Long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy vs transfemoral carotid stenting in a Medicare-matched database.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. However, there is discrepancy in data regarding long-term outcomes. We aimed to compare long-term outcomes of CEA vs TFCAS using the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database. METHODS: We assessed patients undergoing first-time CEA or TFCAS in Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular-Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network from January 2003 to December 2018. Patients with prior history of carotid revascularization, nontransfemoral stenting, stenting performed without distal embolic protection, multiple or nonatherosclerotic lesions, or concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality, any stroke, and a combined end point of death or stroke. We additionally performed propensity score matching and stratification based on symptomatic status. RESULTS: A total of 80,146 carotid revascularizations were performed, of which 72,615 were CEA and 7531 were TFCAS. CEA was associated with significantly lower risk of death (57.8% vs 70.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.52; P < .001), stroke (21.3% vs 26.6%; aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; P < .001) and combined end point of death and stroke (65.3% vs 76.5%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55; P < .001) at 10 years. These findings were reflected in the propensity-matched cohort (combined end point: 34.6% vs 46.8%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62) at 4 years, as well as stratified analyses of combined end point by symptomatic status (asymptomatic: 63.2% vs 74.9%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; P < .001; symptomatic: 69.9% vs 78.3%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59; P < .001) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of North American real-world data, CEA was associated with greater long-term survival and fewer strokes compared with TFCAS. These findings support the continued use of CEA as the first-line revascularization procedure.

Carotid Endarterectomy Should Not Be Recommended to End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid artery disease is advised for patients with low perioperative stroke risk and life expectancy of 3-5 years. We sought to explore the role of risk stratification and postoperative medical management in identifying appropriate asymptomatic candidates for CEA in the end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) population. METHODS: We identified ESKD patients on dialysis from the United States Renal Data System that underwent CEA (2008-2014) for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. We used the Liu comorbidity index as well as a novel risk prediction model based on Cox proportional hazards model to stratify patients. The primary outcome evaluated was 3-year survival, and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to generate survival estimates. We further conducted a subanalysis of patients with Medicare part D data to determine postoperative usage of the following medications: statins, antiplatelets, and antihypertensives. We evaluated the association of medication utilization and 3-year survival using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,813 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The population was predominantly older (mean age 70.2 ± 9.1), White (84.8%), and had a high prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension (90.7%), diabetes (62.5%), and congestive heart failure (35.4%). Among the entire cohort, 23.0% had a Liu comorbidity index ≤8, 35.0% had index 9-12, and 42.0% had index >12. Increasing Liu comorbidity index was associated with worse survival (P < 0.01); however, even the group with Liu index ≤8 had poor 3-year survival of 58.8% (53.9-63.4). The Cox proportional hazards model identified variables for inclusion in the risk model such as age >80 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.87-3.33], P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (aHR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.14-1.51], P < 0.001), and Liu comorbidity index >12(aHR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.56-2.28], P < 0.001). The risk score generated ranged from 0 to 6.5, and patients were divided into 3 groups: score ≤2 (43.4%), 2-4 (41.2%), and >4 (15.4%). Increasing risk score was associated with worse survival (P < 0.01) but even the "low-risk" group had 3-year survival of 58.5% (54.9-61.9). Subanalysis of the 1,249 (68.8% of total) patients with part D data found that statins and calcium channel blocker use was associated with improved survival, although observed rates for patients on drug were still low. CONCLUSIONS: The overall long-term survival of ESKD patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic carotid artery disease is low. Risk stratification and analysis of postoperative medical management did not identify a subgroup of patients with adequate 3-year survival. Hence, the preventive benefits of CEA are not realized in these patients.

