Surveillance duplex ultrasound prompted interventions after carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal guidelines recommend duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance beyond 30 days after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with risk factors for restenosis or who underwent primary closure. However, the appropriate duration of this surveillance has not yet been identified, and the rate at which DUS surveillance prompts intervention is unknown. Multiple calls for decreasing health care spending that does not provide value, including unnecessary testing, have been made. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of intervention prompted by surveillance DUS on the ipsilateral or contralateral carotid artery after CEA and determine the value of continued surveillance by determining the rate of DUS-prompted intervention. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective chart review of all patients older than 18 years who had undergone CEA from August 2009 to July 2022 was performed. Patients with at least one postoperative duplex in our Intersocietal Accreditation Council-accredited ultrasound lab were included. Exclusion criteria were patients with incomplete medical charts or patients who underwent a concomitant procedure. The primary end point was return to the operating room for subsequent intervention based on abnormal surveillance DUS findings. Secondary end points were the number of postoperative surveillance duplexes, duration of surveillance, and incidence of perioperative stroke. The study participant data were queried for patients who had a diagnosis of stroke that occurred following their procedure. RESULTS: A total 767 patients, accounting for 771 procedures, were included in this study, which resulted in 2145 ultrasound scans. A total of 40 (5.2%) patients required 44 subsequent interventions that were prompted by DUS surveillance scans. The average number of ultrasound scans per patient was 2.8 (range: 0-14), and the average duration of surveillance was 26.4 months (range: 0-155 months). Of the 767 patients, 669 (87.2%) had a unilateral CEA. A total of 62 of 767 (8.1%) patients had planned endarterectomies on the contralateral side based on initial imaging, not prompted by interval DUS surveillance scans. Of 767 patients, 28 (3.7%) patients who underwent CEA had a subsequent procedure for progression of contralateral disease, which was prompted by duplex surveillance scans. The average duration between index CEA and intervention on contralateral carotid was 29.57 months (range: 3-81 months). A total of 11 patients, accounting for 12 procedures, underwent a subsequent procedure for restenosis of their ipsilateral carotid, prompted by duplex surveillance scans. The average duration between index CEA and reintervention on the ipsilateral carotid was 17.9 months (range: 4-70 months). Three of 767 (0.4%) patients in total were identified as having a perioperative stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of ipsilateral reintervention after CEA is low. A small percentage of patients will progress their contralateral disease, ultimately requiring surgical intervention. These data suggest that regular duplex surveillance after CEA is warranted for patients with at least moderate contralateral disease; however, the yield is low for ipsilateral restenosis after 36 months based on this single institution study. Further study is needed to better delineate which patients need follow-up to decrease unnecessary testing while still targeting patients most at risk of restenosis or contralateral progression of disease.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the racial disparities in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Race-based disparities in health care have been related to a myriad of prevailing factors among minorities in the United States. This study aims to study the race-based differences in the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: The PROSPERO database registered the review protocol (CRD42023428253). A systematic English literature review was performed using literature databases PubMed and Scopus from inception till June 2023. The review was designed on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and included studies reporting mortality, stroke, or composite outcome of mortality and stroke after CEA for carotid artery disease, regardless of any degree of stenosis including both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the overall mortality was computed, and a P value of < .05 was designated as statistically significant. Interstudy heterogeneity was evaluated by Q-metric and quantified using Higgins I2 statistics. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified which included a total of 574,055 patients who underwent CEA from 1998 to 2022. Eleven of 12 studies reported 30-day mortality as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,797 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated a statistical significance in 30-day mortality between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.18; P = .011) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 56.3%). Eleven of 12 studies reported stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA in which 524,708 patients (92.5%) were White and 42,801 (7.5%) were non-White. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P = .111) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 35.9%). Five of 12 studies reported composite mortality or stroke as an outcome for patients undergoing CEA. The overall pooled OR indicated no statistical significance in composite mortality or stroke between White and non-White patients undergoing CEA (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24-1.59; P = .467) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-White patients have a relatively higher risk of mortality; however, no significant difference was observed between the racial groups in terms of stroke or a composite outcome of mortality or stroke. The odds of mortality in non-White patients have been persistent throughout recent studies.

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.

Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) by surgeons has been variable, with some still performing traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas others have shifted to mostly TCAR. Our goal was to evaluate the association of relative surgeon volume of CEA to TCAR with perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA and carotid artery stent registries were analyzed from 2021 to 2023 for symptomatic and asymptomatic interventions. Surgeons participating in both registries were categorized in the following CEA to CEA+TCAR volume percentage ratios: 0.25 (majority TCAR), 0.26 to 0.50 (more TCAR), 0.51 to 0.75 (more CEA), and 0.76 to 1.00 (majority CEA). Primary outcomes were rates of perioperative ipsilateral stroke, death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding. RESULTS: There were 50,189 patients who underwent primary carotid revascularization (64.3% CEA and 35.7% TCAR). CEA patients were younger (71.1 vs 73.5 years, P < .001), with more symptomatic cases, less coronary artery disease, diabetes, and lower antiplatelet and statin use (all P < .001). TCAR patients had lower rates of smoking, obesity, and dialysis or renal transplant (all P < .001). Postoperative stroke after CEA was significantly impacted by the operator CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .04), with surgeons who perform majority TCAR and more TCAR having higher postoperative ipsilateral stroke (majority TCAR odds ratio [OR]: 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.96, P = .01; more TCAR OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.96, P = .04), as compared with those who perform majority CEA. Similarly, postoperative stroke after TCAR was significantly impacted by the CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .02), with surgeons who perform majority CEA and more CEA having higher stroke (majority CEA OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.27, P = .05; more CEA OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-2.00, P = .004), as compared with those who perform majority TCAR. There was no association between surgeon ratio and perioperative death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The relative surgeon CEA to TCAR ratio is significantly associated with perioperative stroke rate. Surgeons who perform a majority of one procedure have a higher stroke rate in the other. Surgeons offering both operations should maintain a balanced practice and have a low threshold to collaborate as needed.

Frailty scores impact the outcomes of urgent carotid interventions in acute stroke patients: A comprehensive analysis of risk and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery disease is an important cause of ischemic strokes. Patient selection for urgent carotid interventions (ie, urgent carotid endarterectomy [uCEA] and urgent carotid artery stenting [uCAS]) performed within 2 weeks of an event during the index hospitalization is based primarily on a patient's overall health and risk profile. Identifying high-risk patients remains a challenge. Frailty, a decrease in function related to aging, has emerged as an important factor in the treatment of the elderly population. This study aimed to design a quantitative risk score based on frailty for patients undergoing uCEA and uCAS after an acute stroke. METHODS: A total of 307 acute stroke patients treated with uCEA or uCAS were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Frailty scores were calculated using the Hospital Frailty Risk Index based on International Classificiation of Diseases, 10th edition, codes. Stroke-specific risk categories were created based on the incidence of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) associated with frailty scores. Primary end points included 30-day stroke, death, and MI, and the secondary end point was discharge modified Rankin scale (mRS). Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. RESULTS: The average age was 65.9 years; hypertension, a history of tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia were the most common comorbidities. The median Hospital Frailty Risk Score was 27; the majority of patients in this study were in the intermediate and high risk frailty groups (50.5% and 41.7%, respectively). uCAS patients had a higher median presenting National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (8 vs 2; P < .001) and shorter median time to intervention compared with uCEA patients (1 day vs 3 days; P ≤ .001). The 30-day composite stroke, death, and MI rate was 8.1%, with higher rates observed in patients with frailty scores of >30 (11.7%) and uCAS (12.2%). Hemorrhagic conversion and death were more common in uCAS patients. Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was observed in uCEA patients after minor stroke and in uCAS patients after minor or moderate stroke. Patients with high-risk frailty score (>30) presenting with a moderate stroke were more likely to be functionally dependent (mRS > 2) on discharge (67 vs 41.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is a valuable prognosticative tool for clinical outcomes in patients undergoing urgent carotid interventions after an acute stroke. Higher frailty scores were associated with increased stroke, death, and MI rates. Frailty also influenced functional dependence at discharge, particularly in patients with moderate stroke. These findings highlight the importance of considering frailty in the decision-making process for carotid interventions. Further research is needed to validate these findings and explore interventions to mitigate the impact of frailty on outcomes.