1. Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.
- Author
-
Straus S, Yadavalli SD, Allievi S, Sanders A, Davis RB, Malas MB, Wang GJ, Kashyap VS, Cronenwett J, Motaganahalli RL, Nolan B, Eldrup-Jorgensen J, and Schermerhorn M
- Subjects
- Humans, Male, Aged, Female, Treatment Outcome, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment, Time Factors, Middle Aged, Femoral Artery surgery, United States epidemiology, Myocardial Infarction etiology, Myocardial Infarction epidemiology, Aged, 80 and over, Retrospective Studies, Carotid Stenosis mortality, Carotid Stenosis surgery, Carotid Stenosis therapy, Carotid Stenosis diagnostic imaging, Carotid Stenosis complications, Databases, Factual, Punctures, Cranial Nerve Injuries etiology, Endarterectomy, Carotid adverse effects, Endarterectomy, Carotid mortality, Stents, Endovascular Procedures adverse effects, Endovascular Procedures instrumentation, Endovascular Procedures mortality, Stroke etiology, Stroke epidemiology, Hospital Mortality
- Abstract
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., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF