In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveOutcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.ResultsOf the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).ConclusionsMore than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.     

Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveSeveral prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique.ResultsOf 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results.ConclusionsIn addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.     

Impact of residual stenosis on clinical outcomes when performing carotid artery stenting without postdilation

ObjectiveMany centers consider postdilation if the final angiography after carotid artery stenting (CAS) shows residual stenosis of >30% to 40%. Postdilation has been demonstrated to potentially increase the risk of developing neurologic events. This study aimed to investigate the safety of CAS without postdilation regardless of the degree of residual stenosis.MethodsWe retrospectively investigated 191 patients who underwent transfemoral CAS without postdilation intendedly. All cases underwent mild predilation and self-expanding stent implantation. We divided the patients into a residual stenosis of ≥40% group (n = 69 [36.1%]) and a residual stenosis of <40% group (n = 122 [63.9%]) according to their final angiography. We compared the procedural (within 30 days after CAS) and nonprocedural (afterward) adverse cardiovascular events and in-stent restenosis between the two groups. We also investigated the incidence of perioperative hemodynamic depression between the groups and the changes in residual stenosis over the follow-up time.ResultsPatients in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group had a higher preoperative stenosis rate and a greater proportion of severely calcified lesions than those in the <40% group. There was one procedural cardiac death (0.5%), five strokes (2.6%), and four myocardial infarctions (2.1%). A total of 2.9% had stroke or death procedurally in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group and 3.2% in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P > .950). The median nonprocedural follow-up time was 22 months, with a total of six deaths and four strokes. The cumulative 2-year death or stroke rate was 6.2%, with 5.9% in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group versus 6.7% in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P = .507). There were two cases of in-stent restenosis in the residual stenosis of ≥40% group and three in the residual stenosis of <40% group (P = .927). The difference in the peak systolic velocity of the target lesion between groups at 3 months after CAS was no longer present, and residual stenosis stabilized at 10% to 20% at 6 months in both groups. The patients showed an association between increasing hemodynamic depression incidence and residual stenosis in a significantly graded response (P = .021).ConclusionsResidual stenosis after carotid stenting without postdilation is not associated with a risk of postoperative adverse events. This study provides evidence for the feasibility of a no postdilation strategy for CAS.     

Clinical impact of sex on carotid revascularization

BackgroundThe impact of sex in the management of carotid disease is unclear in the current literature. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of sex on perioperative outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe included patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2012 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Our primary outcome was perioperative stroke/death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, 30-day mortality, and in-hospital MI. We compared perioperative outcomes between female and male patients, stratified by treatment modality and symptom status, and used multivariable regression to account for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 83,436 patients underwent either a CEA (71,383) or CAS (12,053). Asymptomatic and symptomatic CEA females were less likely to be on a preoperative antiplatelet agent, when compared to males. Females overall, were less likely to be on a preoperative statin and more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Within the CAS cohort, females were more likely to have a previous ipsilateral CEA. There were no differences between males and females in major adverse events following CEA for asymptomatic disease. Following CEA for symptomatic disease, there was no difference in stroke/death rate or in-hospital stroke. However, females experienced a higher 30-mortality after adjustment (univariate: 1.0% vs 0.7%, P = .04; adjusted: odds ratio [OR], 1.4:1.02-1.94). Following CAS for asymptomatic disease, females experienced a higher rate of perioperative stroke/death (2.9% vs 1.9% P = .02; OR, 1.5: 1.05-2.03) and in-hospital stroke (2.1% vs 1.2% P = .01; OR, 1.8: 1.20-2.60). There were no differences in outcomes for symptomatic females vs males undergoing CAS.ConclusionsFemales with carotid disease less frequently receive optimal medical treatment with antiplatelet agents and statins. This is an important target area for quality improvement issue in both females and males. Furthermore, among symptomatic CEA patients the female sex is associated with higher mortality and among asymptomatic CAS patients, females experience higher rates of stroke/death. These findings suggest that careful patient selection is necessary in the treatment of female patients. Quality improvement projects should be created to further investigate and eliminate the disparities of optimal medical management between the sexes.     

