Clinical outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy from a large single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been practiced as an alternative for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting, specifically in high-risk patients. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients if done within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR surveillance project. A few registry studies (primarily from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) compared the early and up to 1-year outcomes of TCAR vs CEA or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. There is no large single-center study that reported late clinical outcomes. The present study compares intermediate clinical outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed collected data from TCAR surveillance project patients enrolled in our institution and compare it with CEA patients done by the same providers at the same time period. The primary outcome was combined perioperative stroke/death and late stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included combined stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and bleeding. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from stroke, stroke/death, and ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 646 procedures (637 patients) (404 CEA, 242 TCAR). There was no significant difference in the indications for carotid intervention. However, TCAR patients had more high-risk criteria, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. There was no significant differences between CEA vs TCAR in 30-day perioperative stroke (1% vs 2%), stroke/death rate (1% vs 3%; P = .0849), or major hematomas (2% vs 2%). The rate of CNI was significantly different (5% for CEA vs 1% for TCAR; P = .0138). At late follow-up (2 years), the rate of stroke was 1% vs 4% (P = .0273), stroke/death 8% vs 15% (P = .008), ≥80 % restenosis 0.5% vs 3% (P = .0139) for CEA patients vs TCAR patients, respectively. After matching 242 CEAs and 242 TCARs, the perioperative stroke rate was 1% for CEA vs 2% for TCAR (P = .5037), the stroke/death rate was 2% vs 3% (P = .2423), and the CNI rate was 3% vs 1% (P = .127). At late follow-up, rates of stroke were 1% for CEA vs 4% for TCAR (P = .0615) and stroke/death were 8% vs 15% (P = .0345). The rate of ≥80% restenosis was 0.9% for CEA vs 3% for TCAR (P = .099). The rates of freedom from stroke at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for CEA vs TCAR were 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99% vs 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively (P = .0806); stroke/death were 94%, 90%, 87%, and 86% vs 93%, 87%, 76%, and 75%, respectively (P = .0529); and ≥80% restenosis were 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98% vs 97%, 95%, 93%, and 93%, respectively (P = .1132). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar perioperative clinical outcomes. However, CEA was superior to TCAR for the rates of late stroke/death and had a somewhat lower rate of ≥80% restenosis at 2 years, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Long-term durability and clinical outcome of a prospective randomized trial comparing carotid endarterectomy with ACUSEAL polytetrafluoroethylene patching versus pericardial patching.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown the superiority of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch closure over primary closure. However, no definite study has shown any significant differences in clinical outcome between various types of patches. Because more vascular surgeons have used pericardial patching recently, this study will analyze the late clinical outcome (≥10 years) of our previously reported prospective randomized trial comparing CEA with ACUSEAL (polytetrafluoroethylene) vs pericardial patching. METHODS: A total of 200 CEAs were randomized (1:1) to either Vascu-Guard pericardial patching or ACUSEAL patching. All patients had immediate duplex ultrasound imaging, which was repeated at 6 months and annually thereafter. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate rates of freedom from stroke, stroke-free survival, and rates of freedom from ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis. RESULTS: Overall demographic and clinical characteristics were somewhat similar with a mean follow-up of 80 months (range: 0-149 months). The rates of freedom from stroke were 97, 97, 97, 96, 93 for ACUSEAL vs 99, 98, 97, 97, 92 for pericardial patching (P = .1112) at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Similarly, the rates of freedom from stroke/death were 94, 93, 90, 76, 50 for ACUSEAL vs 99, 96, 91, 78, 47 for pericardial patching (P = .8591). The rates of freedom from ≥50% restenosis were 98, 98, 96, 89, 79 for ACUSEAL vs 87, 83, 83, 81, 71 for pericardial patching (P = .0489). The rates of freedom from ≥80% restenosis were 99, 99, 99, 96, 85 for ACUSEAL vs 96, 96, 96, 93, 93 for pericardial patching (P = .9407). The overall survival rates were 95, 94, 91, 77, 51 for ACUSEAL vs 100, 98, 93, 79, 50 for pericardial patching (P = .9123). Other patch complications (eg, rupture, aneurysmal dilation, infection, etc) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both CEA with ACUSEAL (polytetrafluoroethylene) and pericardial patching are durable and have similar clinical outcomes at 10 years except that ACUSEAL patching has significantly better rates of freedom from ≥50% restenosis.

