we captured filter debris status in 693 of 750 patients containing 323 cases of filter embolization at case completion. With respect to demographics and indications, we found a higher incidence of neck radiation (2.7 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.01) and a more pronounced Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; 5.3 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.3, p < 0.01) in the filter debris cohort while contralateral carotid occlusion (6.6 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.05) and clopidogrel usage (87.3 vs. 80.1%, p = 0.03) were less common. Longer intraoperative flow reversal (8.0 ± 1.2 vs 10.5 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) and fluoroscopy time (4.0 ± 0.6 vs 5.1 ± 0.6, p < 0.01) were also seen in those with filter debris. These findings remained when a mixed effect univariate logistic regression model was used to account for differences in filter debris reporting between locations. After multivariable modeling, we found that reverse flow time and CCI remained predictive of filter debris while the presence of a contralateral carotid occlusion was still protective. CONCLUSION: In our combined experience, the creation of visible filter debris after TCAR seems to be independently associated with extended reverse flow time and elevated CCI while a contralateral carotid occlusion was protective.

Learning curve and proficiency metrics for transcarotid artery revascularization.

BACKGROUND: When introduced to a new procedure, physicians improve their performance and reduce their procedural adverse event rates rapidly during the initial cases and then improvement slows, signaling that proficiency has been achieved. Determining when they have acquired proficiency has important implications for procedural innovation, education, credentialing, and patient safety. We analyzed the worldwide experience with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), a hybrid approach to carotid revascularization, to identify the (1) procedural performance measures associated with clinical and technical adverse events; (2) target levels of performance measures that minimize adverse event rates; and (3) number of TCAR cases needed to achieve the target levels for the performance measures. METHODS: The patient, lesion, and physician characteristics were collected for each TCAR procedure performed by each physician worldwide in an international quality assurance database. Four procedural performance measures were recorded for each procedure: flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and total skin-to-skin time. Composite clinical adverse events (ie, transient ischemic attack, stroke, myocardial infarction, death) and composite technical adverse events (ie, aborted procedure, conversion to surgery, bleeding, dissection, cranial nerve injury, device failure), occurring within 24 hours were also recorded. Correlations between each performance measure and the clinical and technical adverse event rates were computed. The inflection points in the performance measures were identified at which no further improvements occurred in the adverse event rates. Finally, the minimum number of TCAR cases required to achieve the target performance measure levels was computed. RESULTS: A total of 18,240 procedures performed by 1273 physicians were analyzed. Of the 18,240 patients, 34.9% were women and 62.5% were asymptomatic. The flow-reversal time correlated with clinical adverse events adjusted for age, sex, and symptomatic status (R2 = 0.91; P < .0001) and adjusted technical adverse events (R2 = 0.86; P < .0001). The skin-to-skin time correlated with adjusted technical adverse events (R2 = 0.92; P < .0001). A reduction in flow-reversal times to <13.1 minutes and the skin-to-skin time to <81 minutes did not translate into further improvements in the adverse event rates. A minimum of 26 TCAR cases was required to achieve the target flow-reversal time, and a minimum of 15 cases was required to achieve the target skin-to-skin time. CONCLUSIONS: The flow-reversal time and skin-to-skin time are appropriate performance measures for establishing the level of expertise of physicians as they acquire skills to perform TCAR. A target time of ≤13.1 minutes for flow-reversal and 81 minutes for skin-to-skin time minimized the adverse event rates. Familiarity with the steps involved in performing TCAR was achieved after ≥15 cases, and minimizing clinical adverse events occurred after ≥26 cases.

Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures. RESULTS: A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR.

Adverse events are not increased with trainee participation in transcarotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a vascular surgery trainee's participation in transcarotid revascularization (TCAR), a new technology, affects patient safety and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective, institutional review of our carotid database was performed. Patients who underwent TCAR were stratified based on whether a vascular trainee was present during the procedure. Relevant demographics, comorbidities, anatomical indication, perioperative courses, and adverse events in the postoperative period were captured for statistical analysis. SETTING: Data were obtained from affiliated Memorial Hermann Hospitals in Houston, Texas. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent TCAR from September 2017 to January 2022 were included. RESULTS: Of 486 patients who underwent TCAR, 173 (35.6%) were performed in the presence of a trainee, and 313 (64.4%) were performed without a trainee. Subjects in the trainee cohort had more challenging anatomy, defined as a higher rate of carotid bifurcation above C2, restenotic disease, previous ipsilateral neck dissection, and neck radiation. The trainee cohort had higher rates of estimated blood loss (61.1 ± 66 vs. 35.5 ± 39 mL, p < 0.01), longer operative time (64.8 ± 30.3 vs. 57.9 ± 20.4 min, p < .01), longer cerebral blood flow reversal time (8.9 ± 6.1 vs. 7.9 ± 6.6 min, p = .01), and higher contrast administration (25.7 ± 12.0 vs. 21.1 ± 9.4 mL, p < .01). The ability to achieve technical success was similar between the two cohorts. There was no difference in the rates of cranial nerve palsy, ipsilateral stroke, hematoma, and stent thrombosis. Hospital length of stay, death (0% vs. 1.6%, p = .10), and stroke (1.1% vs. 2.8%, p = .22) were also similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Vascular surgery trainee's involvement during TCAR did not increase adverse outcomes, such as stroke and death, in the perioperative period. The results presented herein should encourage other teaching institutions to provide surgical trainees with supervised, hands-on experience during TCAR.