Effect of frailty syndrome on the outcomes of patients with carotid stenosis

BackgroundFrailty syndrome confers a greater risk of morbidity and mortality after operative interventions. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of frailty on the outcomes after carotid interventions, including both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe performed an 8-year (2005-2012) retrospective analysis of the National Surgery Quality and Improvement Program database, including patients who had undergone CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis. A modified frailty index score was calculated. Frail status was defined as a modified frailty index score of ≥0.27. The outcome measures were inpatient complications, mortality, failure to rescue (FTR), hospital length of stay, and 30-day readmissions. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to study the association between frailty and the perioperative outcomes.ResultsThe data from 37,875 patients were included. Of the 37,875 patients, 95.7% had undergone CEA, and 27.3% of the patients were frail (27% of the CEA and 26% of the CAS groups had qualified as frail). Overall, 11.7% of the patients had experienced complications, 2.2% had died, and 6.7% had been readmitted after discharge. On regression analysis, after controlling for age, gender, albumin level, type of surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class, frail status was an independent predictor of complications (23.5% vs 7.2%; P < .001), mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%; P = .02), FTR (12.1% vs 4.7%; P = .02), and 30-day readmissions (14.9% vs 3.7%; P = .03). On subanalysis of the patients who had undergone CAS, no association was found between frail status and the occurrence of complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-3.2), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.7), FTR (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3), and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-3.1).ConclusionsFrailty syndrome was associated with morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing surgical interventions for carotid stenosis. In the present study, frailty was associated with significant mortality and morbidity for those who had undergone CEA but not for those who had undergone CAS. However, the present study was not designed to determine the optimal treatment of frail patients. Incorporating frailty status into the treatment algorithm (CEA vs CAS) might provide a more accurate risk assessment and improve patient outcomes.     

Impact of plaque dilation before carotid artery stent deployment

ObjectivePlaque stability is of utmost importance for stroke prevention in the perioperative period (within 24 hours) following carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although carotid plaque is entrapped between stent struts after stent deployment, postdilation can cause a scissoring effect on the plaque, increasing the risk of postprocedural embolic events due to plaque prolapse. Maximum carotid plaque dilation before stent deployment may reduce this risk. This study analyzed the effect of maximum dilation of the carotid plaque before stent deployment (max-pre-SD) or after stent deployment (post-SD) on macroscopic plaque debris, hemodynamic depression (HD), and immediate major adverse events.MethodsThis prospective nonrandomized multicenter study analyzed patients treated for carotid artery stenosis with CAS from January 2014 to August 2016. Clinical and morphologic characteristics and operative details were analyzed with logistic regression analysis for macroscopic debris and HD. The number of microembolic signals (MESs) was assessed by transcranial Doppler and analyzed.ResultsA total of 309 patients were enrolled and treated with standard CAS performed using a proximal occlusion cerebral embolic protection device; 149 received max-pre-SD and 160 were treated with post-SD. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Macroscopic debris and HD were significantly different between the two groups in favor of max-pre-SD (P < .001). A significant difference in intraprocedural MESs between the groups was detected. Compared with post-SD, max-pre-SD significantly reduced mean MES counts (8.1% vs 68.1%; P < .001). Patients treated with post-SD had a significantly increased risk of MESs in the immediate postoperative period compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD (41.9% vs 1.3%; P < .001).This result was mainly due to the small number of events encountered. Patients treated with post-SD had a 12-fold increased risk of macroscopic debris collection (odds ratio [OR], 12.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.68-26.87; P < .001) and an 18 times increase in HD risk (OR, 17.80; 95% CI, 5.27-60.17; P < .001) compared with patients treated with max-pre-SD. The heterogeneous, mainly echolucent plaque type significantly highly increased the risk of macroscopic debris (OR, 78.45; 95% CI, 8.70-707.09; P < .001) while acting as a protective factor against HD (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.006-0.11; P < .001) along with echogenic or echolucent complex plaques with irregular surface plaque types (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.031-0.336; P < .001). No significant differences between groups (max-pre-SD group and post-SD) were detected in immediate major adverse events (minor stroke, 2.0% and 2.5% [P = .461]; major stroke, 0% and 0.6% [P = .334], respectively).ConclusionsMax-pre-SD seems to be a safe and feasible technical modification to the CAS procedure. Macroscopic debris, HD, and MESs are significantly reduced compared with CAS with post-SD. Further research with larger, randomized cohorts of patients is required to establish the superiority of this technical modification.     