Carotid Artery Stenting versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Terms of Neuroprotection DW-MRI Detected and Neuropsychological Assessment Impairment.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is well issue known, but the purpose of this study is to compare CAS versus CEA in terms of asymptomatic Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction and neuropsychological assessment impairment. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study on 211 consecutive carotid revascularizations at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 different cohorts: CEA was performed in n = 116 patients (Group A); CAS was performed in n = 95 (Group B). Adverse events were collected at 30 days and 6 months postoperative. Differences in terms of DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction were analyzed and considered significative for P ≤ 0.05. Secondary objectives were: major and minor stroke, neuropsychological assessment impairment, death, myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: CEA was associated with a significative decreased rate of asymptomatic DW-MRI demonstrated microembolic scattering of infarction (13.8% vs. 51%; P = 0.0001) and of 6 months neuropsychological assessments impairment (0.8 vs. 7.4) (P = 0.04) in asymptomatic patients. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of comorbidities. Stroke rates were similar at 30 days (1.7% CEA vs. 4.1% CAS) and 6 months (2.6% CEA vs. 5.3% CAS P = 0.32). There were no differences in terms of central neurological events, death, transient ischemic attack, MI between the groups. The composite end point of stroke/death/MI at 6 months postoperatively was 2.6% vs. 6.3% (P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: According to these results, CEA achieved better outcomes compared to patients treated by CAS with distal filter in terms of asymptomatic microembolic event and impairment National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scale and neuropsychological assessments. Limitations of the study lead to limited conclusions only in the specific population and not generalized. Further, comparative randomized studies are warranted.

Comparative assessment of racial disparity in 30-day outcomes for Asian Americans undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective treatment for carotid stenosis. All previous studies on racial disparity of CEA outcomes omitted Asian Americans. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following CEA among Asian Americans. METHODS: Asian American and Caucasian patients who underwent CEA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2011 to 2021. Patients with age less than 18 years old were excluded. Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis were examined separately. A 1:5 propensity-score matching was used to address preoperative differences. Thirty perioperative outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were 380 Asian Americans (2.27%) and 13,250 Caucasians (79.18%) with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CEA. Also, 289 Asian Americans (1.40%) and 18,257 Caucasians (88.14%) with asymptomatic carotid stenosis had CEA. Asian Americans undergoing CEA presented with higher comorbid burdens and more severe symptomology. Also, asymptomatic Asian Americans were more likely to undergo surgeries for mild stenosis (<50%), which is not in line with practice guidelines. After 1:5 propensity-matching, all symptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1550 Caucasian patients, and all asymptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1445 Caucasians; preoperative differences were addressed. Asian Americans exhibited low overall 30-day mortality (symptomatic, 1.61%; asymptomatic, 0.35%) and stroke (symptomatic, 2.26%; asymptomatic, 0.69%). All perioperative outcomes were comparable to Caucasians, with the exception that Asian Americans experienced longer operation times. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggested that Asian Americans with asymptomatic stenosis were underrepresented in CEA. After propensity-score matching, Asian Americans demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes to Caucasians. These suggest that, when afforded equal access to quality health care, CEA serves as an effective treatment for carotid stenosis among Asian Americans. Therefore, efforts may be aimed at addressing health care access, potentially in the screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in Asian Americans. This would ensure they have equitable benefits from CEA. Nevertheless, the exact preoperative differences and long-term CEA outcomes in Asian Americans should warrant further examination in future studies.

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.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Three Years Survival of Trans Carotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Medicare-Linked Database.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA. BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and 1-year outcomes compared with CEA. We aimed to compare the 1-year and 3-year outcomes of TCAR versus CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked [Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION)] database. METHODS: The VISION database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was 1-year and 3-year survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce 2 well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression was used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in 1-year death [hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30; P =0.065]. At 3-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P =0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased 3-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.63; P =0.008). Exploratory analyses of postoperative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at 1 year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of 3-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard-risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.

Risk of Stroke, Death, and Myocardial Infarction Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Standard Surgical Risk.