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision. METHODS: The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS. RESULTS: The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent myocardial infarction (MI) represents a real challenge in patients requiring any vascular procedure. There is currently a lack of data on the effect of preoperative MI on the outcomes of carotid revascularization methodology (carotid enterectomy [CEA], transfemoral carotid artery stenting [TFCAS], or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). This study looks to identify modality-specific outcomes for patients with recent MI undergoing carotid revascularization. METHODS: Data was collected from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2016-2022) for patients with carotid stenosis in the United States and Canada with recent MI (<6 months) undergoing CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR. In-hospital outcomes after TFCAS vs CEA and TCAR vs CEA were compared. TCAR vs TFCAS were compared in a secondary analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the outcomes of these three procedures in patients with recent MI, adjusting for potential confounders. Primary outcomes included 30-day in-hospital rates of stroke, death, and MI. Secondary outcomes included stroke/death, stroke/death/MI, postoperative hypertension, postoperative hypotension, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1217 CEA (54.2%), 445 TFCAS (19.8%), and 584 TCAR (26.0%) cases. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous coronary intervention and to use anticoagulant. Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic, have prior congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo urgent operations. Patients undergoing TCAR were more likely to have higher rates of American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, P2Y12 inhibitor, and protamine use. In the univariate analysis, CEA was associated with a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (P = .079), death (P = .002), and 30-day mortality (P = .007). After adjusting for confounders, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-5.35; P = .005) and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .025) compared with CEA. However, TCAR had similar outcomes compared with CEA. Both TFCAS and TCAR were associated with increased risk of postoperative hypotension (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23; P = .003 and aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32; P ≤ .001, respectively) and decreased risk of postoperative hypertension (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .029 and aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P ≤ .001, respectively) compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent MI has been established as a high-risk criterion for CEA and an approved indication for TFCAS, this study showed that CEA is safer in this population with lower risk of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI compared with TFCAS. TCAR had similar stroke/death/MI outcomes in comparison to CEA in patients with recent MI. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Symptomatic carotid webs require aggressive intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid web (CaWeb) is a rare form of fibromuscular dysplasia that can produce embolic stroke. Misdiagnosis of symptomatic CaWeb as "cryptogenic stroke" or "embolic stroke of unknown source" is common and can lead to recurrent, catastrophic neurologic events. Reports of CaWeb in the literature are scarce, and their natural history is poorly understood. Appropriate management remains controversial. METHODS: CaWeb was defined as a single, shelf-like, linear projection in the posterolateral carotid bulb causing a filling defect on computed tomography angiography (CTA) or cerebral angiography. Cases of symptomatic CaWeb at a single institution with a high-volume stroke center were identified through collaborative evaluation by vascular neurologists and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with symptomatic CaWeb were identified during a 6-year period (2016-2022). Average age was 49 years (range, 29-73 years), 35 of 52 (67%) were African American, and 18 of 52 (35%) were African American women under age 50. Patients initially presented with stroke (47/52; 90%) or transient ischemic attack (5/52; 10%). Stenosis was <50% in 49 of 52 patients (94%) based on NASCET criteria, and 0 of 52 (0%) CaWebs were identified with carotid duplex. Definitive diagnosis was made by CTA examined in multiple planes or cerebral angiography examined in a lateral projection to adequately assess the posterolateral carotid bulb, where 52 of 52 (100%) of CaWebs were seen. Early in our institutional experience, 10 of 52 patients (19%) with symptomatic CaWeb were managed initially with dual antiplatelet and statin therapy or systemic anticoagulation; all suffered ipsilateral recurrent stroke at an average interval of 43 months (range, 1-89 months), and five were left with permanent deficits. Definitive treatment included carotid endarterectomy in 27 of 50 (56%) or carotid stenting in 23 of 50 (46%). Two strokes were irrecoverable, and intervention was deferred. Web-associated thrombus was observed in 20 of 50 (40%) on angiography or grossly upon carotid exploration. Average interval from initial stroke to intervention was 39 days. After an average follow-up of 38 months, there was no reported postintervention stroke or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest single-institution analysis of symptomatic CaWeb yet reported. Our series demonstrates that carotid duplex is inadequate for diagnosis, and that medical management is unacceptable for symptomatic CaWeb. Recurrent stroke occurred in all patients managed early in our experience with medical therapy alone. We have since adopted an aggressive interventional approach in cases of symptomatic CaWeb, with no postoperative stroke reported over an average follow-up of 38 months. In younger patients presenting with cryptogenic stroke, especially African American women, detailed review of lateral cerebral angiography or multi-planar, fine-cut CTA images is required to accurately rule out or diagnose CaWeb and avoid recurrent neurologic events.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