Surgeon specialty significantly affects outcome of asymptomatic patients after carotid endarterectomy

BackgroundThis study evaluates the impact of surgical specialty, specifically vascular surgery (VS) versus non-VS (NVS; namely, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, general surgery, or neurosurgery) on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes stratified by symptom status on presentation.MethodsThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Vascular Procedure Targeted database was queried for elective asymptomatic or symptomatic CEA (excluding concomitant CEA and cardiac surgery) from 2011 to 2016. Data were stratified by VS versus NVS and symptom presentation. Primary end points were 30-day stroke and stroke/death; secondary end points included perioperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of all assessed primary outcomes and propensity-weight analysis was used to confirm results.ResultsOverall, 21,060 CEA (12,671 [59%] asymptomatic) were identified with 19,687 (93%) done by VS. In the asymptomatic CEA cohort, VS had lower unadjusted stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; P = .021) and stroke/death (1.7% vs 3.2%; P = .006) rates. In addition, VS had fewer deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; P = .033) and pulmonary complications (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .036). After risk adjustment, the NVS asymptomatic cohort predicted stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.1; P = .032), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.2; P = .008). This NVS cohort also predicted stroke/death (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .013), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.7; P = .035). After propensity weighting, these differences persisted (stroke: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; P = .030; stroke/death: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .011). Among symptomatic CEA, there was no difference between VS and NVS in unadjusted primary end points of stroke (3.1% vs 4.2%; P = .106) or stroke/death (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .275). However, in this cohort, VS had fewer major complications (12.7% vs 15.5%; P = .029).ConclusionsThis study identifies the VS specialty as having significantly better outcomes after CEA in patients presenting with asymptomatic disease than NVS specialty, as evidenced by lower rates of stroke and stroke death, which persisted after risk adjustment and propensity weighting. This difference in stroke and stroke/death was not apparent in the symptomatic cohort; however, NVS did have increased unadjusted rates of major complications. Although this finding may reflect multiple factors, including higher operative volume, training, or technical approach, these differences in 30-day CEA outcomes may be crucial for the proper interpretation of ongoing national outcome trials such as CREST2.     

Long-term impact of the Vascular Study Group of New England carotid patch quality initiative

ObjectivePatch angioplasty has been shown to decrease rates of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In 2003, the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) implemented its first quality initiative aimed at increasing the rates of patch closure after CEA. This study reports the effects of that initiative on the rate of patch closure in the VSGNE and also postoperative and 1-year CEA outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing CEA (N = 14,636) within the VSGNE between 2003 and 2014 were studied. Rates of in-hospital postoperative events (death, ipsilateral stroke or transient ischemic attack [TIA], and return to the operating room for bleeding) and events during 1 year of follow-up (stroke or TIA and restenosis >70% or occlusion) were compared by repair type—patch closure, primary closure, or eversion. One-year follow-up events were also compared over time and by annualized surgeon volume.ResultsDuring the 12 years studied, patch use increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). There was no difference in postoperative death or ipsilateral stroke or TIA between the repair types. However, there was a statistically lower rate of return to the operating room for bleeding (P < .001), 1-year stroke or TIA (P < .003), and 1-year restenosis or occlusion (P < .001) with patch closure. Overall, the rates of 1-year stroke or TIA and restenosis decreased over time in the VSGNE. The initiative affected patch closure rates and outcomes of high-volume surgeons (>47 CEAs/y) the most. High-volume surgeons increased patch use from 50% to 90% and decreased their restenosis rates from 9.0% to 1.2% and 1-year stroke or TIA from 4.9% to 1.9% (P < .001).ConclusionsThe VSGNE carotid patch quality initiative successfully increased the rates of CEA patch closure. During the same time, there has been a decrease in postoperative bleeding requiring reoperation and 1-year ipsilateral neurologic events and restenosis or occlusion.     