Importance: Carotid artery stenting has been limited to use in patients with high surgical risk; outcomes in patients with standard surgical risk are not well known. Objective: To compare stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with standard surgical risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study was conducted from August 2016 to August 2019 with follow-up until August 31, 2020, using data from the multicenter Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Artery Stent and Carotid Endarterectomy registries. Patients with standard surgical risk, defined as those lacking Medicare-defined high medical or surgical risk characteristics and undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (n = 2962) or carotid endarterectomy (n = 35 063) for atherosclerotic carotid disease. In total, 760 patients were excluded for treatment of multiple lesions or in conjunction with other procedures. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke. Results: After 1:3 matching, 2962 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.9] years; 1910 [64.5%] male) and 8886 undergoing endarterectomy (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [6.5] years; 5777 [65.0%] male) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary composite end point between the 2 cohorts (transcarotid 3.0% vs endarterectomy 2.6%; absolute difference, 0.40% [95% CI, -0.43% to 1.24%]; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.50]; P = .34). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a higher risk of 1-year ipsilateral stroke (1.6% vs 1.1%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.08]; RR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.11%]; P = .02) but no difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (2.6% vs 2.5%; absolute difference, -0.13% [95% CI, -0.18% to 0.33%]; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.39]; P = .67). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke was similar in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization compared with those undergoing endarterectomy for carotid stenosis.

Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: Compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is associated with improved outcomes for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, but this has not been assessed for carotid artery disease. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry was used to examine compliance with the SVS CPGs for the management of extracranial cerebrovascular disease and its impact on outcomes. METHODS: The 2021 SVS extracranial cerebrovascular disease CPGs were reviewed for evaluation by VQI data. Compliance rates by the center and provider were calculated, and the impact of compliance on outcomes was assessed using logistic regression with inverse probability-weighted risk adjustment for each CPG recommendation, allowing for clustering by the center. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death. As a secondary analysis, compliance with the 2021 SVS carotid implementation document recommendations and associated outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 11 carotid CPG recommendations, 4 (36%) could be evaluated using VQI registry data. Median center-specific CPG compliance ranged from 38% to 95%, and median provider-specific compliance ranged from 36% to 100%. After adjustment, compliance with 2 of the recommendations was associated with lower rates of in-hospital stroke/death: first, the use of best medical therapy (antiplatelet and statin therapy) in low/standard surgical risk patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for >70% asymptomatic stenosis (event rate in compliant vs noncompliant cases 0.59% vs 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.66); and second, carotid endarterectomy over transfemoral carotid artery stenting in low/standard surgical risk patients with >50% symptomatic stenosis (1.9% vs 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.71). Of the 132 implementation document recommendations, only 10 (7.6%) could be assessed using VQI data, with median center- and provider-specific compliance rates ranging from 67% to 100%. The impact of compliance on outcomes could only be assessed for 6 (4.5%) of these recommendations, and compliance with all 6 recommendations was associated with lower stroke/death. CONCLUSIONS: Few SVS recommendations could be assessed in the VQI because of incongruity between the recommendations and the VQI data variables collected. Although guideline compliance was extremely variable among VQI centers and providers, compliance with most of these recommendations was associated with improved outcomes after carotid revascularization. This finding confirms the value of guideline compliance, which should be encouraged for centers and providers. Optimization of VQI data to promote evaluation of guideline compliance and distribution of these findings to VQI centers and providers will help facilitate quality improvement efforts in the care of vascular patients.

Thirty-Day Perioperative Clinical Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in a Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been proposed as a alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting in high-risk patients. Recently Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR to include standard surgical risk patients within the Society of Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Few single centers compared the clinical outcome of TCAR with CEA. This study compares 30-day perioperative clinical outcomes between TCAR and CEA. STUDY DESIGN: This is retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the TCAR Surveillance Project of TCAR patients enrolled in our institution and compared with CEAs done in the same time/with the same providers. The primary outcome was stroke and/or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death, MI, cranial nerve injury, bleeding, and others. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: The study analyzed 501 patients (347 CEA, 154 TCAR). There were no significant differences in symptomatic status (43% for CEA vs 38% for TCAR, p = 0.303). TCAR had more patients with hypertension (p = 0.04), coronary artery disease (p = 0.028), and congestive heart failure (p = 0.039). The 30-day perioperative complication rates for CEA vs TCAR were as follows: stroke 1% vs 3% (p = 0.142), stroke/death 1% vs 3% (p = 0.185), MI 0.6% vs 0.7% (p = 1), death 0.6% vs 0% (p = 1), stroke/death/MI 2% vs 4% (p = 0.233), cranial nerve injury 4% vs 2% (p = 0.412), and major hematoma (requiring reintervention) 2% vs 3% (p = 1). After matching 154 CEA patients and 154 TCAR, 30-day perioperative complication rates were as follows: stroke 2% vs 3% (p = 0.723), stroke/death 3% vs 3% (p = 1), death 1.3% vs 0% (p = 0.498), MI 0.7% vs 0.7% (p = 1), and stroke/death/MI 3% vs 4% (p = 0.759). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that using propensity match analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar 30-day perioperative outcomes. Further long-term data are needed.

