Cytomegalovirus Infection Facilitates the Costimulation of CD57+CD28- CD8 T Cells in HIV Infection and Atherosclerosis via the CD2-LFA-3 Axis.

CD8 T cells are emerging as important mediators in atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Immune activation may play a particular role in people with HIV (PWH) who are at an increased risk of CVD, even after controlling for known CVD risk factors. Latent CMV infection is associated with increased CVD risk for both PWH and people without HIV, and human CMV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells are enriched for an immunosenescent phenotype. We previously showed that CMV coinfection in PWH promotes vascular homing and activation of inflammatory CD4 T cells through the CD2-LFA-3 axis. However, the role of CD2/LFA3 costimulation of CD8 T cells in PWH with CMV has yet to be described. In the present study, we demonstrate that CD2 expression on CX3CR1+CD57+CD28- inflammescent CD8 T cells is increased on cells from CMV-seropositive PWH. In vitro CD2/LFA-3 costimulation enhances TCR-mediated activation of these inflammatory CD8 memory T cells. Finally, we show that LFA-3 is highly expressed in aortas of SIV-infected rhesus macaques and in atherosclerotic plaques of people without HIV. Our findings are consistent with a model in which CMV infection enhances CD2 expression on highly proinflammatory CD8 T cells that can then be stimulated by LFA-3 expressed in the vasculature, even in the absence of CD28 costimulation. This model, in which CMV infection exacerbates toxic cytokine and granzyme production by CD8 T cells within the vasculature, highlights a potential therapeutic target in atherosclerosis development and progression, especially for PWH.

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

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

Direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin at discharge associated with improved survival and patency in infra-geniculate bypasses with prosthetic conduits.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on the optimal anticoagulant regimen following lower extremity bypass. Historically, warfarin has been utilized for prosthetic or compromised vein bypasses. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly replacing warfarin in this context, but their efficacy in bypass preservation has not been well-studied. Recent studies have shown that DOACs may improve outcomes following bypasses; however, it is unclear if this is dependent upon type of bypass conduit. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether a difference exists between vein and prosthetic infra-geniculate bypasses outcomes based on the anticoagulant utilized on discharge, warfarin or DOAC. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infra-inguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who underwent an infra-geniculate bypass and were anticoagulation-naive at baseline but were discharged on either warfarin or DOACs. A survival analysis was performed for patients up to 1 year to determine whether the choice of discharge anticoagulation was associated with differences between those with vein vs prosthetic conduits in overall survival, primary patency, risk of amputation, or risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in baseline demographic factors between the groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2003-2020), 57,887 patients underwent infra-geniculate bypass. Of these, 3230 (5.5%) were anticoagulated on discharge. There was a similar distribution of anticoagulation between vein (n = 1659; 51.4%) and prosthetic conduits (n = 1571; 48.6%). Thirty-two percent were discharged on DOACs, and 68.0% were discharged on warfarin. For prosthetic conduits, being discharged on a DOAC was associated with improved outcomes on univariate and multivariable analyses revealing lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.93; P = .021), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = .003), risk of amputation (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .013), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .048). Patients with a vein bypass had improved univariate outcomes for survival and primary patency; however, with multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in outcomes between DOAC and warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who underwent an infra-geniculate prosthetic bypass had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged on a DOAC compared with warfarin. Those with vein bypasses had similar outcomes regardless of the choice of anticoagulation.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

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.

An International, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues about TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR).

OBJECTIVE: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics. METHODS: A 3-Round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 29 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During Round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote. RESULTS: Most participants agreed that TCAR can/can probably/possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hours. It was felt that TCAR cannot/should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can/can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA/TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi Consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians/interventionalists/vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and randomized controlled trials should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

Randomized Trial of Chocolate Touch Compared With Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in Femoropopliteal Lesions (Chocolate Touch Study).

BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly reduced the rate of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty alone; however, high rates of bailout stenting and dissections persist. The Chocolate Touch DCB is a nitinol constrained balloon designed to reduce acute vessel trauma and inhibit neointima formation and restenosis. METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) and superficial femoral or popliteal disease (≥70% stenosis) were randomized 1:1 to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB at 34 sites in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand. The primary efficacy end point was DCB success, defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of clinically driven bailout stenting). The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. Both primary end points were tested for noninferiority, and if met, sequential superiority testing for efficacy followed by safety was prespecified. An independent clinical events committee, and angiographic and duplex ultrasound core laboratories blinded to treatment allocation reviewed all end points. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were randomized to Chocolate Touch (n=152) versus Lutonix DCB (n=161). Follow-up at 1 year was available in 94% of patients. The mean age was 69.4±9.5 years, the average lesion length was 78.1±46.9 mm, and 46.2% had moderate-to-severe calcification. The primary efficacy rates of DCB success at 12 months was 78.8% (108/137) with Chocolate Touch and 67.7% (88/130) with Lutonix DCB (difference, 11.1% [95% CI, 0.6-21.7]), meeting noninferiority (Pnoninferiority<0.0001) and sequential superiority (Psuperiority=0.04). The primary safety event rate was 88.9% (128/144) with Chocolate Touch and 84.6% (126/149) with Lutonix DCB (Pnoninferiority<0.001; Psuperiority=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, the second-generation Chocolate Touch DCB met both noninferiority end points for efficacy and safety and was more effective than Lutonix DCB at 12 months for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924857.

Outcome after revascularization with paclitaxel-coated devices in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel (PTX)-coated peripheral arterial devices for femoropopliteal artery (FPA) atherosclerotic disease is derived from studies that mainly evaluated patients with claudication. Outcomes of PTX treatment for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is incompletely defined. This study compares outcome in patients with CLTI treated with and without PTX. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who underwent FPA intervention for an indication of CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative peripheral vascular intervention database from 2016 to 2020. Patients who had concomitant iliac or tibial interventions were included. One limb per patient was studied. Propensity score matching based on demographics, comorbidities, indication, and pharmacological therapy was performed to generate balanced cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox regression compared limb salvage, overall survival, primary patency, and major adverse limb events (MALE) between patients treated with and without PTX. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, indications, and procedural details were similar between 14,065 PTX and 14,065 non-PTX propensity-matched patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis at 18-month follow-up demonstrated that the PTX group compared with the non-PTX group had a significantly higher rates of limb salvage (89.2% vs 86.5%; P < .001), primary patency (80.3% vs 76.9%; P < .001), and freedom from MALE (72.6% vs 67.9%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis also showed that PTX treatment was associated with a lower risk of major amputation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82; P < .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; P < .001), and MALE (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001). Overall, 21% of patients had a prior ipsilateral peripheral vascular intervention. Removing these patients from the analysis yielded similar results at 18 months. Overall survival at 54 months was not statistically different between the PTX and non-PTX groups in the overall cohort (73.5 vs 71.3%; P = .07), but significant in the de-novo treated patients (73.9% vs 70.7%; P = .02).Multivariate analyses showed a lower mortality risk in the PTX patients (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: FPA intervention with a PTX-coated device is associated with improved limb salvage, primary patency, and freedom from MALE at the 18-month follow-up compared with uncoated devices. This benefit was not associated with an increase in all-cause mortality out to 4.5 years. Further study is necessary to determine the optimal role for PTX in the treatment of the FPA for patients with CLTI and to understand its long-term outcome.

Physiologic risk factors increase risk of myocardial infarction with transcarotid artery revascularization in prospective trials.

OBJECTIVE: Patients can be considered at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) because of either anatomic or physiologic factors and will often undergo transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Patients with physiologic criteria will be considered to have a higher overall surgical risk because of more significant comorbidities. Our aim was to study the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, and combined end points for patients who had undergone TCAR stratified by the risk factors (anatomic vs physiologic). METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected data from the ROADSTER (pivotal; safety and efficacy study for reverse flow used during carotid artery stenting procedure), ROADSTER 2 (Food and Drug Administration indicated postmarket trial; postapproval study of transcarotid artery revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery disease), and ROADSTER extended access TCAR trials was performed. All 851 patients were considered to be at high risk for CEA and were included and stratified using high-risk anatomic criteria (ie, contralateral occlusion, tandem stenosis, high cervical artery stenosis, restenosis after previous endarterectomy, bilateral carotid stenting, hostile neck anatomy with previous neck irradiation, neck dissection, cervical spine immobility) or high-risk physiologic criteria (ie, age >75 years, multivessel coronary artery disease, history of angina, congestive heart failure New York Heart Association class III/IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent MI, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent contralateral cranial nerve injury, chronic renal insufficiency). For trial inclusion, asymptomatic patients were required to have had ≥80% carotid stenosis and symptomatic patients to have had ≥50% stenosis. The primary outcome measures were stroke, death, and MI at 30 days. The data were statistically analyzed using the χ2 test, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 851 high surgical risk patients were categorized into two groups: those with anatomic-only risk factors (n = 372) or at least one physiologic risk factor present (n = 479). Of the 851 patients, 74.5% of those in the anatomic subset were asymptomatic, and 76.6% in the physiologic subset were asymptomatic. General anesthesia was used similarly in both groups (67.7% anatomic vs 68.1% physiologic). MI had occurred in eight patients in the physiologic group (1.7%), all of whom had been asymptomatic and in none of the anatomic patients (P = .01). The combined stroke, death, and MI rate was 2.1% in the anatomic cohort and 4.2% in the physiologic cohort (P = .10). Stratification of each group into asymptomatic and symptomatic patients did not yield any further differences. CONCLUSIONS: The patients who had undergone TCAR in the present prospective, neurologically adjudicated trial because of high-risk physiologic factors had had a higher rate of MI compared with the patients who had qualified for TCAR using anatomic criteria only. These patients had experienced comparable rates of combined stroke, death, and MI rates. The anatomic patients represented a healthier and younger subset of patients, with notably low overall event rates.

