Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) by surgeons has been variable, with some still performing traditional carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whereas others have shifted to mostly TCAR. Our goal was to evaluate the association of relative surgeon volume of CEA to TCAR with perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA and carotid artery stent registries were analyzed from 2021 to 2023 for symptomatic and asymptomatic interventions. Surgeons participating in both registries were categorized in the following CEA to CEA+TCAR volume percentage ratios: 0.25 (majority TCAR), 0.26 to 0.50 (more TCAR), 0.51 to 0.75 (more CEA), and 0.76 to 1.00 (majority CEA). Primary outcomes were rates of perioperative ipsilateral stroke, death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding. RESULTS: There were 50,189 patients who underwent primary carotid revascularization (64.3% CEA and 35.7% TCAR). CEA patients were younger (71.1 vs 73.5 years, P < .001), with more symptomatic cases, less coronary artery disease, diabetes, and lower antiplatelet and statin use (all P < .001). TCAR patients had lower rates of smoking, obesity, and dialysis or renal transplant (all P < .001). Postoperative stroke after CEA was significantly impacted by the operator CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .04), with surgeons who perform majority TCAR and more TCAR having higher postoperative ipsilateral stroke (majority TCAR odds ratio [OR]: 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.96, P = .01; more TCAR OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.96, P = .04), as compared with those who perform majority CEA. Similarly, postoperative stroke after TCAR was significantly impacted by the CEA to TCAR volume ratio (P = .02), with surgeons who perform majority CEA and more CEA having higher stroke (majority CEA OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.27, P = .05; more CEA OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-2.00, P = .004), as compared with those who perform majority TCAR. There was no association between surgeon ratio and perioperative death, cranial nerve injury, and return to the operating room for bleeding for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The relative surgeon CEA to TCAR ratio is significantly associated with perioperative stroke rate. Surgeons who perform a majority of one procedure have a higher stroke rate in the other. Surgeons offering both operations should maintain a balanced practice and have a low threshold to collaborate as needed.

The intracranial effects of flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization.

Background: This study aimed to assess intraoperative cerebral hemodynamic responses and embolic events during transcarotid artery revascularization via transcranial Doppler, near-infrared spectroscopy, and bispectral index monitoring. Methods: Twelve patients (7 males, 5 females; mean age: 72.8±9.0 years; range, 63 to 91 years) undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization with simultaneous transcranial Doppler, near-infrared spectroscopy, and bispectral index monitoring were analyzed in this retrospective study between September 2017 and December 2019. The mean flow velocity and pulsatility index of the middle cerebral artery, alongside near-infrared spectroscopy and bispectral index values, before flow reversal, during flow reversal, and after flow reversal phases were investigated. The presence and frequency of high-intensity transient signals were recorded to evaluate embolic incidents. Results: Significant reductions in middle cerebral artery mean flow velocity were noted during flow reversal (40.58±10.57 cm/sec to 20.58±14.34 cm/sec, p=0.0004), which subsequently returned to and exceeded baseline values after flow reversal cessation (53.33±17.69 cm/sec, p=0.0005). Near-infrared spectroscopy (71±4.4% to 66±6.2%) and bispectral index (45.71±8.5 to 40.14±8.1) values mirrored these hemodynamic changes, with notable decreases during flow reversal, and recoveries after flow reversal. The highest concentration of high-intensity transient signals was observed during stent deployment, signifying a critical embolic phase. No perioperative neurological complications or other significant adverse events were documented. Conclusion: Transcranial Doppler, near-infrared spectroscopy, and bispectral index effectively monitor cerebral hemodynamics and embolic potential during transcarotid artery revascularization, providing real-time data crucial for optimizing perioperative management. These findings underscore the clinical value of multimodal monitoring in improving patient outcomes in transcarotid artery revascularization procedures.

