Marc L Schermerhorn1, Patric Liang1, Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen2, Jack L Cronenwett3, Brian W Nolan2, Vikram S Kashyap4, Grace J Wang5, Raghu L Motaganahalli6, Mahmoud B Malas7. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, Maine Medical Center, Portland. 3. Section of Vascular Surgery and The Dartmouth Institute, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 4. Division of Vascular and Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 6. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. 7. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego Health System, San Diego.
Abstract
Importance: Several trials have observed higher rates of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy. Transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal was recently introduced for carotid stenting. This technique was developed to decrease stroke risk seen with the transfemoral approach; however, its outcomes, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, are not well characterized. Objective: To compare outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Surveillance Project and Carotid Stent Registry of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the United States and Canada undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting for carotid artery stenosis, from September 2016 to April 2019. The final date for follow-up was May 29, 2019. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included a composite end point of in-hospital stroke or death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction, as well as ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year. In-hospital stroke was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral, cortical or vertebrobasilar, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Death was all-cause mortality. Results: During the study period, 5251 patients underwent transcarotid artery revascularization and 6640 patients underwent transfemoral carotid artery stenting. After matching, 3286 pairs of patients who underwent transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting were identified (transcarotid approach: mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years; 35.7% women; transfemoral approach: mean [SD] age, 71.6 [9.3] years; 35.1% women). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%]; relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%]; RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%]; RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82]; P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction between the 2 cohorts (0.2% for transcarotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84]; P = .47). At 1 year using Kaplan-Meier life-table estimation, the transcarotid approach was associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (5.1% vs 9.6%; hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66]; P < .001). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with higher risk of access site complication resulting in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61]; P = .04), whereas transfemoral carotid artery stenting was associated with more radiation (median fluoroscopy time, 5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 3 to 7] vs 16 minutes [IQR, 11 to 23]; P < .001) and more contrast (median contrast used, 30 mL [IQR, 20 to 45] vs 80 mL [IQR, 55 to 122]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing treatment for carotid stenosis, transcarotid artery revascularization, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, was significantly associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.
Importance: Several trials have observed higher rates of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy. Transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal was recently introduced for carotid stenting. This technique was developed to decrease stroke risk seen with the transfemoral approach; however, its outcomes, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, are not well characterized. Objective: To compare outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Surveillance Project and Carotid Stent Registry of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the United States and Canada undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting for carotid artery stenosis, from September 2016 to April 2019. The final date for follow-up was May 29, 2019. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included a composite end point of in-hospital stroke or death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction, as well as ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year. In-hospital stroke was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral, cortical or vertebrobasilar, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Death was all-cause mortality. Results: During the study period, 5251 patients underwent transcarotid artery revascularization and 6640 patients underwent transfemoral carotid artery stenting. After matching, 3286 pairs of patients who underwent transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting were identified (transcarotid approach: mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years; 35.7% women; transfemoral approach: mean [SD] age, 71.6 [9.3] years; 35.1% women). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%]; relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%]; RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%]; RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82]; P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction between the 2 cohorts (0.2% for transcarotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84]; P = .47). At 1 year using Kaplan-Meier life-table estimation, the transcarotid approach was associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (5.1% vs 9.6%; hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66]; P < .001). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with higher risk of access site complication resulting in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61]; P = .04), whereas transfemoral carotid artery stenting was associated with more radiation (median fluoroscopy time, 5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 3 to 7] vs 16 minutes [IQR, 11 to 23]; P < .001) and more contrast (median contrast used, 30 mL [IQR, 20 to 45] vs 80 mL [IQR, 55 to 122]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing treatment for carotid stenosis, transcarotid artery revascularization, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, was significantly associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.
Authors: Stefan Müller-Hülsbeck; Thomas Jahnke; Carsten Liess; Christoph Glass; Friedrich Paulsen; Jan Grimm; Martin Heller Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Robert W Hobson; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Ariane Mackey; Michael D Hill; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Wesley S Moore; Jenifer H Voeks; L Nelson Hopkins; Donald E Cutlip; David J Cohen; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert D Ferguson; Stanley N Cohen; Joseph L Blackshear; Frank L Silver; J P Mohr; Brajesh K Lal; James F Meschia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Partha Sardar; Saurav Chatterjee; Herbert D Aronow; Amartya Kundu; Preethi Ramchand; Debabrata Mukherjee; Ramez Nairooz; William A Gray; Christopher J White; Michael R Jaff; Kenneth Rosenfield; Jay Giri Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Prateek K Gupta; Iraklis I Pipinos; Weldon J Miller; Himani Gupta; Shreya Shetty; Jason M Johanning; G Matthew Longo; Thomas G Lynch Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Rob G A Ackerstaff; Maarten J Suttorp; Jos C van den Berg; Tim Th C Overtoom; Jan A Vos; Egbert T Bal; Pieter Zanen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Kenneth Rosenfield; Jon S Matsumura; Seemant Chaturvedi; Tom Riles; Gary M Ansel; D Chris Metzger; Lawrence Wechsler; Michael R Jaff; William Gray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paola Moresoli; Bettina Habib; Pauline Reynier; Matthew H Secrest; Mark J Eisenberg; Kristian B Filion Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Brian W Nolan; Randall R De Martino; Philip P Goodney; Andres Schanzer; David H Stone; David Butzel; Christopher J Kwolek; Jack L Cronenwett Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Christina L Cui; Hanaa Dakour-Aridi; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen; Marc L Schermerhorn; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Mahmoud B Malas Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sarah E Deery; Courtenay M Holscher; Besma Nejim; Sara L Zettervall; Nathan J Aranson; Devin S Zarkowsky; Christopher J Abularrage; Caitlin W Hicks Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Brajesh K Lal; Richard Cambria; Wesley Moore; Minerva Mayorga-Carlin; William Shutze; Christopher L Stout; Heath Broussard; H Edward Garrett; Wayne Nelson; Jessica M Titus; Sumaira Macdonald; Rachel Lake; John D Sorkin Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Hanaa Dakour-Aridi; Christina L Cui; Andrew Barleben; Marc L Schermerhorn; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen; Mahmoud B Malas Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Yoel Solomon; Rens R B Varkevisser; Nicholas J Swerdlow; Chun Li; Patric Liang; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Gert J de Borst; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: P Nazari; P Golnari; M C Hurley; A Shaibani; S A Ansari; M B Potts; B S Jahromi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.966