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.

A registry-based study of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoral-popliteal artery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of a prospective, single-arm, registry-based study assessing the safety and performance of a paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) in a United States population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, multi-center, single-arm, post-market registry of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB for the treatment of ISR lesions in the SFA or popliteal artery at 43 sites within the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Registry from December 2016 to January 2020. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included technical success, target vessel revascularization, major limb amputation, and all-cause mortality. Results are presented as survival probabilities based on Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: Patients (N = 300) were 58% male, with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years. Diabetes was present in 56%, 80% presented with claudication, and 20% with rest pain. Lesions included ISR of the SFA in 68%, SFA-popliteal in 26%, and popliteal arteries in 7%. The mean lesion length was 17.8 ± 11.8 cm. Lesions were categorized as occlusions in 43% (mean occluded length, 16 ± 10 cm). TASC type was A (17%), B (29%), C (38%), and D (15%). Technical success was 99%. Re-stenting was performed in 5% and thrombolysis in 0.6% of patients. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from target lesion revascularization were 90%, 72%, and 62% at 12, 24, and 36 months. Freedom from target vessel revascularization was 88%, 68%, and 59% and freedom from major target limb amputation was 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.9%, respectively, at 12, 24, and 36 months. Survival was 95%, 89%, and 85% at 12, 24, and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: This post-market registry-based study shows promising results in treating femoral-popliteal ISR with paclitaxel DCB in comparison to the results of plain balloon angioplasty reported in the literature. These results demonstrate the ability of the SVS VQI to conduct post-market evaluation of peripheral devices in partnership with industry and federal regulators.

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.

Association of stroke or death with severity of carotid lesion calcification in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for heavily calcified lesions is controversial due to concern for stent failure and increased perioperative stroke risk. However, the degree to which calcification affects outcomes is poorly understood, particularly in transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). With the precipitous increase in TCAR use and its expansion to standard surgical-risk patients, we aimed to determine the impact of lesion calcification on CAS outcomes to ensure its safe and appropriate use. METHODS: We identified patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent first-time transfemoral CAS (tfCAS) and TCAR between 2016 and 2021. Patients were stratified into groups based on degree of lesion calcification: no calcification, 1% to 50% calcification, 51% to 99% calcification, and 100% circumferential calcification or intraluminal protrusion. Outcomes included in-hospital and 1-year composite stroke/death, as well as individual stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between degree of calcification and these outcomes. RESULTS: Among 21,860 patients undergoing CAS, 28% patients had no calcification, 34% had 1% to 50% calcification, 35% had 51% to 99% calcification, and 3% had 100% circumferential calcification/protrusion. Patients with 51% to 99% and circumferential calcification/protrusion had higher odds of in-hospital stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.6; P = .034; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .004, respectively) compared with those with no calcification. Circumferential calcification was also associated with increased risk for in-hospital myocardial infarction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .003). In tfCAS patients, only circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher in-hospital stroke/death odds (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P = .013), whereas for TCAR patients, 51% to 99% calcification was associated with increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .025). At 1 year, circumferential calcification/protrusion was associated with higher odds of ipsilateral stroke/death (12.4% vs 6.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CAS, there is an increased risk of in-hospital stroke/death for lesions with >50% calcification or circumferential/protruding plaques. Increasing severity of carotid lesion calcification is a significant risk factor for stroke/death in patients undergoing CAS, regardless of approach.

The Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of the Bard Lifestent for the treatment of popliteal artery occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: The Bard LifeStent self-expanding stent is approved for the treatment of occlusive disease involving the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery. We conducted a post-market trial of treatment of the popliteal artery above and below the knee (P1, P2, and P3 segments) within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Peripheral Vascular Intervention registry. METHODS: A single-arm, prospective trial was conducted at 29 VQI sites in the United States, enrolling 74 patients from November 2016 to May 2019. The primary safety outcome was freedom from major adverse events including device-/procedure-related mortality and major amputation at 1 year. The primary efficacy outcomes were freedom from target vessel revascularization and freedom from target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included lesion success; procedural success; primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency; and sustained clinical (improvement in Rutherford class) and hemodynamic success (increase in ankle brachial index >0.10). Outcomes were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Arteriogram of patients undergoing target lesion revascularization were assessed for stent fracture by a core laboratory. RESULTS: The mean age was 71 years, with 63.5% male and 55% with diabetes. The indication was claudication 28% and chronic limb-threatening ischemia in 72%. The superficial femoral artery-popliteal artery was stented in 38% and the popliteal artery alone in 62%. The majority of stents were placed in the P1 + P2 (39%) or P1 + P2 + P3 (37%) segments of the popliteal artery. The composite primary endpoint of freedom from major adverse events was 82% and 74% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Freedom from mortality was 100% and 97%, and freedom from major amputation was 100% and 90% at 1 and 12 months, with all deaths and major amputations occurring in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. freedom from target lesion revascularization was 86%, and freedom from target vessel revascularization was 84% at 12 months. At discharge, lesion treatment success was 99%, and procedural success was 82%. Primary patency was 80% and 72%, primary-assisted patency was 80% and 72%, and secondary patency was 89% and 82% at 12 and 24 months. Sustained clinical success was 98% and 95%, and sustained hemodynamic success was 100% and 79% at 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center, registry-based, single-arm prospective study the Bard LifeStent self-expanding stent demonstrated favorable performance in the challenging anatomy of the P2 and P3 popliteal segment. Post-market studies for label expansion of peripheral vascular intervention devices can be successfully conducted within the Society for Vascular Surgery VQI registry.

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.

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

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

Impact of thoracic endovascular aortic repair timing on outcomes after uncomplicated type B aortic dissection in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative postapproval project for dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) after the onset of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) postapproval study (VQI PAS) data for the impact of TEVAR timing for uTBAD on early and late outcomes, including mortality, procedural complications, and long-term reintervention. METHODS: The VQI PAS used for this analysis includes a total of 606 patients. Patients with uTBAD (defined as those without rupture or malperfusion) exclusive of cases categorized as emergent (N = 206) were divided into groups defined by the Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons reporting guidelines based on the timing of treatment after the onset of dissection: within 24 hours (N = 8), 1 to 14 days (N = 121), and 15 to 90 days (N = 77). Univariate and multivariable analysis were used to determine differences between timing groups for postoperative mortality, in-hospital complications, and reintervention. RESULTS: Demographics and comorbid conditions were very similar across the 3 TEVAR timing groups. Notable differences included a higher prevalence of baseline elevated creatinine (>1.8 mg/dL)/chronic end-stage renal disease and designation as "urgent" in the <24-hour group, as well as a higher rate of preoperative ß-blocker therapy in the 1- to 14-day group. Postoperative stroke, congestive heart failure, and renal ischemia were more common in the <24-hour group without an increase in mortality. Unadjusted 30-day mortality across groups was lowest in the early TEVAR group (0%, 3.3%, and 5.2%; P = .68), as was 1-year mortality (0%, 8.3%, and 18.2%; P = .06), although not statistically different at any time point. Reintervention out to 3 years was not different between the groups. Multivariable analysis demonstrated the need for a postoperative therapeutic lumbar drain to be the only a predictive risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio = 7.595, 95% confidence interval: 1.730-33.337, P = .007). When further subdivided into patients treated 1 to 7 days or 8 to 14 days after dissection, findings were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with uTBAD treated within 24 hours were unusual (N = 8), too small for valid statistical comparison, and likely represent a high-risk subgroup, which is manifested in a higher risk of complications. Although there was a trend toward improved survival in the acute (1- to 14-day) phase, outcomes did not differ compared with the subacute (15- to 90-day) phase with relation to early mortality, postoperative complications, or 1-year survival. These data suggest that the proper selection of patients for early TEVAR can result in equivalent survival and early outcomes.

Advancing the Real-World Evidence for Medical Devices through Coordinated Registry Networks.