脑保护装置下支架置入术治疗重度颈动脉狭窄

目的探讨脑保护装置下行颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)治疗重度颈动脉狭窄的近期疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年10月—2014年12月收治的48例接受CAS治疗的重度颈动脉狭窄患者临床资料,术后随访观察支架内再狭窄、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、脑卒中及死亡事件的发生率。结果48例患者均CAS成功,术前平均狭窄率为(85.27±11.52)%,术后残余狭窄率为(18.12±3.36)%,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。术后随访无新发TIA、脑梗死及死亡患者,但3例患者出现支架内重度再狭窄。结论支架置入术治疗重度颈动脉狭窄是安全、有效的,但远期疗效有待观察。     

Contemporary outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in high-risk anatomic and physiologic patients

ObjectiveCurrent guidelines state that the acceptable 30-day postoperative stroke/death rate after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is <3% for asymptomatic patients and <6% for symptomatic patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has identified certain high-risk characteristics used to define patients at highest risk for CEA for whom carotid artery stenting would be reimbursed. We evaluated the impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physiologic and anatomic high-risk criteria on major adverse event rates after CEA in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CEA from 2011 to 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular targeted database. Patients with high-risk anatomic or physiologic characteristics were identified by a predefined variable and were compared with normal-risk patients. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death, stratified by symptom status.ResultsWe identified 25,788 patients undergoing CEA, of whom 60% were treated for asymptomatic carotid disease. Among all patients, high-risk physiology or anatomy was associated with higher rates of 30-day stroke/death compared with normal-risk patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 3.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]). Patients who met criteria for high-risk physiology or anatomy also had higher rates of cardiac events (physiologic risk, 3.1% vs 1.6% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.3% vs 1.6% [P < .01]), but only patients with high-risk anatomy had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (physiologic risk, 2.4% vs 2.5% [P = .81]; anatomic risk, 4.3% vs 2.5% [P < .001]). Asymptomatic patients with high-risk physiology or anatomy had higher rates of 30-day stroke/death, especially in the physiologic high-risk group (physiologic risk, 4.7% vs 1.5% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.6% vs 1.5% [P < .01]), compared with normal-risk patients. However, among symptomatic patients, differences in stroke/death were seen only with high-risk anatomic patients and not with high-risk physiologic patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 3.4% [P = .12]; anatomic risk, 4.8% vs 3.4% [P = .01]).ConclusionsAs currently selected, contemporary real-world outcomes after CEA in asymptomatic carotid disease patients meeting high-risk physiologic criteria show an unacceptably high 30-day stroke/death rate, well above the 3% threshold. These results suggest the need for better selection of patients and preoperative optimization before elective CEA.     