Investigation of the weekend effect on perioperative complications and mortality after carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes for weekend surgical interventions are associated with higher rates of mortality and complications than weekday interventions. Although prior investigations have reported the "weekend effect" for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), this association remains unclear for transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). We investigated the weekend effect for all three carotid revascularization methods. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative for patients who underwent CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS between 2016 and 2022. χ2 and logistic regression modeling analyzed outcomes including in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality by weekend vs weekday intervention. Backward stepwise regression was used to identify significant confounding variables and was ultimately included in each final logistic regression model. Logistic regression of outcomes was substratified by symptomatic status. Secondary multivariable analysis compared outcomes between the three revascularization methods by weekend vs weekday interventions. RESULTS: A total of 155,962 procedures were analyzed including 103,790 CEA, 31,666 TCAR, and 20,506 TFCAS. Of these, 1988 CEA, 246 TCAR, and 820 TFCAS received weekend interventions. Logistic regression demonstrated no significant differences for TCAR and increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction for CEA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.65) and TFCAS (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09-1.96) weekend procedures. Asymptomatic TCAR patients had nearly triple the odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.06-7.68, P = .038). Similarly, odds of in-hospital death were nearly tripled for asymptomatic CEA (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.30-6.43, P = .009) and asymptomatic TFCAS (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.34-5.76, P = .006) patients. Secondary analysis demonstrated that CEA and TCAR had no significant differences for all outcomes. TFCAS was associated with increased odds of stroke and death compared with CEA and TCAR. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort study, we found that weekend carotid revascularization is associated with increased odds of complications and mortality. Furthermore, asymptomatic weekend patients perform worse in the CEA and TFCAS procedural groups. Among the three revascularization methods, TFCAS is associated with the highest odds of perioperative stroke and mortality. As such, our findings suggest that TFCAS procedures should be avoided over the weekend in favor of CEA or TCAR. In patients who are poor candidates for CEA, TCAR offers the lowest morbidity and mortality for weekend procedures.

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.

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.

Non-White Patients Have a Higher Risk of Stroke Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery revascularization has traditionally been performed by either a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent. Large data analysis has suggested there are differences in perioperative outcomes with regards to race, with non-White patients (NWP) having worse outcomes of stroke, restenosis and return to the operating room (RTOR). The introduction of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has started to shift the paradigm of carotid disease treatment. However, to date, there have been no studies assessing the difference in postoperative outcomes after TCAR between racial groups. METHODS: All patients from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent TCAR were included in our analysis. Patients were split into two groups based on race: individuals who identified as White and a second group that comprised all other races. Demographic and clinical variables were compared using Student's t-Test and chi-square test of independence. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of race on perioperative outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), death, restenosis, RTOR, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 22,609 patients: 20,424 (90.3%) White patients and 2185 (9.7%) NWP. After adjusting for sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of prior stroke or TIA, symptomatic status, and high-risk criteria at time of TCAR, there was a significant difference in postoperative stroke, with 63% increased risk in NWP (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.40, P = 0.014). However, we found no significant difference in the odds of MI, death, postoperative TIA, restenosis, or RTOR when comparing NWP to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that NWP have increased risk of stroke but similar outcomes of death, MI, RTOR and restenosis following TCAR. Future studies are needed to elucidate and address the underlying causes of racial disparity in carotid revascularization.

Comparing Post-operative Pain and Other Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is growing in popularity. Although major clinical end-points such as stroke rate and mortality are well-known, patient reported outcomes such as pain, and length of stay are among the purported benefits that are as yet untested. We sought to determine if there are differences in pain and other clinical outcomes when comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and TCAR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 326 patients undergoing TCAR (n = 50) or CEA (n = 276) from 2019-2023. Primary outcomes of interest were maximum pain numeric rating scales (NRS) reported in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative days (POD) zero and 1, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (OMMEs) received intraoperatively through POD1. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day emergency department (ED) returns/readmissions. RESULTS: Fifty TCAR and 150 CEA patients were included in the propensity score matched cohorts. TCAR patients reported lower pain-NRS in PACU (P < .001) and on POD0 (P = .002), but similar pain scores on POD1 (P = .112). Postoperatively, TCAR patients were less likely to receive opioids (52% vs 75.3%, P = .003) and received less OMME from PACU through POD1 (12.8 ± 16.2 vs 23.2 ± 27.2, P = .001). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, prior chronic opioid use, and prior carotid surgery, TCAR patients were approximately 70% less likely to receive post-operative opioids. No significant differences in LOS, 30-day ED returns/readmissions, or complications were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CEA, patients undergoing TCAR reported lower pain scores and consumed fewer narcotics overall. However, the absolute difference was modest, and pain scores were low in both cohorts. Differences in pain and post-operative narcotic use may be of less importance when deciding between TCAR and CEA. Total non-opioid protocols may be feasible in both approaches.

