Search

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures J.J.S. is awarded education grants from WL Gore and BD. A.F. is the PI on the BEST-CLI trial (NCT02060630). A.A. is awarded a T32 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS022242). C.H. is on the Speaker’s Bureau for Silk Road Medical. The remaining authors report no conflicts., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ 2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models., Results: Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001)., Conclusions: Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension (HTN) has been implicated as a strong predictive factor for poorer outcomes in patients undergoing various vascular procedures. However, limited research is available that examines the effect of uncontrolled HTN (uHTN) on outcomes after carotid revascularization. We aimed to determine which carotid revascularization procedure yields the best outcome in this patient population., Methods: We studied patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) from April 2020 to June 2022 using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with cHTN and those with uHTN. Patients with cHTN were those with HTN treated with medication and a blood pressure of <130/80 mm Hg. Patients with uHTN had a blood pressure of ≥130/80 mm Hg. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative hypotension or HTN, reperfusion syndrome, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>1 day), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI. We used logistic regression models for the multivariate analysis., Results: A total of 34,653 CEA (uHTN, 11,347 [32.7%]), 8199 TFCAS (uHTN, 2307 [28.1%]), and 17,309 TCAR (uHTN, 4990 [28.8%]) patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in age between patients with cHTN and patients with uHTN for each carotid revascularization procedure. However, compared with patients with cHTN, patients with uHTN had significantly more comorbidities. uHTN was associated with an increased risk of combined in-hospital stroke/death/MI after CEA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.87; P < .001), TFCAS (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; P < .001), and TCAR (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73; P = .003) compared with cHTN. Additionally, uHTN was associated with a prolonged LOS after all carotid revascularization methods. For the subanalysis of patients with uHTN, TFCAS was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.37; P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.25-6.19; P < .001), reperfusion syndrome (aOR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.57-10.93; P < .001), and extended LOS (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.32; P < .001) compared with CEA. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of TCAR compared with CEA., Conclusions: The results from this study show that patients with uHTN are at a higher risk of stroke and death postoperatively compared with patients with cHTN, highlighting the importance of treating HTN before undergoing elective carotid revascularization. Additionally, in patients with uHTN, TFCAS yields the worst outcomes, whereas CEA and TCAR proved to be safer interventions. Patients with uTHN with symptomatic carotid disease treated with CEA or TCAR have better outcomes compared with those treated with TFCAS., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Timely carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces the risk of future stroke. This benefit is maximized with lifelong drug therapy aimed at reducing further major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including stroke. Studies suggest that around half discontinue these drugs within 12 months. To assess if this is the case following CEA, we considered the MACE-reducing drugs prescribed several years later and compared this with the drugs they were prescribed at CEA., Methods: The electronic primary care records of 347 post-CEA patients a mean of 108 (range 43-185) months after surgery were interrogated. The prescriptions of generic MACE-reducing drugs (antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertension and diabetes) of the 187 alive were compared with their prescriptions at CEA and with the last prescription of the 160 who had died before the late review. The post-CEA incidence of further MACE in survivors was determined., Results: At late review, fewer of the post-CEA patients alive were taking antiplatelet drugs (143, 76% vs. 170, 91% P < 0.01), but more were fully anticoagulated (37v4 P < 0.01) when compared with prescriptions at CEA. Overall, there was no change in antithrombotic drug prescription rates (167, 89% vs. 172, 92%). Lipid-regulating drugs were well prescribed both at late review and at CEA (173, 93% vs. 169, 90%). The number prescribed antihypertension drugs was significantly higher at late review than at CEA (166, 89% vs. 67, 35% P < 0.01). The number treated for diabetes was similar (64, 34% vs. 42, 23%). There was no difference in the numbers of any of the MACE-reducing drugs prescribed between those who had survived to late review and those who had not. At late review, of those alive, there were 22 (12%) new strokes, and 24 (14%) had developed new or worsening ischemic cardiac symptoms., Conclusions: We found a higher than expected prescription rate of MACE-reducing drugs many years after CEA. This finding may be due, in part, to the nationalized health service in the United Kingdom., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While existing literature reports no benefit of locoregional anesthesia (LRA) over general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), the effect of LRA on patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been explored. This study aims to assess whether the choice of anesthesia plays a role in influencing outcomes within this population., Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) files