Results of carotid endarterectomy in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion from the Mid-America Vascular Study Group and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is among the most commonly performed vascular procedures. Some have suggested worse outcomes with contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. We compared patients with and patients without contralateral ICA occlusion using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database.MethodsDeidentified data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients with prior ipsilateral or contralateral CEA, carotid stenting, combined CEA and coronary artery bypass graft, or <1-year follow-up were excluded, yielding 1737 patients with and 45,179 patients without contralateral ICA occlusion. Groups were compared with univariate tests, and differences identified in univariate testing were entered into multivariate models to identify independent predictors of outcomes and in particular whether contralateral ICA occlusion is an independent predictor of outcomes.ResultsPatients with contralateral ICA occlusion were younger and more likely to be smokers; they were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative neurologic symptoms (56% vs 47%), nonelective CEA (16% vs 13%), and shunt placement (75% vs 53%; all P < .001). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk was 1.3% with vs 0.7% without contralateral ICA occlusion (P = .004). The 30-day and 1-year survival estimates were 99.0% ± 0.5% and 94.1% ± 1.1% with vs 99.6% ± 0.1% and 96.0% ± 0.2% without contralateral ICA occlusion (log-rank, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis identified prior neurologic event (P = .046), nonelective surgery (P = .047), absence of coronary artery disease (P = .035), and preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (P = .029) to be associated with 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk, but contralateral ICA occlusion remained an independent predictor in that model (odds ratio, 2.29; P = .026). However, after adjustment for other factors (Cox proportional hazards), risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) during follow-up was not significantly greater with contralateral ICA occlusion (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .32). Results comparing propensity score-matched cohorts mirrored those from the larger data set.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates likely clinically insignificant differences in early stroke or death in comparing CEA patients with and those without contralateral ICA occlusion. After adjustment for other factors, contralateral ICA occlusion was not associated with a greater risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) in longer follow-up. Mortality was greater with contralateral ICA occlusion, and this difference was more pronounced at 1 year despite younger age of the contralateral ICA occlusion group. CEA risk remains low even in the presence of contralateral ICA occlusion and appears to be explained at least in part by other factors. CEA should still be considered appropriate in the face of contralateral ICA occlusion.     

Hemodynamic events during carotid stenting are associated with significant periprocedural stroke and adverse events

BackgroundThere are limited data on the impact of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS)-related changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and preprocedural medications on periprocedural stroke in contemporary, real-world practice. This study evaluates the risk attributable to the CAS-related hemodynamic events and the impact preprocedural medications have on mitigating this risk in a large, population-based cohort.MethodsWe studied all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who underwent CAS between January 2006 and December 2016. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of periprocedural hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, and medication use on immediate periprocedural stroke (IPPS), 30-day, and 1-year stroke.ResultsOf the 13,698 CAS procedures studied, 1239 (9.1%), 1824 (13.3%), and 1333 (9.7%) patients experienced periprocedural hypertension, hypotension, and bradycardia, respectively. IPPS was 3.2% vs 2.1% vs 0.65% (P < .001), comparing patients with periprocedural hypertension vs hypotension vs normotension and 1.4 vs 1.0% (P = .19) for bradycardic vs nonbradycardic patients. Periprocedural hypertension was associated with a four-fold increase in IPPS (adjusted odd ratio [aOR], 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-5.99; P < .001). periprocedural hypotension and bradycardia were associated with 5.5-fold (aOR, 5.56; 95% CI, 3.24-9.52; P < .001) and 2.3-fold (aOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.26-4.25; P = .007) increases in IPPS among patients with carotid symptoms. There was 76% decrease in IPPS for patients who did not experience a periprocedural hemodynamic event (aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .001). Unlike preprocedural beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, prophylactic antibradyarrhythmic agents conferred a 58% reduction in IPPS among patients with carotid symptoms (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78; P = .006). The periprocedural hemodynamic events were also associated with 7.7-fold increase in myocardial infarction (aOR, 7.70; 95% CI, 4.77-12.45; P < .001), a 2.2-fold increase in 30-day mortality (aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.61-3.12; P < .001), and a 16% increase in length of stay (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.04-2.28; P = .042). The occurrence of these hemodynamic events is higher in patients with prior cardiac disease and the difference in periprocedural outcomes extended to 1 year.ConclusionsPeriprocedural hemodynamic events are associated with an increase in periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and length of stay. Periprocedural hypertension in all patients; hypotension and bradycardia in patients with symptomatic carotid disease are associated with significant increase in IPPS. Prophylactic antibradyarrhythmic agents are associated with decrease in bradycardia and IPPS. These results heighten the need to anticipate and promptly address these CAS-related hemodynamic events, especially in susceptible patients.     

