Figure - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Background: Carotid artery stenosis has long been a critical cause of stroke and death, and it can seriously affect the life quality. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are both feasible therapies for this disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate if the efficacy of the two approach...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Background
Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke. The management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis ranges from open surgical approaches, minimally invasive endovascular interventions, and medical therapeutics. However, the research synthesis comparing these interventions, as shown by the scattered and ove...
Citations
... This preference is backed by its association with lower stroke and death rates and significantly fewer new lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to CAS with distal protection, as demonstrated in recent studies. [6,7] Despite being an innovative and minimally invasive procedure, the cerebrovascular flow dynamics during TCAR procedures have not been thoroughly elucidated. The "flow reversal" concept is better understood by examining alterations in intracranial circulation and embolic events using transcranial Doppler (TCD). ...
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.
... 25 Regarding the effect of pre-intervention symptomatic status on outcomes of interest, only the systematic review of Gao et al. provides relevant details and suggests no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality or stroke between the two techniques. 26 This effect is in accordance with our most updated subgroup analysis based on three studies. 4,8,20 The exclusion from the pooled analysis of the highly populated well-matched study of Malas et al. did not change the statistical difference regarding the mortality or stroke. ...
... Columbo et al, in their comparative study reported lower rates of cranial nerve injury in patients undergoing TCAR than those undergoing CEA (0.2% with TCAR and 2.6% with CEA). 25 In VQI TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Surveillance Project trial there were no overall differences found for MI and cranial nerve injury between TCAR and CEA. 24 Although our study findings align with previous research, it is important to mention that the meta-analysis of Gao et al. 26 has totally 6 studies, including the study of Alvarez et al., 27 which does not describe the TCAR technique, but another technique with creation of an arteriovenous shunt between the common carotid artery and internal jugular vein. We considered the inclusion of this study as incorrect, and we excluded it from our analysis. ...
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR) as an alternative approach to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid artery disease. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases including comparative studies with patients who underwent either TCAR or CEA. This meta-analysis is according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 7,606 and 7,048 patients in the TCAR and CEA groups, respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–1.56, P = .81) and stroke (OR: 0.92, 95%CI 0.70–1.22, P = .57) were similar between the two groups, with low heterogeneity. The odds of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.18–2.71, P = .01) and cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in patients undergoing CEA compared with TCAR (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.59–6.51, P < .001). The subgroup analysis according to symptomatic pre-intervention status revealed no statistically significant difference regarding 30-day mortality (symptomatic OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.40–2.07, P = .82, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.46–1.86, P = .83) and stroke (symptomatic OR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.47–1.64, P = .68, asymptomatic OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64–1.35, P = .70). TCAR offers an alternative treatment for patients with carotid artery stenosis with comparable to CEA mortality and stroke rates during a 30-day post-operative period.
... [22] TCAR has a similar prognosis to CEA and can be performed without running the risk of myocardial infarction. [29] Here, we reviewed the literature on carotid artery stenosis, CAS, CEA, TCAR, as well as emerging innovation to provide support when making clinical decisions for treatment. For lesser degrees of stenosis, CAS is often performed and CEA is only done if the need arises. ...
Carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is one of the leading causes of cerebral ischemia and stroke.7 When plaque builds up in the internal carotid artery, it blocks blood flow to the brain. Oftentimes, this condition only comes to light after a patient experiences a stroke or stroke-like symptoms. When this occurs, cholesterol-lowering medications and blood thinners can help to increase blood flow to the brain. However, if the plaque is so large that it severely narrows the lumen of the artery, surgery may be required to restore blood flow to the brain. Patients with severe stenosis can undergo procedures such as carotid endarterectomies (CEA), stenting, and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for this purpose. In this review, we discuss these procedures and which patients warrant which type of intervention. We look at the pathophysiology of internal carotid artery stenosis and current treatment options, while highlighting emerging treatment options. This review aims to increase understanding of the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis as well as provide a groundwork for more innovative treatments.