Insurance status is associated with urgent carotid endarterectomy and worse postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Underinsured patients can experience worse preoperative medical optimization. We aimed to determine whether insurance status was associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) urgency and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy dataset from January 2012 to January 2021. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to analyze the differences across the insurance types for the primary outcome variable: CEA urgency. The analyses were limited to patients aged <65 years to minimize age confounding across insurers. We also examined differences in preoperative medical optimization and symptomatic disease and postoperative outcomes. A secondary analysis was performed to examine the effect of CEA urgency on the postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 27,331 patients had undergone first-time CEA. Of these patients, 4600 (17%) had Medicare, 3440 (13%) had Medicaid, 17,917 (65%) had commercial insurance, and 1374 (5%) were uninsured. The Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher rates of urgent operation compared with Medicare (20.0% and 34.7% vs 14.4%; P < .001), with no differences in the commercial group vs the Medicare group. Additionally, Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower rates of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (93.6% and 93.5% vs 95.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of symptomatic disease (42.1% and 57.6% vs 36.2%; P < .001) compared with Medicare patients. The rate of perioperative stroke/death was higher for the Medicaid and uninsured patients than for the Medicare patients (1.63% and 1.89% vs 1.02%; P = .017 and P = .01, respectively), with no differences in the commercial group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured status were associated with increased odds of an urgent operation (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5; and OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7, respectively), symptomatic disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5, respectively), and perioperative stroke/death (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; and OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0, respectively) and a decreased odds of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; and OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99, respectively). Additionally, the rates of perioperative stroke/death were higher for patients who had required urgent surgery compared with elective surgery (2.8% vs 1.0%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of perioperative stroke/death for patients who had required urgent surgery (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid and uninsured patients were more likely to require urgent CEA, in part because of poor preoperative medical optimization. Additionally, urgent operation was independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes. These results highlight the need for improved preoperative follow-up for underinsured populations.