Insurance status is associated with urgent carotid endarterectomy and worse postoperative outcomes

ObjectiveUnderinsured patients can experience worse preoperative medical optimization. We aimed to determine whether insurance status was associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) urgency and postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Endarterectomy dataset from January 2012 to January 2021. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to analyze the differences across the insurance types for the primary outcome variable: CEA urgency. The analyses were limited to patients aged <65 years to minimize age confounding across insurers. We also examined differences in preoperative medical optimization and symptomatic disease and postoperative outcomes. A secondary analysis was performed to examine the effect of CEA urgency on the postoperative outcomes.ResultsA total of 27,331 patients had undergone first-time CEA. Of these patients, 4600 (17%) had Medicare, 3440 (13%) had Medicaid, 17,917 (65%) had commercial insurance, and 1374 (5%) were uninsured. The Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher rates of urgent operation compared with Medicare (20.0% and 34.7% vs 14.4%; P < .001), with no differences in the commercial group vs the Medicare group. Additionally, Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower rates of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (93.6% and 93.5% vs 95.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of symptomatic disease (42.1% and 57.6% vs 36.2%; P < .001) compared with Medicare patients. The rate of perioperative stroke/death was higher for the Medicaid and uninsured patients than for the Medicare patients (1.63% and 1.89% vs 1.02%; P = .017 and P = .01, respectively), with no differences in the commercial group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured status were associated with increased odds of an urgent operation (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5; and OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7, respectively), symptomatic disease (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5, respectively), and perioperative stroke/death (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4; and OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0, respectively) and a decreased odds of aspirin, statin, and/or antiplatelet use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; and OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99, respectively). Additionally, the rates of perioperative stroke/death were higher for patients who had required urgent surgery compared with elective surgery (2.8% vs 1.0%; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of perioperative stroke/death for patients who had required urgent surgery (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9-3.1).ConclusionsMedicaid and uninsured patients were more likely to require urgent CEA, in part because of poor preoperative medical optimization. Additionally, urgent operation was independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes. These results highlight the need for improved preoperative follow-up for underinsured populations.     

Carotid endarterectomy after systemic thrombolysis in a stroke population

ObjectiveVascular specialists are increasingly being requested to perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for stroke patients, raising concerns about hemorrhagic complications. Few case series and registry reports have assessed the question, and even fewer studies have included a control group. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall outcome of patients undergoing CEA after IVT and to compare them with contemporary patients with CEA after simple stroke (non-IVT group). It also aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes of stroke patients requiring CEA between nonvascular and vascular centers.MethodsThe data of 169 consecutive patients who have undergone CEA after stroke in a single center was analyzed from January 2011 to December 2016, 27 of them (16%) having undergone previous IVT. A comparative analysis between the non-IVT and the IVT groups was performed. The time between stroke diagnosis and referral to a vascular specialist was also studied.ResultsAge, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities were similar in both groups. Median time between stroke and CEA was 13 days (Q1-Q3, 8-23 days), with 16 of the 27 patients (59%) in the IVT group undergoing CEA less than 14 days after the initial event. There were three intracranial hemorrhages (2.1%) in the non-IVT group versus one (3.7%) in the IVT group (P = NS). The overall 30-day combined stroke and death rate was 7.1% (6.3% in the non-IVT group vs 11.1% in the IVT group; P = .70). The incidence of postoperative cervical hematoma requiring reoperation was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.7%; P = NS). The median time between diagnosis of stroke and referral to a vascular specialist was higher for patients in nonvascular centers compared with vascular centers (3.5 days vs 1.0 day; P < .001), which translated to fewer patients referred from nonvascular centers undergoing surgery in the 14-day window period (38% vs 67%; P < .001).ConclusionsIn this retrospective analysis, CEA after IVT showed similar outcomes when compared with the overall CEA after stroke population. Stroke patients diagnosed in nonvascular centers were referred later than those in vascular centers and, although postoperative outcomes were similar, that was correlated with fewer patients undergoing surgery in a timely fashion.     