Objectives: Generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) is a pragmatic solution for evaluating health technologies. RWE is recognized by regulators, health technology assessors, clinicians, and manufacturers as a valid source of information to support their decision-making. Well-designed registries can provide RWE and become more powerful when linked with electronic health records and administrative databases in coordinated registry networks (CRNs). Our objective was to create a framework of maturity of CRNs and registries, so guiding their development and the prioritization of funding. Design setting and participants: We invited 52 stakeholders from diverse backgrounds including patient advocacy groups, academic, clinical, industry and regulatory experts to participate on a Delphi survey. Of those invited, 42 participated in the survey to provide feedback on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries. An expert panel reviewed the responses to refine the framework until the target consensus of 80% was reached. Two rounds of the Delphi were distributed via Qualtrics online platform from July to August 2020 and from October to November 2020. Main outcome measures: Consensus on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries consisted of seven domains (unique device identification, efficient data collection, data quality, product life cycle approach, governance and sustainability, quality improvement, and patient-reported outcomes), each presented with five levels of maturity. Results: Of 52 invited experts, 41 (79.9%) responded to round 1; all 41 responded to round 2; and consensus was reached for most domains. The expert panel resolved the disagreements and final consensus estimates ranged from 80.5% to 92.7% for seven domains. Conclusions: We have developed a robust framework to assess the maturity of any CRN (or registry) to provide reliable RWE. This framework will promote harmonization of approaches to RWE generation across different disciplines and health systems. The domains and their levels may evolve over time as new solutions become available.

Retrograde type A dissection in the Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair for dissection postapproval project.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde dissection (RD) can be a serious complication after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), with retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) particularly life-threatening. Prior studies have suggested that treatment timing, anatomic characteristics, device selection, and procedural conduct of TEVAR performed for type B aortic dissection could mitigate the occurrence of RD. The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR for Dissection Registry is an ongoing project meant to satisfy Food and Drug Administration requirements for postmarket approval surveillance of the Gore conformable TAG thoracic endoprosthesis (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), Medtronic Valiant thoracic stent graft (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif), and Cook Medical dissection devices (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and provides a unique source of evaluation for RTAD in a prospectively collected real-world registry. METHODS: A total of 588 consecutive patients at 49 institutions had undergone TEVAR for acute (<30 days; n = 336) and chronic (≥30 days; n = 252) type B aortic dissection were included. The occurrence of RD as reported by the participating centers and de-identified source documents were reviewed and confirmed independently by two of us (A.W.B. and G.W.). The demographics, procedural and device data, and anatomic considerations were evaluated, and the devices were grouped in a de-identified manner as Gore, Medtronic, and other. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 889 days (median, 658 days), and 408 patients had completed follow-up data available for >1 year. A total of 19 patients with RD (3.2%) were identified, 9 of whom had been treated for acute and 10 for chronic dissection, a 2.7% and 4.0% incidence, respectively (P = .48, acute vs chronic). Of the 19 RD cases, 15 were RTAD, 6 after treatment of acute and 9 after treatment of chronic dissection, a 1.8% and 3.6% incidence, respectively (P = .19, acute vs chronic). Five cases of RD had occurred intraoperatively (four of which were RTAD). The median time to RD and RTAD was 62 and 69 days, respectively (range, 0 to 1600 days). Of the 15 patients with RTAD, 12 had undergone surgical repair and 2 had not undergone repair; the treatment of one was unknown. The overall mortality was 33.3% (5 of 15). The factors associated with RTAD included more extensive dissection (mean, 5.6 zones without RTAD vs 8.5 zones with RTAD; P = .001), female sex (28.3% female without RTAD vs 53.3% with RTAD; P = .04), and non-White race (62.7% White without RTAD vs 33.3% White with RTAD; P = .05). Mean oversizing was not significantly different for those without RTAD compared with that for those with RTAD (14.0% vs 14.2%; P = .92). The device type was anonymized in this project; however, we found no significant differences between the Gore, Medtronic, and all other devices. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of RD in the present real-world postapproval project was consistent with that from previously reported studies, including highly controlled pivotal studies. Device type was not predictive of RD, and the newly identified risk factors for RTAD include more extensive dissection and a trend toward a greater risk for female sex and non-White race.

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.

Editor's Choice - Optimal Threshold for the Volume-Outcome Relationship After Open AAA Repair in the Endovascular Era: Analysis of the International Consortium of Vascular Registries.