The effect of the collateral cerebrovascular circulation on tolerance to carotid artery cross-clamping and on early outcome after carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The Circle of Willis (CoW) serves as the primary source of contralateral blood supply in patients who undergo carotid artery cross-clamping (CC) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It has been suggested that the CoW's anatomy influences CEA outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between the cerebral collateral circulation, a positive awake test for intraoperative neurologic deficit after carotid CC, and postoperative adverse neurologic events. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies that assessed the cerebral circulation, including CoW variations, using neuroimaging techniques in patients who underwent carotid CC. For the metanalytical incidence, the statistical technique used was weight averaging. Otherwise, descriptive analysis was used due to the excessive heterogeneity of the studies. RESULTS: Eight publications, seven cohort and one case-controlled study, involving 1313 patients who underwent carotid artery CC under loco-regional anesthesia, were included in the systematic review. The incidence of positive awake test in the cohort studies ranged from 4.4% to 19.7%. Carotid artery CC resulted in positive awake test in 5% to 91% of patients with alterations in the anterior portion and in 27% to 74% with alterations in the posterior portion of the CoW. A positive awake test in patients with contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion ranged from 5.8% to 45.7%. Contralateral carotid stenosis >70% or occlusion were associated with a positive awake test (P < .001). Patients with incomplete CoW did not have statistically significant correlation with intraoperative neurological deficits after CC. Data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of the collateral circulation on early outcome after CEA. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, contralateral carotid artery stenosis or occlusion, but not CoW abnormalities, were associated with a positive awake test after carotid artery CC. Further research is needed to evaluate which specific CoW anomaly predicts neurologic deficit after CC and to confirm association between a positive awake test and clinical outcome after CEA.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between baseline Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in patients with prior stroke and optimal timing of carotid revascularization is unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the timing of transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after prior stroke, stratified by preoperative mRS. METHODS: We identified patients with recent stroke who underwent tfCAS, TCAR, or CEA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were stratified by preoperative mRS (0-1, 2, 3-4, or 5) and days from symptom onset to intervention (time to intervention; ≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, and 91-180 days). First, we performed univariate analyses comparing in-hospital outcomes between separate mRS or time-to-intervention cohorts for all carotid intervention methods. Afterward, multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities across groups, and outcomes between the various intervention methods were compared. Primary outcome was the in-hospital stroke/death rate. RESULTS: We identified 4260 patients who underwent tfCAS, 3130 patients who underwent TCAR, and 20,012 patients who underwent CEA. Patients were most likely to have minimal disability (mRS, 0-1 [61%]) and least likely to have severe disability (mRS, 5 [1.5%]). Patients most often underwent revascularization in 3 to 14 days (45%). Across all intervention methods, increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death (all P < .03), whereas increasing time to intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates (all P < .01). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, undergoing tfCAS was associated with higher stroke/death compared with undergoing CEA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.9; P < .01) or undergoing TCAR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative stroke, optimal timing for carotid revascularization varies with stroke severity. Increasing preoperative mRS was associated with higher procedural in-hospital stroke/death rates, whereas increasing time to-intervention was associated with lower stroke/death rates. Overall, patients undergoing CEA were associated with lower in-hospital stroke/deaths. To determine benefit for delayed intervention, these results should be weighed against the risk of recurrent stroke during the interval before intervention.

Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilizes the latest data from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), which now encompasses over 50,000 transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) procedures, to offer a sizeable dataset for comparing the effectiveness and safety of TCAR, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Given this substantial dataset, we are now able to compare outcomes overall and stratified by symptom status across revascularization techniques. METHODS: Utilizing VQI data from September 2016 to August 2023, we conducted a risk-adjusted analysis by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare in-hospital outcomes between TCAR vs tfCAS, CEA vs tfCAS, and TCAR vs CEA. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury. RESULTS: A total of 50,068 patients underwent TCAR, 25,361 patients underwent tfCAS, and 122,737 patients underwent CEA. TCAR patients were older, more likely to have coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and undergo coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention as well as prior contralateral CEA/CAS compared with both CEA and tfCAS. TfCAS had higher odds of stroke/death when compared with TCAR (2.9% vs 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.06; P < .001) and CEA (2.9% vs 1.3%; aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.01-2.43; P < .001). CEA had slightly lower odds of stroke/death compared with TCAR (1.3% vs 1.6%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). TfCAS had lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared with TCAR (0.0% vs 0.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.00; P < .001) and CEA (0.0% vs 2.3%; aOR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.0-0.0; P < .001) as well as lower odds of myocardial infarction compared with CEA (0.4% vs 0.6%; aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001). CEA compared with TCAR had higher odds of myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.5%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001) and cranial nerve injury (2.3% vs 0.3%; aOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 7.78-11.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tfCAS may be beneficial for select patients, the lower stroke/death rates associated with CEA and TCAR are preferred. When deciding between CEA and TCAR, it is important to weigh additional procedural factors and outcomes such as myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury, particularly when stroke/death rates are similar. Additionally, evaluating subgroups that may benefit from one procedure over another is essential for informed decision-making and enhanced patient care in the treatment of carotid stenosis.

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. RESULTS: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the mainstay of treatment for patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke, whereas carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is indicated in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, the impact of prior IVT on the outcomes of CEA (IVT-CEA) is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine whether IVT may create additional stroke and death risk for CEA, compared with CEA performed in the absence of a history of recent IVT, and to determine the optimal timing for CEA after IVT. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of IVT-CEA vs CEA, using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: We included 11 retrospective comparative studies, in which 135,644 patients underwent CEA and 2070 underwent IVT-CEA. The pooled rate of perioperative stroke was 4.2% in the IVT-CEA group and 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.58; P = .21), with a high heterogenicity (I2 = 93%). The rate of stroke/death was 5.9% in patients undergoing IVT-CEA 1.9% in those receiving CEA only (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.14; I2 = 92%; P = .09); after exclusion of studies including TIA as presenting symptom, stroke/death risk was 3.6% in IVT-CEA and 3.0% in CEA (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.53; I2 = 50%; P = .11). The risk of stoke decreased with a delay in the performance of CEA (P = .268). Using results of the metaregression, the calculated delay of CEA that allows for a <6% risk was 4.6 days. Compared with CEA, patients undergoing IVT-CEA had a significantly higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2.5% vs 0.1%; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.21; I2 = 28%; P < .001) and neck hematoma requiring reintervention (3.6% vs 2.3%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I2 = 0%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke, CEA can be safely performed after a prior endovenous thrombolysis, maintaining a stroke/death risk of <6%. After IVT, CEA should be deferred for ≥5 days to minimize the risk for intracranial hemorrhage and neck bleeding.

Cranial nerve injuries post carotid endarterectomy: a 15-year prospective study with routine otolaryngologist and neurological evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective monocentric cohort study was to analyze the risk of otolaryngologist-assessed cranial nerve injuries (CNIs) following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in our academic center during a 15-year period, and to identify possible risk factors for CNI development. METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2022, 3749 consecutive CEAs were performed and their data prospectively recorded in a dedicated database. CNIs were assessed and defined according to a standardized protocol. Instrumental ear, nose, and throat (ENT) evaluations were conducted within 30 days before intervention and before discharge. Preoperative neurological assessments were carried out in all patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas postoperative neurological evaluations were performed in all patients. Patients with newly onset CNIs underwent follow-up assessments at 30 days and, if necessary, at 6, 12, and 24 months. Perioperative results, including mortality, major central neurological events, and postoperative CNIs, were analyzed. Regression or persistence of lesions during follow-up visits was assessed, and multivariate analysis (binary logistic regression) was conducted to evaluate clinical, anatomical, and surgical technique factors influencing the occurrence of CNIs. RESULTS: CEAs were performed more frequently in male patients (2453 interventions; 65.5%) than in females (1296 interventions; 34.5%). The interventions were performed in asymptomatic patients in 3078 cases (82%). In 66 cases, the interventions followed a previous ipsilateral CEA. At preoperative ENT evaluation, no cases of ipsilateral pre-existent CNI were recorded. The 30-day stroke and death rate was 1%. In 113 patients (3%), a postoperative neck bleeding requiring surgical revision and drainage was noted. Pre-discharge ENT evaluations identified 259 motor CNIs, accounting for 6.9% of the entire study group. Eighteen patients had lesions in more than one cranial nerve. ENT and neurological evaluations at 30 days showed the complete resolution of 161 lesions, whereas in 98 cases (2.6%), the CNI persisted. At 1 year, the rate of persistent CNI was 0.4% (10 patients), whereas at 2 years, it was 0.25% (6 cases), in all but one asymptomatic. At multivariate analysis, urgent intervention in unstable patients, secondary intervention, a clamping time >40 minutes, a hematoma requiring revision, and a postoperative stroke were independent predictors of CNIs. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this prospective monocentric cohort study showed that the occurrence of CNI following CEA was low, even when an independent multi-specialist evaluation was performed. The percentage of persistent lesions at 2 years was negligible and, in most cases, asymptomatic.

Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of carotid revascularization in patients with prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) remain understudied. Prior research has not reported the outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in patients with previous CAS. In this study, we compared the peri-operative outcomes of TCAR, transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with prior ipsilateral CAS using the Vascular Quality Iniatitive. METHODS: Using Vascular Quality Initiative data from 2016 to 2023, we identified patients who underwent TCAR, tfCAS, or CEA after prior ipsilateral CAS. We included covariates such as age, race, sex, body mass index, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary artery disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia), symptom status, urgency, ipsilateral stenosis, and contralateral occlusion into a regression model to compute propensity scores for treatment assignment. We then used the propensity scores for inverse probability weighting and weighted logistic regression to compare in-hospital stroke, in-hospital death, stroke/death, postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death/MI, 30-day mortality, and cranial nerve injury (CNI) after TCAR, tfCAS, and CEA. We also analyzed trends in the proportions of patients undergoing the three revascularization procedures over time using Cochrane-Armitage trend testing. RESULTS: We identified 2137 patients undergoing revascularization after prior ipsilateral carotid stenting: 668 TCAR patients (31%), 1128 tfCAS patients (53%), and 341 CEA patients (16%). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a lower yet not statistically significant in-hospital stroke/death than tfCAS (TCAR vs tfCAS: 0.7% vs 2.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.05; P = .06), and similar odds of stroke/death with CEA (TCAR vs CEA: 0.7% vs 0.9%; aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-3.98; P = .8). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with lower odds of postoperative MI (0.1% vs 14%; aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P < .001), stroke/death/MI (0.8% vs 15%; aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001), and CNI (0.1% vs 3.8%; aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30; P = .002) in this patient population. In symptomatic patients, TCAR had an unacceptably elevated in-hospital stroke/death rate of 5.1%, with lower rates of CNI than CEA. We also found an increasing trend in the proportion of patients undergoing TCAR following prior ipsilateral carotid stenting (2016 to 2023: 14% to 41%), with a relative decrease in proportions of tfCAS (61% to 45%) and CEA (25% to 14%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, TCAR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with tfCAS, with comparable stroke/death but lower postoperative MI and CNI rates compared with CEA. In symptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with unacceptably higher in-hospital stroke/death rates. In line with the postprocedure outcomes, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of patients with prior ipsilateral stenting undergoing TCAR over time.

Locoregional anesthesia is associated with decreased cardiac complications in symptomatic heart failure patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Although the current literature reports no advantage for locoregional anesthesia (LRA) over general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), there remains a gap in understanding the impact of LRA on individuals with congestive heart failure (CHF). This study aims to assess whether the choice of anesthesia influences the rates of perioperative complications within this patient population. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative CEA module, all patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2023 were identified. The subset of patients with CHF was included, and patients were divided based on the type of anesthesia received. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared using the χ2 or Fischer's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate for continuous variables. A sensitivity analysis was performed based on the symptomatic status of CHF, and the association between anesthesia modality and postoperative outcomes was studied using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The primary outcomes of this study included perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), acute HF, and the combination of MI and acute HF defined as major cardiac complications. RESULTS: A total of 21,292 patients (19,730 receiving GA, 1562 receiving LRA) with a diagnosis of CHF undergoing CEA were identified. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, LRA was independently associated with lower MI (odds ratio [OR]; 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.96), acute HF (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87), major cardiac complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67), hemodynamic instability (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78), cranial nerve injury (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81), shunt use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.31), and neuromonitoring device use (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.24) compared with GA in patients with symptomatic CHF. No difference in MI, acute HF, and major cardiac complications was seen in patients with asymptomatic CHF. CONCLUSIONS: CEA can be performed safely in patients with CHF. Using LRA is associated with a decreased incidence of perioperative cardiac complications in patients with symptomatic HF undergoing CEA.