Results of carotid angioplasty and stenting are equivalent for critical versus high-grade lesions in patients deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy

Background

To examine outcomes of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) in patients with critical carotid stenosis who are deemed high risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Methods

Medical records were retrospectively analyzed for patients undergoing CAS between September 2002 and March 2011 at a single institution. Patients were classified as having either critical (≥90%) or high-grade (70%–89%) carotid stenosis based on angiography. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke during the follow-up period.

Results

A total of 245 patients underwent 257 CAS procedures during the study period. Fifty-one percentage (n = 130) of cases involved critical stenosis (66.2% male; mean age, 71 ± 10 y), with the remaining group (n = 127) involving high-grade stenosis (67.7% male; mean age, 71 ± 9 y). Symptomatic carotid disease was present in 25% of the critical stenosis and 31% of the high-grade stenosis groups (P = 0.33). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was more commonly found in the high-grade stenosis group (20% versus 8%, P = 0.01). No difference was observed between the groups relative to other baseline demographic characteristics, presence of contralateral carotid occlusion, stent diameter or length, maximum balloon diameter or length, use of embolic protection device, or procedural duration. Technical success was achieved in all cases. There was no difference in the need to predilate before the introduction of the filter or stent based on the degree of stenosis. We found no difference in the primary composite end point between the high-grade or critical stenosis groups (7.1% versus 7.7%, P = 0.74), or there were no differences between the individual components of the composite end point. Mid-term survival was similar between the two groups at a mean follow-up period of 2.4 y.

Conclusions

Despite concerns regarding the potential for increased neurologic complications, our data demonstrate that patients with high-grade and critical stenosis are able to safely undergo CAS and achieve similar periprocedural outcomes and mid-term prognosis.     

Predictors of midterm high-grade restenosis after carotid revascularization in a multicenter national database

BackgroundRestenosis after carotid revascularization is clinically challenging. Several studies have looked into the management of recurrent restenosis; however, studies looking into factors associated with restenosis are limited. This study evaluated the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using a large national database.MethodsPatients undergoing CEA or CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative data set (2003-2016) were analyzed. Patients with no follow-up (33%) and those who had prior ipsilateral CEA or CAS were excluded. Significant restenosis was defined as ≥70% diameter-reducing stenosis, target artery occlusion or peak systolic velocity ≥300 cm/s, or repeated revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and bootstrapped Cox regression models with stepwise forward and backward selection were used.ResultsA total of 35,720 procedures were included (CEA, 31,329; CAS, 4391). No significant difference in restenosis rates was seen between CEA and CAS at 2 years (7.7% vs 9.4% [P = .09]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.25; P = .97). However, after adjustment for age, sex, and symptomatic status at the time of the index operation, CAS patients who had postoperative restenosis were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .01) and to undergo repeated revascularization at 2 years (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001) compared with patients who had restenosis after CEA. Predictors of restenosis after CAS included a common carotid artery lesion (HR, 1.65; 95% CI,1.06-2.57; P = .03), whereas age (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P = .03) and dilation after stent placement (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) were associated with decreased restenosis at 2 years. Predictors of restenosis after CEA included female sex (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; P < .001), prior neck irradiation (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.30; P < .001), and prior bypass surgery (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P = .04). On the other hand, factors associated with decreased restenosis after CEA included age (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001), black race (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89; P = .01), patching (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < .001), and completion imaging (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02).ConclusionsOur results show no significant difference in restenosis rates at 2 years between CEA and CAS. Restenosis after CAS is more likely to be manifested with symptoms and to undergo repeated revascularization compared with that after CEA. Poststent ballooning after CAS and completion imaging and patching after CEA are associated with decreased hazard of restenosis; however, further research is needed to assess longer term outcomes and to balance the risks vs benefits of certain practices, such as poststent ballooning.     