OBJECTIVE: As open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR) rates decline in the endovascular era, the endorsement of minimum volume thresholds for OAR is increasingly controversial, as this may affect credentialing and training. The purpose of this analysis was to identify an optimal centre volume threshold that is associated with the most significant mortality reduction after OAR, and to determine how this reflects contemporary practice. METHODS: This was an observational study of OARs performed in 11 countries (2010 - 2016) within the International Consortium of Vascular Registry database (n = 178 302). The primary endpoint was post-operative in hospital mortality. Two different methodologies (area under the receiving operating curve optimisation and Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure) were used to determine the optimal centre volume threshold associated with the most significant mortality improvement. RESULTS: In total, 154 912 (86.9%) intact and 23 390 (13.1%) ruptured AAAs were analysed. The majority (63.1%; n = 112 557) underwent endovascular repair (EVAR) (OAR 36.9%; n = 65 745). A significant inverse relationship between increasing centre volume and lower peri-operative mortality after intact and ruptured OAR was evident (p < .001) but not with EVAR. An annual centre volume of between 13 and 16 procedures per year was associated with the most significant mortality reduction after intact OAR (adjusted predicted mortality < 13 procedures/year 4.6% [95% confidence interval 4.0% - 5.2%] vs. ≥ 13 procedures/year 3.1% [95% CI 2.8% - 3.5%]). With the increasing adoption of EVAR, the mean number of OARs per centre (intact + ruptured) decreased significantly (2010 - 2013 = 35.7; 2014 - 2016 = 29.8; p < .001). Only 23% of centres (n = 240/1 065) met the ≥ 13 procedures/year volume threshold, with significant variation between nations (Germany 11%; Denmark 100%). CONCLUSION: An annual centre volume of 13 - 16 OARs per year is the optimal threshold associated with the greatest mortality risk reduction after treatment of intact AAA. However, in the current endovascular era, achieving this threshold requires significant re-organisation of OAR practice delivery in many countries, and would affect provision of non-elective aortic services. Low volume centres continuing to offer OAR should aim to achieve mortality results equivalent to the high volume institution benchmark, using validated data from quality registries to track outcomes.

Outcomes after truncal ablation with or without concomitant phlebectomy for isolated symptomatic varicose veins (C2 disease).

OBJECTIVE: Many insurance payers are hesitating to cover interventional treatments in patients with isolated symptomatic varicose veins. In this study, we sought to determine the outcomes of patients with varicose veins who were treated with venous ablation alone or ablation plus phlebectomy using the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry. METHODS: Using data from the Varicose Vein Registry between January 2015 and March 2019, we investigated immediate postoperative as well as long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with documented symptomatic C2 disease undergoing truncal endovenous ablations alone and combined ablation and phlebectomy. Preprocedural and postprocedural comparisons were performed using t-test, χ2 test, or nonparametric tests when appropriate. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was performed on ordinal outcome variables. RESULTS: Among 3375 patients with symptomatic C2 disease, 40.1% of patients (1376) underwent isolated truncal ablation and 59.9% (1999) underwent ablation and phlebectomy. Complications overall were low (8.6%) and varied between 8.4% and 8.7% in patients undergoing ablation alone and ablation plus phlebectomy, respectively (P = .820). The most common complication noted was paresthesia, 3.4% overall, which occurred more commonly after ablation and phlebectomy (4.5%) than after ablation alone (1.3%; P < .001). An improvement in Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) was experienced by 87.4% of patients; median change in VCSS was 4 points (interquartile range [IQR], 2-5 points), with an improvement of 3 points among patients undergoing ablation alone (IQR, 1-5 points) and 5 points among patients undergoing ablation and phlebectomy (IQR, 3-5 points; P < .001). An improvement in overall symptoms was experienced by 94.4% of patients (median improvement, 11 points; (maximum, 30 points), with more significant decreases among patients undergoing ablation and phlebectomy (median, 12 points; IQR, 8-17 points) compared with ablation alone (median, 9 points; IQR, 5-13 points; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with isolated symptomatic varicose veins (C2 disease), ablation and ablation with phlebectomy are safe and effective in improving both patient-reported outcomes and clinical severity (VCSS). Given these data, payers should continue to cover these treatments.