Assessment of Determinants of Value in Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Over 150,000 carotid endarterectomies (CEA) are performed annually worldwide, accounting for $900 million in the United States alone. How cost/spending and quality are related is not well understood but remain essential components in maximizing value. We sought to identify determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CEA. METHODS: Medicare and private-payer admissions for CEA from January 2, 2014 to August 28, 2020 were linked to retrospective clinical registry data for hospitals in Michigan performing vascular surgery. Hospital-specific, risk-adjusted, 30-day composite complications (defined as reoperation, new neurologic deficit, myocardial infarction, additional procedure including CEA or carotid artery stenting, readmission, or mortality) and 30-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized total episode payments were used to categorize hospitals into low or high value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. RESULTS: A total of 6,595 patients across 39 hospitals were identified across both datasets. Patients at low-value hospitals had a higher rate of 30-day composite complications (17.9% vs. 10.1%, P < 0.001) driven by a significantly higher rate of reoperation (3.0% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.016), readmission (10.7% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.012), new neurologic deficit (4.6% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.017), and mortality (1.6% vs. 0.6%, P < 0.049). Mean total episode payments were $19,635 at low-value hospitals compared to $15,709 at high-value hospitals driven by index hospitalization ($10,800 vs. $9,587, P = 0.002), professional ($3,421 vs. $2,827, P < 0.001), readmission ($3,011 vs. $1,826, P < 0.001), and post-acute care payments ($2,335 vs. $1,486, P < 0.001). Findings were similar when only including patients who did not suffer a complication. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in both quality and payments across hospitals included for CEA. Importantly, costs were higher at low-value hospitals independent of postoperative complication. There appears to be little to no relationship between total episode spending and surgical quality, suggesting that improvements in value may be possible by decreasing total episode cost without affecting surgical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of carotid artery stenting vs endarterectomy: A simulation.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials conducted before the introduction of modern medical management to prevent stroke demonstrated that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) prevent stroke following transient ischemic attack (TIA). We compared the cost-effectiveness of CEA, CAS, and modern medical management in two secular settings of medical management in individuals with incident TIA and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using simulation modeling, our base-case analyses were performed from the healthcare sector perspective over a 20-year time horizon with an annual 3% discount rate applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcomes depended on age, sex, biomarkers associated with cardiovascular risk, and treatment effects based on a validated model of type 2 diabetes. Our simulation population was drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2014 cohort. Costs for modern medical management were based on average wholesale prices, and revascularization costs were derived from published literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared to all other strategies, historical medical management plus CEA was either cost-saving or cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Modern medical management was cost-effective compared to historical medical management without revascularization at a $100,000 acceptability threshold. However, both revascularization approaches (plus medical management) were cost-saving compared to modern medical management alone. CONCLUSION: Among individuals requiring carotid revascularization, carotid endarterectomy is the cost-effective strategy to treat individuals with type 2 diabetes following a TIA. For individuals for whom revascularization is contraindicated, modern medical therapy is cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical therapy for stroke prevention has improved significantly over the past 30 years. Recent analyses of medically treated cohorts have suggested that early rates of stroke may have reduced, and reports of the safety of carotid surgery have also shown improvements. Since the effectiveness of carotid surgery versus medical therapy was established in the 1990s, there is an urgent need to evaluate whether surgery remains cost-effective in the UK. METHODS: A decision model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and utilities of modern medical therapy with and without carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic stenosis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The base-case population consisted of adults aged 70 years with 70-99 per cent stenosis. Model data were obtained from clinical studies and wider literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, the 5-year absolute risk reduction with carotid endarterectomy was 5 per cent, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €12 021 (exchange rate £1 GBP = €1.1125 (Tuesday 1 January 2019)) per quality-adjusted life-year. Surgery was more cost-effective if performed rapidly after presentation. In patients with 50-69 per cent carotid stenosis, surgery appeared less clinically effective. However, there was considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Surgery may not now be clinically effective and cost-effective in those with moderate carotid stenosis. However, these results are uncertain because of the limited data on modern medical therapy and an RCT may be justified.

Transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with similar outcomes to carotid endarterectomy regardless of patient risk status.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS), including both transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), reimbursement has been limited to high-risk patients by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) since 2005. We aimed to assess the association of CMS high-risk status with perioperative outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), TFCAS, and TCAR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent carotid revascularization between 2015 and 2020. Patients were stratified by whether they met CMS CAS criteria, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association of procedure type (CEA, TFCAS, TCAR) with perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of 124,531 individuals who underwent carotid revascularization procedures, 91,687 (73.6%) underwent CEA, 17,247 (13.9%) underwent TFCAS, and 15,597 (12.5%) underwent TCAR. Among patients who met the CMS CAS criteria (ie, high-risk patients), the incidence of perioperative stroke was 2.7% for CEA, 3.4% for TFCAS, and 2.4% for TCAR (P < .001). Among standard-risk patients, the incidence of perioperative stroke was 1.7% for CEA, 2.7% for TFCAS, and 1.8% for TCAR (P < .001). After adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, the odds of perioperative stroke were lower for TCAR versus CEA in high-risk patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.99) and similar in standard-risk patients (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84, 1.31). In contrast, the adjusted odds of perioperative stroke were higher for TFCAS versus CEA in high-risk patients (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46) and standard-risk patients (aOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.37-1.86). In both populations, TFCAS and TCAR patients had significantly lower odds of myocardial infarction than CEA patients (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative risks associated with CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in high-risk patients support the current CMS criteria, although the risks associated with each revascularization approach in standard-risk patients suggest that distinguishing TCAR from TFCAS may be warranted.