between 2005 and 2022 and the procedural targeted ACS-NSQIP database for CEA between 2011-2022, all patients receiving CEA were identified, and the subset of patients with CHF was included. Patient characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared using χ 2 or Fischer's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate for continuous variables. Mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared between patients receiving GA and LRA using univariate analysis., Results: A total of 3,040 patients (2,733 undergoing GA, 307 undergoing LRA) with a diagnosis of CHF undergoing CEA were identified. No difference in mortality (GA 3.1% vs. LRA 4.6%, P = 0.162), MI (GA 3.0% vs. LRA 2.3%, P = 0.478), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.805) or MACE (GA 7.4% vs. LRA 8.1%, P = 0.654) was observed. LRA patients had a significantly lower hospital stay compared to GA patients (1 day [interquartile range (IQR) 1-3] vs. 2 days [IQR 1-4], P < 0.001). Shunt was more commonly used in patients receiving GA (32.9% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001) compared to LRA., Conclusions: While utilizing LRA compared to GA during CEA in patients with CHF is associated with a shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative shunting, the choice of anesthesia did not impact the outcomes of mortality, MI or stroke. Further research is needed to determine the effect of LRA on the outcomes of CEA among patients with different stages of heart failure., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the effects of yearly institutional case volume for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS) among symptomatic carotid stenosis patients on the rates of postoperative stroke and inpatient mortality., Materials and Methods: Patients with prior stroke ("symptomatic") undergoing CEA or CAS during an inpatient stay were identified from the National Inpatient Sample for years 2012-2015. The primary variable was volume of CEA or CAS performed annually by each institution. The primary outcome was a composite variable for in-hospital death or postoperative stroke., Results: A total of 5,628 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis underwent CEA, while 245 underwent CAS. In the symptomatic CEA population, 519 (9.2 %) patients experienced postoperative stroke or mortality, and were more likely to be treated at centers with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 10 [IQR 5-15] versus 10 [7-20] cases, p < 0.001). In the symptomatic CAS population, 32 (13.1 %) patients experienced stroke or mortality, and these patients were also more likely to undergo treatment at hospitals with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 5 [IQR 5-7] versus 5 [5-10] cases, p = 0.044). Thresholds for yearly institutional volume found differences in adverse outcome between 0-9, 10-29, and ≥30 cases/year (11.7 % vs 8.4 % vs 6.0 %, p < 0.001) for CEA, and differences in postoperative stroke between 0-9 and ≥10 cases/year for CAS (11.0 % vs 1.4 %, p = 0.028)., Conclusions: Hospitals performing higher volumes of CEA or CAS have fewer postoperative strokes. The threshold reported herein is ≥30 CEA procedures or ≥10 CAS procedures annually for appreciably improved outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Our conflicts of interest to disclose are as following: Stavropoula Tjoumakaris (consultant for Medtronic and Microvention), Reid Gooch (consultant for Stryker), Pascal Jabbour (consultant for Microvention, Medtronic, Cerus Endovascular, and Balt)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Series detailing complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid stenting (tfCAS) for patients presenting with neurologic symptoms that are treated with systemic thrombolysis (ST) are sparse. We sought to determine if treatment with ST was associated with a higher rate of post-carotid intervention complications., Methods: A multispecialty, institutional, prospectively maintained database was queried for symptomatic patients treated with CEA or tfCAS from 2007 to 2019. The primary outcomes of interest were bleeding complications (access/wound complications, hematuria, intracranial hemorrhage) or need for reintervention, stroke, and death. We compared rates of these outcomes between patients who were and were not treated with ST. To adjust for preoperative patient factors and confounding variables, propensity scores for assignment to ST and non-ST were calculated., Results: There were 1,139 patients included (949 [82%] CEA and 190 [17%] tfCAS. All treated lesions were symptomatic (550 [48%] stroke, 603 [52%] transient ischemic attack). Fifty-six patients (5%) were treated with ST. Fifteen of 56 patients also underwent catheter-based intervention for stroke. ST was administered 0 to 1 day preoperatively in 21 (38%) patients, 2 to 6 days preoperatively in 27 (48%) patients, and greater than 6 days preoperatively in 8 (14%) patients. ST patients were more likely to present with stroke (93% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and have higher preoperative Rankin scores. Unadjusted rate of bleeding/return to operating room was 3% for ST group and 3% for non-ST group (P = 0.60). Unadjusted rate of stroke was 4% for ST group and 3% for the non-ST group (P = 0.91), while perioperative mortality was 5% for ST group and 1% for non-ST group (P = 0.009). After adjusting for patient factors, preoperative antiplatelet/anticoagulation, and operative factors, ST was not associated with an increased odds of perioperative bleeding/return to the operating room (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.63; P = 0.309) or stroke (odds ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-2.40; P = 0.493)., Conclusions: ST does not convey a higher risk of complications after CEA or tfCAS. After controlling for other factors, patients that received ST had similar rates of local complications and stroke when compared