Vascular Quality Initiative risk score for 30-day stroke or death following transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) using a flow-reversal neuroprotection system has gained popularity for the endovascular treatment of carotid artery atherosclerotic disease owing to its lower risk of stroke or death compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting. However, specific risk factors associated with stroke or death complications after TCAR have yet to be defined. METHODS: All patients undergoing TCAR for the treatment of asymptomatic or symptomatic atherosclerotic carotid disease were identified between September 2016 and September 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. Our primary outcome was 30-day stroke or death. We created a risk model for 30-day stroke or death using multivariable fractional polynomials and internally validated the model using bootstrapping. RESULTS: During the study period 7633 patients underwent TCAR, of which 4089 (53.6%) were treated for symptomatic and 3544 (46.4%) for asymptomatic disease. The average age of patients undergoing TCAR was 73.3 ± 9.1 years and 63.7% were male. Stroke or death events within 30 days of the index operation occurred in 153 patients (2.0%). Factors independently associated with a higher odds of 30-day stroke or death included the severity of presenting stroke symptoms (cortical transient ischemic attack, odds ratio [OR], 2.17 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21-3.90; P = .009]; stroke, OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.25-4.85; P < .001), advancing age (OR, 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .003), and history of unstable angina or myocardial infarction within the past 6 months (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.29-3.77; P = .004), moderate or severe congestive heart failure (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.31-4.55; P = .005), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (on medications, OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.06-2.43; P = .024]; on home oxygen, OR, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.44-4.41; P = .001]), and prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.25; P = .016), whereas preoperative P2Y12 use was associated with a lower odds of 30-day stroke or death (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85; P = .005). A 30-point risk prediction model created based on these criteria produced a C statistic of 0.72 and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit of 0.97. Internal validation demonstrated good discrimination with a bias corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 with a calibration slope of 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: This Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR risk score calculator can be used to estimate the risk of stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. Because TCAR is commonly used to treat patients with high surgical risk for carotid endarterectomy, this risk score will help to guide treatment decisions in patients being considered for TCAR.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices objective performance goals for superficial femoral and popliteal artery peripheral vascular interventions.

BACKGROUND: The Superficial Femoral Artery-Popliteal EvidencE Development Study Group developed contemporary objective performance goals (OPGs) for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for superficial femoral artery (SFA)-popliteal artery disease using the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2010 to October 2016 was used to develop OPGs based on SFA-popliteal procedures (n = 21,377) for intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia (CLI). OPGs included 1-year rates for target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation, and 1 and 4-year survival rates. OPGs were calculated for the SFA and popliteal arteries and stratified by four treatments: angioplasty alone (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA]), self-expanding stenting, atherectomy, and any treatment type. Outcomes were illustrated by unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Cohorts included PTA (n = 7505), stenting (n = 9217), atherectomy (n = 2510) and any treatment (n = 21,377). The mean age was 69 years, 58% were male, 79% were White, and 52% had CLI. The freedom from TLR OPGs at 1 year in the SFA were 80.3% (PTA), 83.2% (stenting), 83.9% (atherectomy), and 81.9% (any treatments). The freedom from TLR OPGs at 1 year in the popliteal were 81.3% (PTA), 81.3% (stenting), 80.2% (atherectomy), and 81.1% (any treatments). The freedom from major amputation OPGs at 1 year after SFA PVI were 93.4% (PTA), 95.7% (stenting), 95.1% (atherectomy), and 94.8% (any treatments). The freedom from major amputation OPG at 1 year after popliteal PVI were 90.5% (PTA), 93.7% (stenting), 91.8% (atherectomy), and 91.8%, (any treatments). The 4-year survival OPGs after SFA PVI were 76% (PTA), 80% (stenting), 82% (atherectomy), and 79% (any treatments), and for the popliteal artery were 72% (PTA), 77% (stenting), 82% (atherectomy), and 75% (any treatment). On a multivariable analysis, which included patient-level, leg-level, and lesion-level covariates, CLI was the single independent factor associated with increased TLR, amputation, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The Superficial Femoral Artery-Popliteal EvidencE Development OPGs define a new, contemporary benchmark for SFA-popliteal interventions using a large subset of real-world evidence to inform more efficient peripheral device clinical trial designs to support regulatory and clinical decision-making. It is appropriate to discuss proposals intended for regulatory approval with the US Food and Drug Administration to refine the OPG to match the specific trial population. The OPGs may be updated using coordinated registry networks to assess long-term real-world device performance.

Practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoperative completion imaging (completion carotid duplex ultrasound or angiography) to confirm the technical adequacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to describe vascular surgeons' practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after CEA and to study the association between completion imaging and postoperative stroke/death and high-grade restenosis (>70%). METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA without concomitant procedures in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Surgeons' practice patterns were defined on the basis of the distribution of completion imaging use among annual CEA cases per surgeon. Multivariable and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the association between different practice patterns of completion imaging and perioperative and 1-year outcomes after CEA. RESULTS: Of 98,055 CEA cases, 26,716 (27.3%) were performed with completion imaging. Compared with cases in which completion imaging was not performed, completion imaging was associated with increased rates of immediate re-exploration (3.5% vs 0.9%; odds ratio [OR], 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74-5.38; P < .001), overall return to the operating room (RTOR; 1.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P < .01), and longer operative time (median [interquartile range], 105 minutes [82-132] vs 119 minutes [92-148]; P < .001). Of 1920 surgeons in our cohort, 45% never performed completion imaging, whereas 26% rarely performed completion imaging (for ≤20% of annual CEA cases), 9.5% performed it selectively (21%-79% of annual CEAs), and 19.6% used completion imaging routinely (≥80% of annual CEAs). Rarely performing completion imaging had higher rates of immediate re-exploration (6.5% vs 0.9%; OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.7-9.2; P < .001), in-hospital stroke (4.0% vs 1.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6; P < .001), RTOR for bleeding (1.9% vs 0.9%; aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.9; P < .001), and neurologic events (1.5% vs 0.4%; aOR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001) compared with not performing completion imaging. It was also associated with increased stroke/death and repeated revascularization at 30 days and significant restenosis at 1 year. On the other hand, performance of selective and routine completion imaging was associated with increased immediate re-exploration (selective: aOR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.9-5.5; P < .001]; routine: aOR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.5-5.6; P < .001]) without any increase in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year adverse outcomes compared with cases performed without completion imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of selective or routine completion imaging during CEA is safe and is not associated with increased adverse events compared with not using intraoperative completion imaging. However, rarely performing completion imaging is associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative stroke/death and RTOR, possibly because of unnecessary re-exploration for minor defects. The operator's experience and establishing a criterion for fixing residual defects are important to avoid unnecessary re-exploration.

Editor's Choice - Protamine Reduces Serious Bleeding Complications Associated with Carotid Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Patients without Increasing the Risk of Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, or Death in a Large National Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy persists regarding the use of protamine during carotid endarterectomy (CEA), despite real world evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of protamine reversal of heparin anticoagulation on the outcome of CEA in the USA. METHODS: A prospective national registry (Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) of 72 787 patients undergoing elective asymptomatic CEA by 1879 surgeons from 316 centres in the USA and Canada from 2012 to 2018 was reviewed. Protamine use varied by both surgeon (20% rare use [< 10%], 30% variable use [11%-79%], 50% routine use [> 80% cases]) and geographical region (44% vs. 96%). Temporal trends in protamine use were also determined. End points included post-operative re-operation for bleeding, as well as potential protamine related thrombotic complications, including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI). Predictors of end points were determined by multivariable logistic regression. Propensity matching was additionally used to control for differences between groups. RESULTS: Of the 72 787 patients who underwent CEA, 69% received protamine, while 31% did not. Protamine use increased over time from 60% (2012) to 73% (2018). In total, 378 patients (0.7%) in the protamine treated group underwent re-operation for bleeding vs. 342 patients (1.4%) in the untreated cohort (p < .001). Protamine use did not affect the rate of MI (0.7% vs. 0.8%; p = .023), stroke (1.1% vs. 1.0%; p = .20), or in hospital death (0.2% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.70) between treated and untreated patients, respectively. On multivariable analysis, protamine use was independently associated with reduced risk of re-operation for bleeding (odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.55; p < .001). Independent of protamine exposure, the consequences of a return to the operating room (RTOR) for bleeding were statistically significant, with a sevenfold increase in MI (RTOR 4.9% vs. no RTOR 0.7%; p < .001), an eightfold increase in stroke (RTOR 7.2% vs. no RTOR 0.9%; p < .001), and a 13 fold increase in death (RTOR 2.4% vs. no RTOR 0.2%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Protamine reduces serious bleeding complications at the time of CEA without increasing the risk of MI, stroke, or death, in this large North American analysis. Based on this and previous regional work regarding protamine use in CEA, it is believed that there is now sufficient evidence to support its routine use, and it should be considered as a benchmark for quality during CEA.