Endovascular repair of a traumatic inferior vena cava injury after exploratory laparotomy.

The incidence of traumatic inferior vena cava (IVC) injury is infrequent but is associated with high mortality. No clear and current society-based guidelines are available to dictate the role of endovascular therapy. In the present case report, we have described a unique clinical presentation of a patient in extremis after emergent exploratory laparotomy who had experienced an IVC injury that could not be controlled with open surgery. The IVC injury was treated with an endovascular approach with a Gore TAG endograft (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ). We have reported a technique for successful treatment of a complex IVC injury, with the aim of adding to the current body of literature supporting the use of endovascular approaches.

Rates of progression of carotid in-stent stenosis and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the incidence of ≥50% and ≥80% carotid in-stent stenosis. In the present study, we analyzed the rate of progression of in-stent stenosis and clinical outcomes with longer follow-up. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for 450 patients who had undergone transfemoral carotid artery stenting with longer follow-up (mean, 70 months). The progression of in-stent stenosis was defined as stenosis advancing to a higher severity of disease (ie, from <50% to ≥50% and from ≥50% to ≥80%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the rate of progression from <50% to ≥50% and ≥50% to ≥80%, the overall rates of ≥50% and ≥80% in-stent stenosis, and survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 70.3 months (range, 1-222 months), 121 of 446 patients (27%) had had progression to ≥50% and 39 (8.7%) to ≥80% in-stent stenosis. Of the 406 patients whose first duplex ultrasound findings were normal or showed in-stent stenosis of <50%, 82 had had progression from normal or <50% to ≥50% in-stent stenosis at a mean of 51.7 months (range, 1-213 months). Of the 121 patients with ≥50% stenosis, 14 (11.6%) had experienced progression to ≥80% at a mean of 33.6 months (range, 6-89 months). Of the 82 patients with progression from <50 to ≥50%, 10 (12%) had experienced a neurologic event (eight transient ischemic attacks [TIAs] and two strokes). Of the 14 with progression from ≥50% to ≥80%, 2 (14.3%) had experienced a TIA, and the remaining patients were asymptomatic. Of the 39 patients with ≥80% in-stent stenosis, 9 (23%) had experienced a neurologic event (eight TIAs and one contralateral stroke). Overall, 13 of the 121 patients with late ≥50% restenosis (10.7%) had experienced a neurologic event (10 ipsilateral TIA, 2 ipsilateral stroke, and 1 contralateral stroke. Thus, 12 of 446 patients (2.7%) had experienced an ipsilateral TIA or stroke at a mean follow-up of 70 months. The rates of freedom from <50% to ≥50% in-stent stenosis progression were 93%, 85%, 78%, and 66% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. The rates of freedom from progression from ≥50% to ≥80% in-stent stenosis were 89%, 81%, and 77% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The overall rates of freedom from ≥50% in-stent stenosis and ≥80% in-stent stenosis were 86%, 77%, 71%, and 59% and 96%, 93%, 91%, and 84% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Finally, the stroke survival rates were 95%, 80%, 63%, and 31% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of progression of carotid in-stent stenosis was modest, with a low incidence of stroke events. Therefore, the use of duplex ultrasound surveillance after carotid artery stenting should be selective and its benefits and utility perhaps reevaluated.

Aortobifemoral bypass for occlusive aortic disease in a patient with a duplicate inferior vena cava.

We present the case of a 66-year-old woman with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease (TASC-D) and an incidental finding of a left sided inferior vena cava, discovered on the preoperative computed tomography scan. This uncommon congenital finding can create intraoperative challenges to the vascular surgeon. In this case report, we have described this anatomic variant and elaborated on our surgical technique to suggest a few tips and tricks for addressing these cases.