Regional variation in patient selection, practice patterns, and outcomes based on techniques for carotid artery revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Significant regional variation is known with multiple surgical procedures. This study describes regional variation in carotid revascularization within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: Data from the VQI carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) databases from 2016 to 2021 were used. Nineteen geographic VQI regions were divided into three tertiles based on the average annual volume of carotid procedures performed per region (low-volume: 956 cases [range, 144-1382]; medium-volume: 1533 cases [range, 1432-1589]; and high-volume: 1845 cases [range, 1642-2059]). Patients' characteristics, indications for carotid revascularization, practice patterns, and outcomes (perioperative and 1-year stroke/death) of different revascularization techniques were compared between these regional groups. Regression models that adjust for known risk factors and allow for random effects at the center level were used. RESULTS: CEA was the most common revascularization procedure (>60%) across all regional groups. Significant regional variation was observed in the practice of CEA such as variability in the use of shunting, drain placement, stump pressure and electroencephalogram monitoring, intraoperative protamine, and patch angioplasty. For transfemoral CAS, high-volume regions had a higher proportion of asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (30.5% vs 27.8%) in addition to higher use of local/regional anesthesia (80.4% vs 76.2%), protamine (16.1% vs 11.8%), and completion angiography (81.6% vs 77.6%) during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) compared with low-volume regions. For transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), high-volume regions were less likely to intervene on asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (32.2% vs 35.8%) than low-volume regions. They also had a higher proportion of urgent/emergent procedures (13.6% vs 10.4%) and were more likely to use general anesthesia (92.0% vs 82.1%), completion angiography (67.3% vs 63.0%), and poststent ballooning (48.4% vs 36.8%). For each carotid revascularization technique, no significant differences were noted in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-volume regions. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between TCAR and CEA across the different regional groups. In all regional groups, TCAR was associated with a 40% reduction in perioperative and 1-year stroke/death compared with TF-CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant variation in clinical practices for the management of carotid disease, no regional variation exists in the overall outcomes of carotid interventions. TCAR and CEA continue to show superior outcomes to TF-CAS across all VQI regional groups.

Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants associated with improved survival and bypass graft patency compared with warfarin after infrageniculate bypass.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been reached regarding the optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimen for patients after lower extremity bypass. Usually, patients who have undergone below-the-knee bypass will begin oral anticoagulation therapy. Historically, the bypass has been with prosthetic conduits and the anticoagulation therapy has been warfarin. However, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing owing to their relative ease of dosing. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a difference exists in the postoperative outcomes for patients who have undergone infrageniculate bypass stratified by the use of on DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass database was queried for all patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass, been anticoagulation naive at baseline, and been discharged with anticoagulation therapy. A survival analysis was performed for patients for ≤2 years postoperatively to determine whether discharge with warfarin vs DOACs was associated with differences in overall mortality, loss of primary patency, risk of amputation, and risk of major adverse limb events (MALE). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to control for differences in the baseline demographic factors between the two groups. RESULTS: During the study period (2007-2020) 57,887 patients had undergone infrageniculate bypass. Of these patients, 2786 had been anticoagulation naive and discharged with either warfarin (n = 1889) or DOACs (n = 897). Discharge with a DOAC was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.83; P = .001), loss of primary patency (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), risk of amputation (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P = .001), and risk of MALE (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation-naive patients who had undergone infrageniculate bypass had had higher rates of overall survival, bypass patency, amputation-free survival, and freedom from MALE when discharged with a DOAC than with warfarin.