Thrombectomy and stenting of pseudoaneurysm from transcarotid artery revascularization.

Background: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is becoming an increasingly popular treatment of carotid stenosis. Despite this rapid adoption, little in the literature describes the associated complications of this procedure. Case Description: We report a case of a left M1 large-vessel occlusion following treatment of symptomatic, high-grade carotid stenosis with a TCAR procedure approximately three weeks earlier. The initial angiography demonstrated a pseudoaneurysm in the left common carotid artery at the site of TCAR access with a distal clot in the carotid stent. The clot within the stent was aspirated, and a mechanical thrombectomy was performed with a combination of a stent-retriever and aspiration catheter for thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B revascularization. Conclusion: The TCAR procedure offers a novel method for revascularization of carotid lesions; it does include its complications. While generally safe, access site complications such as pseudoaneurysms can always occur. Knowledge of this risk allows for appropriate surveillance and management should it occur.

Carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are considered a high-risk population, and the optimal approach to the treatment of carotid disease remains unclear. Thus, we compared outcomes following carotid revascularization for patients with CKD by operative approach of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), and transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was analyzed for patients undergoing carotid revascularizations (CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with normal renal function (estimated glomular filtration rate >90 mL/min/1.72 m2) were excluded. Asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis were assessed separately. Preoperative demographics, operative details, and outcomes of 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and composite variable of stroke/death were compared. Multivariable analysis adjusted for differences in groups, including CKD stage. RESULTS: A total of 90,343 patients with CKD underwent revascularization (CEA, n = 66,870; TCAR, n = 13,459; and TFCAS, n = 10,014; asymptomatic, 63%; symptomatic, 37%). Composite 30-day mortality/stroke rates were: asymptomatic: CEA, 1.4%; TCAR, 1.2%; TFCAS, 1.8%; and symptomatic: CEA, 2.7%; TCAR, 2.3%; TFCAS, 3.7%. In adjusted analysis, TCAR had lower 30-day mortality compared with CEA (asymptomatic: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7; symptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), and no difference in stroke, MI, or the composite outcome of stroke/death in both symptom cohorts. TCAR had lower risk of other cardiac complications compared with CEA in asymptomatic patients (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) and had similar risk in symptomatic patients. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR patients had lower 30-day mortality (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.95; symptomatic: aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4), stroke (symptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97), and stroke/death (asymptomatic: aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.97; symptomatic: aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), but no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. Patients treated with TFCAS had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and stroke risk (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.7) in symptomatic patients compared with CEA. There were no differences in MI or other cardiac complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, TCAR and CEA showed rates of stroke/death less than 2% for asymptomatic patients and less than 3% for symptomatic patients. Given the increased risk of major morbidity and mortality, TFCAS should not be performed in patients with CKD who are otherwise anatomic candidates for TCAR or CEA.

Letter re: Misidentification of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization by Current Procedural Terminology.

In this letter, we discussed the selection of patients undergoing Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We examined a previous study using CPT code 37215 to identify TCAR cases using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. As an ACS-NSQIP participating site, we have complete access to the ACS-NSQIP database, and we performed a more in-depth examination of the method. We found significant discrepancies in the method described and conclude that it is methodologically flawed to use CPT code 37215 to differentiate TCAR cases. This study not only re-evaluates the validity of the previous study but also has the potential to prevent other researchers from employing the erroneous methodology for TCAR selection using the CPT code, which is one of the most widely used standardizations of medical communication for surgical procedures. This is particularly pertinent given the recent "TCAR revolution", where significant attention has been focused on TCAR.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR): The Best Surgical Intervention Option in an Unusual Presentation of Carotid Dissection in a 37-Year-Old Pregnant Female.