Low-frequency avoidable errors during transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) seems to be a safe and effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). The TCAR system represents a paradigm shift in the management of carotid artery stenosis with potential for a significant decrease in periprocedural morbidity. However, as with CEA or TF-CAS, TCAR is associated with infrequent complications related to user technical error, most of which are preventable. Our goal is to describe these low-frequency events, and to provide guidelines for avoiding them. METHODS: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all medical device manufacturers create a system for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints (Code 21 of Federal Regulations 820.198). Silk Road Medical, Inc (Sunnyvale, Calif), has established a process by which all feedback, including complaints that may not meet FDA criteria, is captured and stored in a database for detailed analysis. More than 13,300 cases have been performed; submitted complaints were reviewed for incidents of serious injury and periprocedural complications, above and beyond the device-related events that must be reported to the FDA. RESULTS: A total of 13,334 patients have undergone TCAR worldwide between early 2011 and December 2019 using the SilkRoad device. Reported complications included 173 dissections (1.4% overall rate) of the common carotid artery at the access point, of which 22.5% were managed without intervention or with medical therapy alone and 24.3% were converted to CEA (considered failing safely). Errors in the location of stent deployment occurred in 16 cases (0.13%), with the most common site being the external carotid artery (75%). One wrong side carotid artery stent was placed in a patient with a high midline pattern of the bovine arch. Cranial nerve injury was reported in 11 cases (0.08%), only one of which persisted beyond 3 months. There have been three reported pneumothoraces and one reported chylothorax. Many of these errors can be recognized and prevented with careful attention to detail. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients requiring treatment for carotid artery stenosis, TCAR has been proven as an alternative to TF-CAS with an excellent safety profile. As with CEA or TF-CAS, this procedure has the potential for infrequent complications, often as a result of user technical error. Although significant, these events can be avoided through a review of the collective experience to date and recognition of potential pitfalls, as we have described.

Clinical competence statement of the Society for Vascular Surgery on training and credentialing for transcarotid artery revascularization.

As the practice of medicine grows in complexity, the process of defining the expertise required for the competent execution of specific procedures has also become complex. The Society for Vascular Surgery therefore constituted a task force to provide informed recommendations on the knowledge, technical skills, resources, and infrastructure required to obtain and to maintain privileges for the safe and effective performance of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). The TCAR procedure is being adopted rapidly, and it is therefore important that informed guidance be available expeditiously. Formal training in the pathophysiology and diagnosis of carotid occlusive disease and all management options is essential. Appropriate diagnostic, imaging, endovascular, surgical, and monitoring infrastructure is required, as are resources to maintain quality control. Credentialing and privileging require a combination of both open surgical and endovascular skills. As such, physicians must have hospital privileges to perform carotid endarterectomy. They should attend an appropriate program for education and simulated training in TCAR. In addition, physicians must have performed ≥25 endovascular procedures as the primary operator using low-profile rapid-exchange platforms plus ≥5 TCAR procedures as the primary operator (pathway 1); or they may have acquired ≥25 endovascular procedures as the primary operator using low-profile rapid-exchange platforms and a supplement of 5 TCAR procedures under proctored guidance if they have not performed sufficient TCAR procedures (pathway 2); or a team of two physicians can collaborate, combining the endovascular and surgical requirements plus at least 5 TCAR procedures under proctored guidance (pathway 3).