In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers.MethodsWe compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death.ResultsA total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes.ConclusionsDespite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.     

In-hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy for stroke stratified by modified Rankin scale score and time of intervention

ObjectiveAlthough the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke.MethodsWe identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death.ResultsWe identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (P_trend < .01). After risk adjustment, with CEA at 3 to 14 days as the comparator group, the mRS score 0 to 1 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (3.6% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7). The mRS score 2 group had had a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.3) but a lower incidence after CEA at 15 to 90 days (2.1% vs 3.9%; OR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96). The mRS score 3 to 4 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (8.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9) but a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA at 15 to 90 days (3.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For the mRS score 5 group, the stroke/death rates were ≥6.5% across all the time to CEA groups. However, the low sample size limited meaningful comparisons.ConclusionsPatients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.     

An update on the incidence of perioperative outcomes after carotid endarterectomy,stratified by type of preprocedural neurologic symptom

Objective

Perioperative complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have decreased over time. Therefore, we aimed to provide an update on 30-day outcomes after CEA, stratified by type of preprocedural neurologic symptom.

Comparison of upper extremity and transfemoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveThe use of upper extremity (UE) access is an accepted and often implemented approach for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR). The advent of steerable sheaths has enabled the performance of F-BEVAR using a total transfemoral (TF) approach without UE access, potentially decreasing the risks of cerebral embolic events. The purpose of the present study was to assess the outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE vs TF access.MethodsProspectively collected data from nine physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at U.S. centers were analyzed using a standardized database. All patients were treated for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using industry-manufactured fenestrated and branched stent grafts between 2005 and 2020. The outcomes were compared between patients who had undergone UE vs total TF access. The primary composite outcome was stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) and 30-day or in-patient mortality during the perioperative period. The secondary outcomes included technical success, local access-related complications, and perioperative mortality.ResultsAmong 1681 patients (71% men; mean age, 73.43 ± 7.8 years) who had undergone F-BEVAR, 502 had had CAAAs (30%), 535 had had extent IV TAAAs (32%), and 644 had had extent I to III TAAAs (38%). UE access was used for 1103 patients (67%). The right side was used for 395 patients (24%) and the left side for 705 patients (42%). UE access was preferentially used for TAAAs (74% vs 47%; P < .001). In contrast, TF access was used more frequently for CAAAs (53% vs 26%; P < .01). A total of 38 perioperative cerebrovascular events (2.5%), including 32 strokes (1.9%) and 6 TIAs (0.4%), had occurred. Perioperative cerebrovascular events had occurred more frequently with UE access than with TF access (2.8% vs 1.2%; P = .036). An individual component analysis of the primary composite outcome revealed a trend for more frequent strokes (2.3% vs 1.2%; P = .13) and TIAs (0.54% vs 0%; P = .10) in the UE access group. On multivariable analysis, total TF access was associated with a 60% reduction in the frequency of perioperative cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 0.39; P = .029). No significant differences were observed between UE and TF access in the technical success rate (96.5% vs 96.8%; P = .72), perioperative mortality (2.9% vs 2.6%; P = .72), or local access-related complications (6.5% vs 5.5%; P = .43).ConclusionsIn the present large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, a total TF approach for F-BEVAR was associated with a lower rate of perioperative cerebrovascular events compared with UE access. Although the cerebrovascular event rate was low with UE access, the TF approach offered a lower risk of stroke and TIA. UE access will continue to play a role for appropriately selected patients requiring more complex repairs with anatomy not amenable to the TF approach.