Carotid artery dissection (CAD) is a condition that compromises blood flow and leads to serious complications such as a stroke or cerebrovascular accident (CVA). This case report demonstrates an unusual case of right internal carotid artery dissection, stenosis of >70%, and an intraluminal thrombus. The patient presented to the emergency department with complaints of right-sided neck pain and severe headache status-post a complicated pregnancy. A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the right carotid was conducted and showed a right internal carotid artery dissection with 70% luminal stenosis and thrombosis. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid angioplasty with stenting (CAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) were all surgical intervention options that were explored. Risks and benefits were compared between the three surgical intervention options, and transcarotid artery revascularization was deemed the best surgical option in this patient's case.

Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization of Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Study-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an interventional therapy for symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. In this study, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery disease compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that used TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. The primary outcomes included a 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised cranial nerve injury and major bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were calculated to compare TCAR with CEA and CAS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and degree of stenosis. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the vascular quality initiative registry population. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving 24 246 patients were analyzed. Within this patient cohort, 4771 individuals underwent TCAR, 12 350 underwent CEA, and 7125 patients underwent CAS. Compared with CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.33-1.82]) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.83-2.01]) but lower mortality (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54]) but similar rates of myocardial infarction (OR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.64-1.38]) and mortality (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.87-2.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS. Prospective randomized trials comparing the 3 modalities are needed.

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.

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.

Sex disparities in outcomes after carotid artery interventions: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to identify sex-specific outcomes in men and women after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), including transfemoral and transcarotid. A search of literature published from January 2000 through December 2022 was conducted using key terms attributed to carotid interventions on PubMed. Studies comparing outcome metrics post intervention (ie, myocardial infarction [MI], cerebral vascular accident [CVA] or stroke, and long-term mortality) among male and female patients were reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Overall, all studies reported low rates of perioperative complications. Among the studies that did not stratify outcomes by the preoperative symptom status, there were no significant sex differences in rates of perioperative strokes or MIs. Two studies, however, noted a higher rate of 30-day mortality in male patients undergoing CEA than in female patients. Analysis of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA revealed no difference in perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 1.8% v male: 0.4% to 4.3%), similar rates of CVAs (female: 0.8% to 5% v male: 0.8% to 4.9%), and no significant differences in the long-term mortality outcomes. Alternatively, symptomatic patients undergoing CEA reported a higher rate of CVAs in female patients vs. male patients (7.7% v 6.2%) and showed a higher rate of death in female patients (1% v 0.7%). Among studies that did not stratify outcome by symptomatology, there was no difference in the 30-day outcomes between sexes for patients undergoing CAS. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS demonstrated similar incident rates across perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 5.9% v male: 0.28% to 3.3%), CVAs (female: 0.5% to 4.1% v male: 0.4% to 6.2%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0% to 1.75% v male: 0.2% to 1.5%). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS similarly reported higher incidences of perioperative MIs (female: 0.3% to 7.1% v male: 0% to 5.5%), CVAs (female: 0% to 9.9% v male: 0% to 7.6%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0.6% to 7.1% v male: 0.5% to 8.2%). Sex-specific differences in outcomes after major vascular procedures are well recognized. Our review suggests that symptomatic female patients have a higher incidence of neurologic and cardiac events after carotid interventions, but that asymptomatic patients do not.

Transcarotid artery revascularization for carotid pseudoaneurysm and patch degeneration after carotid endarterectomy.

An 86-year-old man with a history of right internal carotid artery occlusion and two remote left carotid endarterectomies presented with a contained posterior rupture of a carotid pseudoaneurysm. The infectious workup was negative. He underwent transcarotid artery revascularization, including external carotid artery coil embolization and exclusion of the carotid aneurysm with a self-expandable stent graft. He was discharged home on postoperative day 1 with his home antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy. The 3-month postoperative imaging study demonstrated a widely patent carotid stent without an endoleak. Transcarotid artery revascularization is a viable alternative to open repair or transfemoral stenting for carotid artery aneurysms.

