Comparison of Complications and Cost for Transfemoral Versus Transcarotid Stenting of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Options for endovascular treatment of carotid artery disease have been developed to compliment with carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and a hybrid approach with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We sought to capture endpoints outside of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death involved with each procedure at our institution as well as evaluate cost. METHODS: Carotid stent procedures performed from 2014 to 2020 at our institution underwent comparative analysis based upon access site and type of stent procedure performed, TFCAS versus TCAR. Procedural details and outcomes were captured prospectively and included in the National Cardiovascular Data Peripheral Vascular Intervention Registry (NCDR-PVI). Further retrospective review was performed to evaluate endpoints beyond stroke, MI, and death. Total in-hospital cost, including administrative, capital and utilities (fixed cost), and labor and supplies (variable cost) were also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were reviewed. Seventy-seven were treated with TFCAS and 60 with TCAR. The mean age was 74 years, predominantly male (68%) and Caucasian (90%). Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic compared to those receiving TCAR (81.8% vs. 50.0%, P = <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in event rates, including mortality, recurrent cerebrovascular accident / transient ischemic attack, or bleeding. Complications not captured in the NCDR-PVI database were more frequent in the TCAR group (21.7% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.004) and included pneumothorax (n = 2), neck hematoma (n = 8), and common carotid artery stenosis or injury (n = 3). Rates of complications in the TFCAS group (n = 4) were lower and limited to groin hematoma (n = 2), central retinal artery occlusion causing vision loss and a case of postoperative dysphagia. Geographic miss of initial stent placement was identified in 15.0% of TCAR patients and 2.6% (P = 0.008) of TFCAS patients. Restenosis rates on duplex ultrasound were similar between the two groups (14.6% of patients) and were not associated with symptoms. The mean follow-up interval was similar for both groups of 31.8 months for TCAR and 30.7 months for TFCAS (P = 0.797). There was a statistically significant difference in total cost with TCAR being more expensive ($22,315 vs. $11,001) driven by direct costs that included devices, imaging, and extended length of stay in the TCAR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between stroke free survival (91.1% vs. 88.6%, P = 0.69) and mortality (78.1% vs. 85.2%, P = 0.677) at 3 years follow-up between TCAR and TFCAS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both TFCAS and TCAR provide similar 3-year stroke and mortality risk/benefit and are distinctly different procedures. Both should be evaluated independently with analysis of variables beyond stroke, death, and MI. TFCAS is more cost-effective than TCAR in this single institution study.

Assessment of recurrent mesenteric ischemia after stenting with a pressure wire.

Chronic mesenteric artery ischemia can be difficult to evaluate after stent placement. This case describes the use of a pressure wire to demonstrate the hemodynamic significance of in-stent restenosis. Papaverine was used to vasodilate the mesenteric bed, mimicking the post-prandial state. The study (arteriography with pressure wire) and retreatment (covered balloon-expandable stent) was driven by recurrent symptoms avoiding unnecessary ancillary testing.

A direct comparison of early and late outcomes with three approaches to carotid revascularization and open heart surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was a comparison of risk-adjusted outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the open heart surgery (OHS) population. BACKGROUND: Without randomized clinical trials, the best approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains uncertain. Staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA) followed by OHS or combined CEA and OHS are commonly used. A recent alternative is carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, 350 patients underwent carotid revascularization within 90 days before OHS at a tertiary center: 45 staged CEA-OHS, 195 combined CEA-OHS, and 110 staged CAS-OHS. The primary composite endpoint was all-cause death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Staged CAS-OHS patients had higher prevalence of previous stroke (p = 0.03) and underwent more complex OHS. Therefore, the propensity score adjusted multiphase hazard function models with modulated renewal to account for staging, and competing risks were used. RESULTS: Using propensity analysis, staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS had similar early hazard phase composite outcomes, whereas staged CEA-OHS incurred the highest risk driven by interstage MI. Subsequently, staged CAS-OHS patients experienced significantly fewer late hazard phase events compared with both staged CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and combined CEA-OHS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.70; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Staged CAS-OHS and combined CEA-OHS are associated with a similar risk of death, stroke, or MI in the short term, with both being better than staged CEA-OHS. However, the outcomes significantly favor staged CAS-OHS after the first year.