Anatomic criteria in the selection of treatment modality for atherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Three procedures are currently available to treat atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis: carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Although there is considerable debate evaluating each of these in a head-to-head comparison to determine superiority, little has been mentioned concerning the specific anatomic criteria that make one more appropriate. We conducted a study to define anatomic criteria in relation to inclusion and exclusion criteria and relative contraindications. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 448 carotid arteries from 224 consecutive patients who underwent a neck and head computed tomography arteriography (CTA) scan before carotid intervention for significant carotid artery stenosis. Occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) occurred in 15, yielding 433 arteries for analysis. Anatomic data were collected from CTA images and demographic and comorbidities from chart review. Eligibility for CEA, TF-CAS, and TCAR was defined on the basis of anatomy, not by comorbidity. RESULTS: CTA analysis revealed that 92 of 433 arteries (21%) were ineligible for CEA because of carotid lesions extending cephalad to the second cervical vertebra. Overall, 26 arteries (6.0%) were not eligible for any type of carotid artery stent because of small ICA diameter (n = 11), heavy circumferential calcium (n = 14), or combination (n = 1). An additional 126 arteries were ineligible for TF-CAS on the basis of a hostile aortic arch (n = 115) or severe distal ICA tortuosity (n = 11), yielding 281 arteries (64.9%) that were eligible. In addition to the 26 arteries ineligible for any carotid stent, TCAR was contraindicated in 39 because of a clavicle to bifurcation distance <5 cm (n = 17), common carotid artery diameter <6 mm (n = 3), or significant plaque at the TCAR sheath access site (n = 20), yielding 368 arteries (85.0%) that were eligible for TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients who present with carotid artery stenosis have anatomy that makes one or more carotid interventions contraindicated or less desirable. Anatomic factors should play a key role in selecting the most appropriate procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis. Determination of superiority for one procedure over another should be tempered until anatomic criteria have been assessed to select the best procedural options for each patient.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal.

PURPOSE: To report a study evaluating the safety and efficacy of stenting via direct carotid access with flow reversal using the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System. METHODS: Between March 2009 and June 2012, 75 patients (mean age 72.6 years; 45 men) underwent carotid artery stenting with the ENROUTE System; the majority of patients (63, 84%) were asymptomatic. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 30 days. Efficacy outcomes included acute device success, procedure success, and tolerance to flow reversal. Fifty-six (74.7%) patients underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) before and after the procedure to assess the development of new ischemic brain lesions. RESULTS: Acute device and procedure success were achieved in 68 (90.6%) patients. The reverse flow circuit was established in 71 (94.6%) patients; only 5 patients demonstrated transient intolerance to flow reversal that did not interfere with completion of the procedure. The mean time on flow reversal was 19.1 minutes. In the DW-MRI substudy, 10 (17.9%) of 56 patients had ipsilateral new white lesions with a mean volume of 0.17 mL. At 30 days, no major stroke, myocardial infarction, or death occurred; 1 patient had experienced a minor stroke that was adjudicated as not related to either the device or procedure. CONCLUSION: Results of the PROOF study demonstrate the safety and efficacy of transcarotid revascularization with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System.

Trans-Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70-1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18-2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59-6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40-2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46-1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47-1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.

Transcarotid Revascularization Results in Patients Over 70 Years of Age.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy is associated with fewer procedure-related strokes than transfemoral carotid artery stenting in older populations, based on the results from previous quality randomized controlled studies. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid procedure completed in the setting of cerebral flow reversal to deploy a stent, making it an appealing choice for older patients. This study was completed to elicit any age-related differences in outcomes after undergoing TCAR in patients 70 years of age and older. METHODS: A retrospective review was completed of a dual institutional database between December 2015 and April 2022 to capture demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative results. The geriatric cohort was defined at a cutoff of 70 years. Univariate statistical testing between groups were completed with Student's T-test or Fisher's exact test at an α of .05 for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: 851 procedures were captured for statistical analysis. With age cutoff of 70 years, we generated 567 geriatric (78.4 ± 5.7 years) and 284 young (63.2 ± 5.7 years) patients. The older patients tended to have more baseline illness, as measured by a higher rate Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.4 ± 2.2 vs 6.0 ± 2.1, P < .01). Younger patients tended to be actively smoking (42.3% vs 17.6%, P < .01). Intraoperative variables were grossly similar by age, including blood loss (43.0 ± 45.0 vs 45.7 ± 50.3 mLs, P = .45), reverse flow time (9.0 ± 7.4 vs 9.0 ± 6.7 mins, P = .98), and technical success (98.9% vs 98.6%, P = .76). While we observed an increased rate of stroke in the older patients, this did not reach statistical significance (1.4% vs 2.6%, P = .33). There were no differences between age groups with respect to myocardial infarction (0% vs .5%, P = .55) and death (1.1% vs 1.1%, P > .99) in the 30-day perioperative period. CONCLUSION: We found that TCAR was not associated with age-related increases in adverse outcomes and can be considered a viable option when treating carotid artery stenosis in patients older than 70 years of age.

Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid Artery Disease: A Brief Overview and Update.

Extracranial carotid atherosclerotic disease has been associated with approximately 15%-20% of ischemic stroke cases and is a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide. Medical, surgical, and endovascular therapies for the prevention of stroke from carotid disease have advanced considerably over the past quarter century. The objective of this review is to outline the clinical presentation of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and the risk factors associated with development of carotid artery stenosis and then summarize the current evidence-based medical treatment modalities, along with available surgical and endovascular therapies.