Chocolate Touch Versus Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions in Diabetes: The Chocolate Touch Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated that in patients undergoing treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions, the Chocolate Touch drug-coated balloon (DCB) was safe and had superior efficacy at 12 months compared with the Lutonix DCB. We report the prespecified diabetes subanalysis comparing outcomes among patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) were randomized to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB. The primary efficacy endpoint was DCB success defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of bailout stenting). The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients (38% DM [n=119]) were randomized to either Chocolate Touch (n=66/152) or Lutonix DCB (n=53/161). Among patients with DM, DCB success was 77.2% and 60.5% (p=0.08), and in non-DM patients, DCB success was 80% and 71.3% (p=0.2114) for the Chocolate Touch and Lutonix DCB, respectively. The primary safety endpoint was similar for both cohorts regardless of DM status (interaction test, p=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease with the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with using the Lutonix DCB regardless of DM status at 12 months. CLINICAL IMPACT: This substudy of the Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for treatment of femoropopliteal disease of the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with the Lutonix DCB regardless of diabetes (DM) status at 12 months. Endovascular therapy has become the therapy of choice for the treatment of most symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions regardless of DM status. These results give clinicians another option when treating femoropopliteal disease in this high-risk patient population.

TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Can Be Safely Performed in Patients Undergoing Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has been effectively performed to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis (CS). Prior studies established that TCAR can be safely performed in high-risk patients such as octogenarians, patients with prior carotid endarterectomy (CEA), contralateral occlusion, and heavily calcified lesions. Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of exhibiting cardiovascular complications. This study aims to investigate how dialysis may affect TCAR outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) dataset was queried for patients undergoing TCAR from November 2016 to November 2021. Patients were divided into dialysis and nondialysis groups. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, prolonged length of stay (more than 1 day) (PLOS), MI, and stroke or death. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess in-hospital outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival and log-rank test were used to assess 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 22,619 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Of these, 327 patients were undergoing dialysis. On univariable analysis, dialysis patients were associated with a higher risk of mortality compared to nondialysis patients (1.2% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.030). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, this difference did not persist (odd ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.8-4.9), P = 0.136). Dialysis patients were more likely to experience PLOS (OR: 1.6, 95% CI (1.2-2), P < 0.001). There was no difference between dialysis and nondialysis patients in the risk of stroke or death, stroke, stroke or TIA, MI, and stroke or death, or MI on univariable and multivariable analyses. At 1 year, the overall survival for dialysis versus nondialysis patients was 81.5% vs. 95.5%, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to date of dialysis patients who have undergone TCAR. We have shown that there was no difference in the risk of stroke, death, and MI between dialysis and nondialysis patients. Therefore, TCAR can be safely offered to patients undergoing dialysis. Future studies with larger number of patients are warranted to confirm these results.

TransCarotid Revascularization With Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TCAR with flow reversal to the gold standard CEA using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TCAR is a novel minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly lower stroke rates compared with carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach. METHODS: Patients in the United States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016-2019) were included. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline clinical variables and used to match patients in the 2 treatment groups (n = 6384 each). The primary endpoint was the combined outcome of perioperative stroke and/or death. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR, 1.6% vs CEA, 1.6%, RR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.77-1.33), P = 0.945], stroke [1.4% vs 1.4%, RR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.76-1.37), P = 0.881], or death [0.4% vs 0.3%, RR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.64-2.02), P = 0.662]. Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction [0.5% vs 0.9%, RR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.35-0.83), P = 0.005], cranial nerve injury [0.4% vs 2.7%, RR (95% CI): 0.14 (0.08-0.23), P < 0.001], and post-procedural hypertension [13% vs 18.8%, RR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.63-0.76), P < 0.001]. They were also less likely to stay in the hospital for more than 1 day [26.4% vs 30.1%, RR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.82-0.94), P < 0.001]. No significant interaction was observed between procedure and symptomatic status in predicting postoperative outcomes. At 1 year, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death was similar between the 2 groups [HR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.87-1.36), P = 0.44]. CONCLUSIONS: This propensity-score matched analysis demonstrated significant reduction in the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death.

