Transcarotid Revascularization Timing and Early Postoperative Outcomes in Symptomatic Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed several days after onset of symptoms has been shown to be optimal in preventing procedure-related stroke. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an alternative hybrid procedure to treat high-risk for CEA patients. In this investigation, our aim is to determine the effect of timing of TCAR in symptomatic patients. METHODS: Procedures were captured prospectively at 2 independent health systems from 2016-2022 within a carotid intervention database. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed to generate cohorts by time to revascularization from onset of symptoms, with the short-interval revascularization (SIR) group defined as having a time to revascularization between 2-5 days; and long-interval revascularization (LIR) group having a time to revascularization of 6-180 days. Univariate analysis was performed comparing the cohorts at an α of .05. RESULTS: During the study period, 875 TCARs were captured, including 321 procedures performed in symptomatic patients. Of these, 84 had revascularization performed within 6 days after onset of symptoms (SIR) while 237 additional cases were completed 6 or more days after onset of symptoms (LIR). Baseline comorbidities were grossly similar between cohorts. Intraoperatively, SIR patients were less likely to develop bradycardia (4.8% vs 22.2%, P = .01) and experienced a shorter operative time (58 minutes vs 65 minutes, P = .02). Estimated blood loss, flow reversal time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopic time and contrast volume were identical between the groups. Length of stay in SIR patients was longer (1, IQR [1-3] vs 1, IQR [1-2] days, P < .01). Additionally, SIR patients seemed to trend toward a higher rate of reinterventions (3.6% vs .4%, P = .06). The incidence of ipsilateral or contralateral stroke, cranial nerve palsy, myocardial infarction, hematoma, stent thrombosis and death were statistically identical between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Like the previous results established for CEA, symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR demonstrate similar outcomes if the procedure is performed 48 hours after the neurologic event.

Fixed compared to mobile imaging arms for transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a new surgical option for carotid artery stenosis. While this procedure is optimally performed in hybrid operating rooms (OR), it is currently unclear whether it could be safely performed using portable, C-arm fluoroscopy with equivalent results. The aim of this study is to determine whether there are differences in intraoperative and perioperative outcomes stratified by imaging modality. METHODS: A retrospective review of all TCAR procedures attempted within our health system was performed, capturing all cases between September 2017 and May 2022. Procedures were divided into 2 cohorts, based on whether they were performed in a hybrid OR or with portable, C-arm in a standard OR. Patient demographics, intraoperative results, and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate strategies. RESULTS: A total of 503 patients were included for review, of which 422 were performed in a hybrid OR (84%) and 81 were performed using a portable C-arm (16%). Intraoperatively, an increased estimated blood loss (47.7 ± 54.7 vs 26.1 ± 26.9 mLs, p < 0.01) and operative time was found in the cases performed in a hybrid OR. However, the fluoroscopy time was lower (4.0 ± 2.6 vs 5.2 ± 5.8 min, p = 0.01) in the setting of advanced intraoperative imaging. Postoperatively, we found no differences with respect to myocardial infarction (0.2% vs. 0%, p > 0.99), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.96), or death (0.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.15) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: While there are some intraoperative variabilities between TCAR performed in hybrid versus standard ORs, postoperative outcomes are comparable. Therefore, the lack of a hybrid room should not be a deterrent to the adoption of TCAR.