[Anesthetic and Perioperative Management in Carotis Endarterectomy (CEA) - Part 2: Neurological Assessment]. / Anästhesie und perioperatives Management der Karotis-Endarteriektomie (CEA).

The second part of "Anesthetic and Perioperative Management in Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA)" reviews the apparative/diagnostic and clinical techniques regarding neurological monitoring and perioperative complications. In particular, advantages and disadvantages concerning different methods of neurological assessment will be presented. Perioperative complications and their management will be discussed.

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.

Differences in Perioperative Outcomes after Carotid Revascularization between White and Non-white Patients.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) continue to persist. We aimed to provide a large-scale analysis of racial disparities in perioperative outcomes of carotid revascularization in a nationally representative cohort of patients, with sub-analyses stratifying by procedure type and symptomatic status. METHODS: We studied all patients undergoing carotid revascularization between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. Univariate methods were used to compare patients' demographic and medical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare adjusted perioperative outcomes between white patients (WP) and non-white patients (NWP). Sub-analysis was performed stratifying by method of revascularization and symptomatic status. RESULTS: A total of 31,356 carotid revascularizations were performed in 26,550 (84.7%) white patients and 4,806 (15.3%) non-white patients. On adjusted analysis, NWP had increased odds of stroke (OR:1.2, 95%CI:1.1-1.5, P = 0.0496), unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.1-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.6, 95%CI:1.7-3.9, P < 0.001). On sub-analysis, NWP undergoing CAS had increased odds of stroke/death (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.1-4.3, P = 0.025), stroke (OR:2.9, 95%CI:1.3-6.0, P = 0.007), and stroke/TIA (OR:2.1, 95%CI:1.0-4.2, P = 0.025). NWP undergoing CEA had increased odds of unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.2-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.7, 95%CI:1.7-4.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NWP had higher rates of 30-day stroke, driven primarily by higher rates of perioperative stroke/death in NWP undergoing CAS. NWP undergoing CEA did not have higher rates of stroke/death after adjusted analysis, although they had higher rates of unplanned return to OR and restenosis. Upon stratification for symptomatic status, the stroke/death rate between NWP and WP was shown to be non-significant.

Prediction of Cross-Clamp-Induced Cerebral Ischemia During Carotid Endarterectomy Using Arterial Blood Flow Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Cross-clamping during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with the risk of cerebral ischemia. Various studies have evaluated different criteria for detecting cerebral ischemia, but difficulties arise when ischemic changes appear after the carotid artery is cross-clamped and incised. Here, we explored a parameter that can predict cerebral ischemia prior to cross-clamping during CEA using a blood-flow meter. METHODS: The carotid arterial blood flow was measured directly (direct ABF) in the common carotid artery prior to cross-clamping. The anatomical information in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, cerebral blood flow in xenon-enhanced computed tomography, and carotid peak systolic flow velocity by carotid echo from the skin surface were also evaluated. A decrease in the short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during cross-clamping to insert a shunt was assessed, and a decrease in amplitude of ≥ 50% was considered an indicator for cerebral ischemia. Surgery was performed under general anesthesia, and a shunt was inserted in all cases. RESULTS: Of 156 CEA patients between April 2013 and March 2020, 30 had decreased SSEP during cross-clamping. The baseline characteristics and intra- and postoperative findings were not significantly different between patients with and without a decrease in SSEP. Among the evaluated parameters, only the direct-ABF ratio (ABF-internal carotid artery/ABF-common carotid artery) differed significantly between the 2 groups (P = 0.011). The direct-ABF ratio ≤ 0.58 was predictive of cerebral ischemia during CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Direct-ABF measurement with an ultrasonic blood-flow meter can be useful for predicting cerebral ischemia prior to carotid artery cross-clamping during CEA.