Objective:
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard procedure for carotid revascularization. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative procedure in patients who are at high risk for surgery. However, TFCAS was associated with increased risk of stroke and death compared to CEA.
Summary background data:
Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has outperformed TFCAS in several prior studies and has shown similar perioperative and one-year outcomes compared to CEA. We aimed to compare the one-year and three-year outcomes of TCAR vs. CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked (Vascular Implant Surveillance & Interventional Outcomes Network [VISION]) database.
Methods:
The VISION Database was queried for all patients undergoing CEA and TCAR between September 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome was one-year and three-years survival. One-to-one propensity-score matching (PSM) without replacement was used to produce two well-matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression were used for analyses. Exploratory analyses compared stroke rates using claims-based algorithms for comparison.
Results:
A total of 43,714 patients underwent CEA and 8,089 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Patients in the TCAR cohort were older and were more likely to have severe comorbidities. PSM produced two well-matched cohorts of 7,351 pairs of TCAR and CEA. In the matched cohorts, there were no differences in one-year death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30; P=0.065). At three-years, TCAR was associated with slight increased risk of death (HR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.30; P=0.008). When stratifying by initial symptomatic presentation, the increased three-year death associated with TCAR persisted only in symptomatic patients (HR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.63; P=0.008). Exploratory analyses of post-operative stroke rates using administrative sources suggested that validated measures of claims-based stroke ascertainment are necessary.
Conclusions:
In this large multi-institutional PSM analysis with robust Medicare-linked follow-up for survival analysis, the rate of death at one-year was similar in TCAR and CEA regardless of symptomatic status. The slight increase in the risk of three-year death in symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR is likely confounded by more severe comorbidities despite matching. A randomized controlled trial comparing TCAR to CEA is necessary to further determine the role of TCAR in standard risk patients requiring carotid revascularization.
Introduction
Much of the previous robust analyses of the results associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) derives from industry-sponsored trials or the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). This investigation was performed to identify preoperative predictors of 30-day stroke and death using institutional databases.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed of carotid revascularization databases created at two high-volume TCAR centers and maintained independently of the VQI carotid module between December 2015 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate regression analyses, followed by multivariate regression analyses, were performed to identify potential predictors of adverse events.
Results
During the study period, 750 TCAR procedures were performed at our combined health systems, resulting in 24 (3.2%) individuals who experienced either stroke and/or death in the perioperative period. Of these, we observed nine (1.2%) mortality events and 18 (2.4%) strokes. On univariate analysis, candidate protectors of stroke/death were found to be coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.01; P = 0.05) and protamine reversal (0.51; 0.21-1.21; P = 0.15). Candidate predictors of the primary outcome were anticoagulant usage (3.03; 1.26-7.24; P = 0.01), postprocedural debris in the filter (2.30; 0.97-5.43; P = 0.06), symptomatic carotid lesion (2.03; 0.90-4.50), and cardiac arrhythmia (1.98; 0.80-4.03; P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, two predictors remained, cardiac arrhythmia (4.21; 1.10-16.16; P = 0.04) and symptomatic carotid lesion (14.49; 1.80-116.94; P = 0.01).
Conclusions
A symptomatic carotid lesion, and to a lesser extent cardiac arrhythmia, are strong predictors of 30-day stroke/death after TCAR. Surgeons should be cognizant of the increased risk of adverse events in the perioperative period in these patients.
Significant advances in the field of carotid artery stenting (CAS) have occurred, including new randomized trial data, recent professional societal statements for competency, new techniques and new devices that have been developed, and perhaps most importantly, our understanding of how to better select candidates for CAS to avoid periprocedural complications. The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage decision regarding CAS is outdated, and our review supports our recommendation to approve CAS in selected candidates who are symptomatic with a carotid stenosis ≥50% and ≤99% and for asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis ≥70% and ≤99% for stroke prevention. Optimized CAS strategies have allowed experienced operators to better assess procedure risk before CAS and have led to continued improvement in CAS outcomes. New technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered stents should result in further improvement.