CX3CL1 and IL-15 Promote CD8 T cell chemoattraction in HIV and in atherosclerosis.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains an important cause of morbidity in the general population and risk for ASCVD is increased approximately 2-fold in persons living with HIV infection (PLWH). This risk is linked to elevated CD8 T cell counts that are abundant in atherosclerotic plaques and have been implicated in disease pathogenesis yet the mechanisms driving T cell recruitment to and activation within plaques are poorly defined. Here we investigated the role of CD8 T cells in atherosclerosis in a non-human primate model of HIV infection and in the HIV-uninfected elderly; we sought to identify factors that promote the activation, function, and recruitment to endothelium of CX3CR1+ CD8 T cells. We measured elevated expression of CX3CL1 and IL-15, and increased CD8 T cell numbers in the aortas of rhesus macaques infected with SIV or SHIV, and demonstrated similar findings in atherosclerotic vessels of HIV-uninfected humans. We found that recombinant TNF enhanced the production and release of CX3CL1 and bioactive IL-15 from aortic endothelial cells, but not from aortic smooth muscle cells. IL-15 in turn promoted CX3CR1 surface expression on and TNF synthesis by CD8 T cells, and IL-15-treated CD8 T cells exhibited enhanced CX3CL1-dependent chemoattraction toward endothelial cells in vitro. Finally, we show that CD8 T cells in human atherosclerotic plaques have an activated, resident phenotype consistent with in vivo IL-15 and CX3CL1 exposure. In this report, we define a novel model of CD8 T cell involvement in atherosclerosis whereby CX3CL1 and IL-15 operate in tandem within the vascular endothelium to promote infiltration by activated CX3CR1+ memory CD8 T cells that drive further endothelial activation via TNF. We propose that these interactions are prevalent in aging and in PLWH, populations where circulating activated CX3CR1+ CD8 T cell numbers are often expanded.

Impact of interfacility transfer of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm patients.

OBJECTIVE: The interfacility transfer (IT) of patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) occurs not infrequently to allow for a higher level of care. In the present study, we evaluated, using a contemporary administrative database, the effects of IT on mortality after rAAA repair. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida (2016-2017) was queried using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, to identify patients who had undergone open or endovascular repair of AAAs. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Qs) per overall volume. The mortality rates for IT vs nontransferred (NT) rAAA patients stratified by treatment modality (open aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rOAR] vs endovascular aneurysm repair of an rAAA [rEVAR]) were compared. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1476 patients had presented with a rAAA, of whom 673 (45.7%) were not treated. Of the remaining 803 patients, 226 (28.1%) were transferred, of whom 50 (22.1%) had died without repair after IT. The remaining 753 patients (IT, n = 176; NT, n = 576) had undergone rEVAR (n = 492) or rOAR (n = 261). The baseline characteristics were similar between the IT and NT patients, except for a greater proportion of black patients (P = .03), lower income families (P = .049), and rOAR (45.5% vs 31.4%; P = .001) for the IT patients. The overall mortality rates were similar between the NT (30.2%) and IT (27.3%) groups (P = .46). The subgroup analysis revealed that the operative mortality rates after rEVAR were similar between the NT and IT patients, without significant differences among the hospital quartiles. After rOAR, however, the operative mortality rates were lower for the IT patients, largely owing to improved outcomes in the Q4 hospitals (Q4 vs Q1-Q3, P = .001). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that age (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.06; P = .02) and treatment at a low-volume hospital (Q1-Q3; HR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.51; P = .04) were predictors of mortality. The total charges were similar (IT, $286,727; vs NT, $265,717; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have shown that <30% of rAAA patients deemed a candidate for repair will be transferred. We found that IT did not affect the mortality rates after rEVAR, irrespective of the hospital volume. For rOAR candidates, however, regionalization of care with prompt transfer to a high-volume center could improve the survival benefits without increased healthcare costs.

Effect of routine intracerebral completion angiography on outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Completion cerebral angiography (CCA) after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been used to identify distal embolization after stenting and serve as a measure of intraoperative quality control. Nevertheless, no general evidence has been reported regarding the benefit of performing routine CCA. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of routine CCA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Vascular Quality Initiative database for TCAR from 2016 to 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: those with no CCA performed and those with CCA performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes included stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and a return to the operating room (RTOR). Clinically relevant and statistically significantly variables on univariable analysis were added to a logistic regression model clustered by center identifier. RESULTS: A total of 18,155 patients who had undergone TCAR were identified, of whom 11,607 (63.7%) had undergone routine CCA. The patients with routine CCA were more likely to have contralateral carotid occlusion and to have received general anesthesia. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found no differences in the risk of stroke/death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.3; P = .820), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA; aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3; P = .998), stroke (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4; P = .452), death (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6; P = .953), myocardial infarction (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2; P = .240), or RTOR (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6-3.8; P = .412) between patients who had undergone CCA and those who had not. A subanalysis of the patients with new occlusions detected by CCA (69 patients [0.6%]; 19 not treated and 50 treated) indicated a higher risk of stroke/death for the patients with treated new occlusions (aOR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.9-17.3; P < .001) and stroke/TIA (aOR, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.3-14.7; P < .001) than for the patients who had not undergone CCA. However, no differences were found in stroke/death (aOR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.37-29.5; P = .283) or stroke/TIA (aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.3-29.4; P = .327) for patients with nontreated new occlusions compared with patients who had not undergone CCA. CONCLUSIONS: In the present retrospective study, routine performance of CCA was not beneficial, with no significant differences in in-hospital stroke or death detected. The detection of new lesions on CCA was rare. Moreover, identifying new occlusions using CCA was associated with higher odds of stroke or death when these new lesions were treated. Further studies are needed to define the etiology of the worse outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for lesions discovered using CCA and delineate the optimal timing for further imaging and intervention.

Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) poses unique therapeutic challenges, with no specific guidelines available on the operative approach. Traditionally, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TfCAS) has been regarded as the preferred approach to treating restenosis after CEA. Recently, transcarotid artery revascularization with a flow-reversal neuroprotection system (TCAR) has gained popularity as an effective alternative treatment modality for de novo carotid artery stenosis. The aim of the present study was to compare the contemporary perioperative outcomes of TfCAS and TCAR in patients with prior ipsilateral CEA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was reviewed for patients who had undergone TfCAS and TCAR for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2016 and August 2020. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite outcome of stroke and death. The secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and composite 30-day outcomes of stroke, death, and TIA, stroke and TIA, and stroke, death, and MI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcomes of interest after adjustment for potential confounders and baseline differences between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 3508 patients, 1834 and 1674 had undergone TfCAS and TCAR, respectively. The TCAR cohort was older (mean age, 71.6 years vs 70.2 years; P < .001) and less likely to be symptomatic (27% vs 46%; P < .001), with a greater proportion taking aspirin (92% vs 88%; P = .001), a P2Y12 inhibitor (89% vs 80%; P < .001), and a statin (91% vs 87%; P = .002) compared with the TfCAS cohort. Perioperatively, the TCAR cohort had had lower 30-day composite outcomes of stroke/death (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .025), stroke/death/TIA (1.8% vs 3.3%; P = .004), and stroke/death/MI (2.1% vs 3.2%; P = .048), primarily driven by lower rates of stroke (1.3% vs 2.3%; P = .031) and TIA (0.2% vs 0.7%; P = .031). Among asymptomatic patients, the incidence of stroke (0.6% vs 1.4%; P = .042) and the composite of stroke/TIA (0.8% vs 1.8%; P = .036) was significantly lower after TCAR than TfCAS, and TCAR was associated with a lower incidence of TIA (0% vs 1%; P = .038) among symptomatic patients. On adjusted analysis, the TCAR cohort had lower odds of TIA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.74; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA, TCAR was associated with decreased odds of 30-day TIA compared with TfCAS. However, the two treatment approaches were similarly safe in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes, including stroke and death and stroke, death, and MI. Our results support the safety and efficacy of TCAR in this subset of patients deemed at high risk of reintervention.

One-year outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) in the ROADSTER 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a carotid stenting technique that utilizes reversal of cerebral arterial flow to confer cerebral protection. Although carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the standard for treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the search for the optimal minimally invasive option for the high-risk surgical patient continues. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the 1-year safety and efficacy of TCAR in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS: ROADSTER 2 is a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, post-approval registry for patients undergoing TCAR. All patients were considered high risk for CEA and underwent independent neurological assessments preoperatively, postoperatively, and had long-term clinical follow-up. The primary end point was incidence of ipsilateral stroke after treatment with the ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System. Secondary end points included individual/composite rates of stroke, death, and perioperative myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and November 2018, 155 patients at 21 centers in the United States and one in the European Union were enrolled and represented a subset of the overall trial. Asymptomatic (n = 119; 77%) and symptomatic patients (n = 36; 23%) with high-risk anatomic (ie, high lesion, restenosis, radiation injury; 43%), physiologic (32%), or combined factors (25%) were enrolled. No patient suffered a perioperative myocardial infarction or stroke. Over the year, no patient had an ipsilateral stroke, but four patients died (2.6%), all from non-neurological causes. Additionally, a technical success rate of 98.7% with a low cranial nerve deficit rate of 1.3% was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high risk factors, TCAR yields high technical success with a low stroke and death rate at 1 year. Further comparative studies with CEA are warranted.