Ulceration location is associated with clinical course in carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Plaque ulceration in carotid artery stenosis is a risk factor for cerebral ischemic events; however, the characteristics that determine plaque vulnerability are not fully understood. We thus assessed the association between plaque ulceration sites and cerebrovascular ischemic attack. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 72 consecutive patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulcers. After excluding patients with pseudo-occlusion, a history of previous carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting before the ulcer was first discovered, follow-up data of less than 1 month, or carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting performed within 1 month after the ulcer was first discovered, 60 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into proximal and distal groups based on the ulcer location relative to the most stenotic point. The primary endpoints were ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischemic events ("ischemic events"), such as amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack, or ischemic stroke due to carotid artery stenosis with plaque ulceration. The association between ulcer location and ischemic events was also assessed. RESULTS: In the patients with plaque ulcer, more patients had proximal than distal plaque ulcers (39 vs 21; P = .028). The median follow-up duration was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.5-6.2 years). Nineteen patients (32%) experienced ischemic event. Ischemic events occurred more frequently in the distal than in the proximal group (18% vs 59%; P = .005). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significantly shorter event-free time in the distal group (log-rank P = .021). In univariate analysis, distal ulcer location was associated with ischemic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.65; P = .03). Multivariate analysis using two different models also showed that distal ulcer location was independently associated with ischemic events (Model 1: OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.26-11.78; P = .03; Model 2: OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.49-12.49; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with carotid artery stenosis and plaque ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point are more likely to experience cerebrovascular ischemic attacks. Therefore, carotid plaques with ulcers located distal to the most stenotic point may be a potential indication for surgical treatment.

Association between Asian race and perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization varies with Asian procedure density.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization are understudied in Asian patients. We aimed to assess whether disease severity and postoperative outcomes following carotid revascularization differ between Asian and White patients, and whether this varies with Asian procedure density. METHODS: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting datasets from 2003 to 2021. Regions were divided into tertiles based on Asian procedure density. Propensity scores were used to match Asian and White patients based on patient factors and procedure type. The primary outcome variable was a collapsed composite of in-hospital ipsilateral stroke/death/myocardial infarction. χ2 tests were used to assess association between Asian race and disease severity, center and surgeon volume, and 1-year outcomes. Logistic and Cox regressions were performed between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1766 Asian and 159,608 White patients underwent carotid revascularization, and we identified 2704 patients (1352 Asian and 1352 White) in the matched cohorts. Among propensity matched patients, all-comer Asian patients more commonly had >80% ipsilateral stenosis (63% vs 52%; P < .001) and a moderate/severe preoperative Rankin score (7.6% vs 5.1%; P = .007). The rate of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction was higher in Asian patients (2.6% vs 1.3%; P = .012), and this disparity was more pronounced in the lowest tertile of Asian procedure density (4.3% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Logistic regression in the propensity-matched cohort demonstrated Asian race was associated with lower odds of intervention at highest volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.3; P < .001) and by highest volume surgeons (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .001). Asian race was associated with higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8; P = .031), and there was a significant interaction between Asian procedure density and the relationship between Asian race and this outcome (interaction P = .001). After accounting for center and surgeon volume, the association of Asian race and the composite outcome was mitigated (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.7-3.3; P = .300). Cox regression between the matched cohorts demonstrated that Asian race was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = .001) and higher risk of 1-year reintervention (hazard ratio, 16; 95% CI, 1.8-142; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients are more likely to present with a higher degree of carotid stenosis, higher preoperative risk, and experience worse perioperative outcomes. The association of Asian race with perioperative stroke/death/myocardial infarction varies with Asian procedure density and is also confounded by center and surgeon volume. These results highlight the importance of understanding referral patterns and cultural effects on outcomes disparities in Asian patients.

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.