Discrepancies in clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length measurements for transcarotid artery revascularization using different imaging modalities.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an effective method for carotid artery stenting. However, anatomic eligibility for TCAR is most often limited by an inadequate clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length of <5 cm. Preoperative clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation distances may be underestimated when using conventional straight-line measurements on computed tomographic angiography (CTA) imaging. We therefore compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths as measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA, and intraoperative duplex ultrasound (US), to assess potential differences. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive TCAR procedures performed between 2016 and 2019 for atherosclerotic carotid disease. For each patient, we compared clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths measured by straight-line CTA, center-line CTA using TeraRecon image reconstruction, and intraoperative duplex US with neck extension and rotation. We further assessed patient and imaging characteristics in individuals with a ≥0.5 cm difference among the measurement methods. In particular, common carotid artery (CCA) tortuosity, defined as the inability to visualize the entire CCA from clavicle to carotid bifurcation on both a single coronal and sagittal imaging cut, was examined as a contributing factor for these discrepancies. RESULTS: Of the 70 TCAR procedures identified, 46 had all three imaging modalities available for review. The median clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation length was found to be 6.4 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4-6.7 cm) on straight-line CTA, 7.0 cm (IQR, 6.0-7.5 cm) on intraoperative duplex US, and 7.2 cm (IQR, 6.5-7.5 cm) on center-line CTA (P < .001). Patients with a ≥0.5 cm difference between their straight-line CTA and either their intraoperative duplex US or center-line CTA measurements were more likely to have tortuous CCAs (60.0% vs 19.1%; P = .01; 51.4% vs 0.0%; P = .01). There were no notable differences in age, gender, prior neck/cervical spine surgery, or neck immobility among these individuals. In patients with tortuous CCAs, duplex US and center-line CTA measurements added 1.0 cm (IQR, 0.6-1.5 cm) and 1.1 cm (IQR, 0.9-1.6 cm) more in length than straight-line CTA measurements, respectively. There was a strong linear correlation between the additional lengths provided by duplex US measurements and those provided by center-line CTA measurements for each individual within the tortuous CCA group (r = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The use of straight-line CTA during preoperative planning can underestimate the clavicle-to-carotid bifurcation lengths in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, particularly in those with tortuous CCAs. Both duplex US performed with extended-neck surgical positioning and center-line CTA provide similar and longer carotid length measurements, and should be utilized in patients with tortuous carotid vessels to better determine TCAR anatomic eligibility.

Carotid artery dissections from transcarotid artery revascularization as reported by the Food and Drug Administration.

OBJECTIVES: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid procedure that allows reversal of blood flow away from the brain while placing a stent through direct surgical access of the common carotid artery. It has been shown to have a lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with any prospective trial of transfemoral carotid artery stenting. However, intraoperative injuries related to the procedure and its management are not well characterized. One of the intraoperative complications seen in TCAR is iatrogenic carotid artery dissection (CD). We aim to add qualitative insight in further characterizing CDs and its management in this emerging technology. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for surveillance of all medical devices approved for use. This database was queried for all cases associated with Silk Road Medical's ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System from September 2016 to October 2020. Case narratives related to CD were individually analyzed to determine time of injury (intraoperative, recovery, and post-discharge follow-up). CD reporting was further analyzed for the associated procedural event at the time of injury, number of access attempts to CD repair, and type of CD repair. Reports associated with CD repair were further categorized into endovascular repair and open surgical repair. RESULTS: Of the 115 unique adverse events in the database, there were 58 CDs. Most were identified intraoperatively (n = 55), while three were incidentally found postoperatively. Overall, sheath placement was the most common procedural event attributed to CD (N = 34). There was adequate narrative information about CD repair in 54 patients. Intraoperative repair was performed in 52 cases and two were repaired after post-discharge follow-up imaging was performed.Among CDs that did not require additional access to engage the true lumen, the proportion of endovascular repair (62.5%) was significantly higher (p = .044) compared to the proportion of open surgical repair (37.5%). However, the proportion of open surgical repair (75%) was significantly higher than the proportion of endovascular repair (25%) in CDs with persistent failure to engage the true lumen despite ≥2 access attempts (p = .039). CONCLUSION: CD is the most common injury related to TCAR as reported on MAUDE. The most commonly reported procedural event associated with CD was sheath placement. The rate of intraoperative endovascular and open surgical CD repair was associated with whether the access to the true lumen of the carotid artery required additional access attempts or not. This should add qualitative insight among the vascular surgery community regarding intraoperative management of CDs from a TCAR procedure.