Protamine use in transcarotid arterial revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The literature suggests that heparin reversal with protamine in transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) decreases postoperative bleeding complications without an increase in stroke or death. However, the dosing of protamine in TCAR has not yet been evaluated. We aimed to evaluate our experience with intraoperative heparin reversal with protamine. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study that evaluated the heparin and protamine doses used during TCAR. All adult patients who underwent TCAR between 9/1/2019 and 4/2/2021 were included. Demographic data was obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative and protamine/heparin doses were obtained from a chart review. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the protamine/heparin dose ratio and other variables. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included. The average protamine/heparin dose ratio used was 0.96 ± 0.12 mg/U; seven had a ratio less than 0.8 mg/U, and one was greater than 1.2 mg/U. Two patients experienced bleeding complications, which were managed non-operatively. No patient with a protamine/heparin ratio greater than 0.8 mg/U had postoperative bleeding. Postoperative bradycardia was observed in 32.3% of patients and hypotension in 35%, with 19% requiring vasopressors. No relationship was identified between the protamine/heparin ratio and bleeding, bradycardia, or hypotension. No 30-day myocardial infarction, stroke or death occurred. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a near 1:1 ratio of a protamine/heparin dosing regimen for the reversal of heparin during TCAR, with postoperative bleeding complications similar to those reported in the literature. However, patients who received a lower protamine/heparin ratio did not experience bleeding complications. In the era of protamine shortages, a future larger-scale study is needed to evaluate the impact of a lower protamine dose on postoperative complications.

Estimated Cost of Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Compared With Carotid Endarterectomy and Transfemoral Carotid Stenting.

Objectives Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death than transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). TCAR infers a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and a similar risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). There have been no comparative studies on the cost of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA, which may have important implications for institutional support for the new modality to address carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to compare the estimated cost profiles of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA. Methods A review was performed on Medicare patients who underwent TCAR, TF-CAS, or CEA between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Acute stroke presentations and elective procedures were included. Cost data were obtained from the hospital's finance department. Quantitative variables were compared using analysis of variance, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square analysis. Results In total, 21 TCAR, 97 TF-CAS, and 26 CEA patients were initially identified. After removing the non-Medicare patients, 17 TCAR, 57 TF-CAS, and 13 CEA patients were included in the analysis. In-hospital stroke, MI, and mortality included three deaths in TF-CAS patients. At 30 days, the stroke rates for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA groups were 0%, 1.8%, and 0%, respectively. The payments for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $15,400 ± 2,100, $23,400 ± 11,800 and $14,300 ± 5,700 (p=0.001), respectively. The estimated costs for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $10,500 ± 3,300, $13,800 ± 14,300, and $12,400 ± 6,000 (p=0.575), respectively. The profit margins for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $5,100 ± 3,100, $9,600 ± 12,100, and $1,900 ± 6,400 (p=0.032), respectively. There was no significant difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.635) or age (p=0.485) among the three groups. The length of hospital stay was not significantly different (p=0.107). The TF-CAS maintained the highest profit margin (p<0.001) when matched for the same diagnosis-related code (without complications or comorbidities). Urgency classification within the TF-CAS group included 45 elective, four urgent, and eight emergent cases. The profit margin was significantly higher for the elective group than for the emergent group (p=0.002) but not different for elective versus urgent (p=0.503) or urgent versus emergent (p=0.102). All patients who underwent TCAR and CEA were elective. Conclusion The hospital reimbursement and profit margins are higher for TF-CAS than for TCAR. With the increasing data now demonstrating similar outcomes with TF-CAS and CEA, further research is required to examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of TCAR and how this will compare to TF-CAS.

Malfunctioning temporary hemodialysis catheters in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The hypercoagulability seen in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) likely contributes to the high temporary hemodialysis catheter (THDC) malfunction rate. We aim to evaluate prophylactic measures and their association with THDC patency. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of our institutions COVID-19 positive patients who required placement of a THDC between February 1 to April 30, 2020, was performed. The association between heparin locking, increased dosing of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and systemic anticoagulation on THDC patency was assessed. Proportional hazards modeling was used to perform a survival analysis to estimate the likelihood and timing of THDC malfunction with the three different prophylactic measures. We also determined the mortality, rate of THDC malfunction and its association with d-dimer levels. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients with a mortality rate of 71% were identified. THDC malfunction occurred in 31.3% of patients. Thirty-seven patients (77.1%) received heparin locking, 22 (45.8%) received systemic anticoagulation, and 38 (79.1%) received VTE prophylaxis. Overall, the rate of THDC malfunction was lower at a trend level of significance, with heparin vs saline locking (24.3% vs 54.6%; P = .058). The likelihood of THDC malfunction in the heparin locked group is lower than all other groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.45]; P = .005). The rate of malfunction in patients with subcutaneous heparin (SQH) 7500 U three times daily is significantly lower than of the rate for patients receiving none (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.001-0.74; P = .032). A trend level significant association was found for SQH 5000 U vs none (P = .417) and SQH 7500 vs 5000 U (P = .059). Systemic anticoagulation did not affect the THDC malfunction rate (P = .240). Higher d-dimer levels were related to greater mortality (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.16-9.28; P = .025), but were not significantly associated with THDC malfunction (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.42, 7.71; P = .434). CONCLUSIONS: Locking THDCs with heparin is associated with a lower malfunction rate. Prospective randomized studies will be needed to confirm these findings to recommend locking THDC with heparin in patients with COVID-19. Increased VTE prophylaxis suggested a possible association with improved THDC patency, although the comparison lacked sufficient statistical power.