to non-ST patients. Early carotid intervention is safe in patients that have received ST, and delays should be avoided in symptomatic patients given the high risk of recurrent stroke., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 m 2 ) 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., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis (RICS) is a well-described phenomenon seen after head and neck cancer radiation. Previously published literature suggests that, compared with atherosclerotic disease, RICS may result in worse long-term outcomes and early restenosis. This study aims to evaluate the effect of radiation on long-term outcomes after various carotid revascularization techniques using a multi-center registry database., Methods: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry for carotid artery intervention (carotid endarterectomy [CEA]; transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS]; transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]), who are 65 years or older were included in the study. VQI Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) Medicare-linked database was used to obtain long-term procedure-specific outcomes. Primary endpoints were 3-year death, stroke, and reintervention. We performed propensity matching between patients with prior radiation and those without. Kaplan-Meier analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to analyze the outcome variables., Results: A total of 56,472 patients had undergone carotid revascularization (CEA, n = 48,307; TCAR, n = 4593; CAS, n = 3572), 1244 patients with prior radiation and 54,925 patients without prior radiation. The prior radiation group was more likely to be male (71.9% vs 60.3%; P < .01), to receive a stent (47.5% vs 13.5%; P < .01), and to be on P2Y12 inhibitor (55.2% vs 38.3%; P < .01). Propensity matching was performed on 1223 patients (CEA, n = 655; TCAR, n = 292; CAS, n = 287). There were no significant differences in 30-day outcomes for death, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular events for all three procedures. The prior radiation group had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (3.7% vs 1.8%; P = .04) and 90-day readmission (23.5% vs 18.3%; P = .01) after CEA. For long-term outcomes, prior radiation significantly increased mortality risk for CEA and CAS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.27 and HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.02-2.36, respectively). The 3-year risk of stroke for CEA in radiated patients was also significantly higher (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.09) compared with non-radiated patients. Prior radiation did not significantly affect death and stroke in patients undergoing TCAR. Prior radiation also did not impact the rates of short and long-term reintervention after CEA, CAS, or TCAR., Conclusions: Prior head and neck radiation significantly increases the risk for mortality and stroke for CEA and the risk for mortality after CAS. Long-term outcomes for TCAR are not significantly affected by prior radiation. TCAR may be the preferred treatment modality for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To validate the accuracy of high-risk criteria for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and analyze the correlation between age and outcome of CEA and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in risk groups., Methods: We reviewed a prospectively managed vascular surgery database in a single tertiary referral center, and 2482 internal carotid arteries (ICAs) had undergone carotid revascularization from November 1994 to December 2021. To validate high-risk criteria for CEA, patients were classified as high risk (Hr) and normal risk (Nr). Subgroup analysis was performed with patients older or younger than 75 years to investigate the relationship between age and outcome in each group. Primary endpoints were 30-day outcomes including stroke, death, stroke/death, myocardial infraction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)., Results: A total of 2345 ICAs in 2256 patients were enrolled. The number of patients in the Hr group was 543 (24%) and the number in the Nr group was 1713 (76%). CEA and CAS were performed on 1384 (61%) and 872 (39%) patients, respectively. The 30-day stroke/death rate was higher with CAS than CEA in both the Hr (1.1% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.032) and Nr (1.2% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) groups. In unmatched logistic regression analysis of the Nr group ( n = 1778), the rate of 30-day stroke/death (OR, 5.575; 95% CI, 2.922-10.636; p < 0.001) was higher for CAS than CEA. In propensity score matching of the Nr group, the rate of 30-day stroke/death (OR, 5.165; 95% CI, 2.391-11.155; p < 0.001) was also higher for CAS than CEA. In the age <75 subgroup of the Hr group ( n = 428), CAS was associated with higher 30-day stroke/death (OR, 14.089; 95% CI, 1.314-151.036; p = 0.029). In the age ≥75 subgroup of the Hr ( n = 139), there was no difference in 30-day stroke/death between CEA and CAS. In the age <75 subgroup of the Nr group ( n = 1318), 30-day stroke/death (OR, 6.300; 95% CI, 2.797-14.193; p < 0.001) was higher in CAS. In the age ≥75 subgroup of the Nr group ( n = 460), 30-day stroke/death (OR, 6.468; 95% CI, 1.862-22.471; p = 0.003) was higher in CAS., Conclusions: In patients older than 75 years in the Hr group, there were relatively poor 30-day treatment outcomes in both CEA and CAS. Alternative treatment is needed that can expect better outcomes in older high-risk patients. In the Nr group, CEA has a significant benefit compared with CAS, and CEA should be recommended more to these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: Carotid arterial stenosis could be treated by surgical or percutaneous stenting. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the carotid council on the outcomes of patients with carotid artery disease., Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the patients who had undergone carotid arterial revascularization from April 2014 to July 2022 in our hospital. All patients were evaluated in carotid council, which is constituted by neurologist, cardiologist and cardiovascular surgeon. Patient-specific treatment procedure was decided in the council. Demographics and early-term follow-up results of the patients were evaluated., Results: Totally 95 procedures in 85 patients were analyzed during the study period. 27.4 % of the patients had significant contralateral carotid arterial stenosis. In 88 (92.6%) procedures, patients were treated by carotid endarterectomy, and 5 procedures were performed under regional anesthesia. Shunt usage was 6.0% during the surgery, and arteriotomy was repaired with primary sutures in 87.3%. Stent implantation was performed in 7 patients. There were 5 neurological adverse events after the carotid endarterectomy and 2 neurological events were after carotid arterial stenting. In each treatment group, one patient died after the procedure. In the follow-up period, restenosis was observed just in a patient who was treated with carotid endarterectomy and primary repair., Conclusion: Although carotid artery disease could be treated in accordance with the guidelines, treatment procedures should be patient-specific. Carotid councils might be helpful in giving patient-specific decisions, thereby providing the patient-based treatment procedure and improving the outcomes of the patients with carotid artery disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: To investigate the predictive role of systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) on postoperative poor outcome in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA)., Methods: A total of 347 patients undergoing elective isolated CEA between March 2010 and April 2022 were included in this multicenter retrospective observational cohort and risk-prediction study and were divided into two groups as poor outcome group ( n = 23) and favorable outcome group ( n = 324). Poor outcome was defined as the presence of at least one of the complications within 30 days of surgery including stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. The patients' baseline clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and hematological indices were derived from the complete blood count (CBC) analysis, and perioperative data, outcomes, and complications were screened, recorded, and then compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted following univariate analyses to detect the independent predictors of poor outcome as well as the cutoff values with sensitivity and specificity rates., Results: A total of 23 patients out of 347 (6.6%) manifested poor outcome; and stroke, myocardial infarction, and death occurred in 13, 3, and 7 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of basic clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and perioperative data, except for lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays. Although the median values of PLT, PLR, NLR, and SII of the poor outcome group were found to be significantly higher than the favorable outcome group in univariate analysis, only SII was detected to be a significant and independent predictor of poor outcome in multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 1.0008; 95% CI: 1.0004-1.0012; p = 0.002). ROC curve analysis revealed that SII of 1356 × 10 3 /mm 3 constituted the cutoff value for predicting poor outcome with 78.3% sensitivity and 64.5% specificity (AUC = 0.746; 95% CI: 0.64-0.851)., Conclusions: Our study revealed for the first time in the literature that SII significantly predicted poor outcome after CEA., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no conflicts of interest concerning the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Background: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been practiced as an alternative for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting, specifically in high-risk patients. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients if done within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR surveillance project. A few registry studies (primarily from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative) compared the early and up to 1-year outcomes of TCAR vs CEA or transfemoral carotid artery stenting. There is no large single-center study that reported late clinical outcomes. The present study compares intermediate clinical outcomes of TCAR vs CEA., Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed collected data from TCAR surveillance project patients enrolled in our institution and compare it with CEA patients done by the same providers at the same time period. The primary outcome was combined perioperative stroke/death and late stroke/death. Secondary outcomes included combined stroke, death, and myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and bleeding. Propensity matching was done to analyze outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from stroke, stroke/death, and ≥50% and ≥80% restenosis., Results: We analyzed 646 procedures (637 patients) (404 CEA, 242 TCAR). There was no significant difference in the indications for carotid intervention. However, TCAR patients had more high-risk criteria, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal failure. There was no significant differences between CEA vs TCAR in 30-day perioperative stroke (1% vs 2%), stroke/death rate (1% vs 3%; P = .0849), or major hematomas (2% vs 2%). The rate of CNI was significantly different (5% for CEA vs 1% for TCAR; P = .0138). At late follow-up (2 years), the rate of stroke was 1% vs 4% (P = .0273), stroke/death 8% vs 15% (P = .008), ≥80 % restenosis 0.5% vs 3% (P = .0139) for CEA patients vs TCAR patients, respectively. After matching 242 CEAs and 242 TCARs, the perioperative stroke rate was 1% for CEA vs 2% for TCAR (P = .5037), the stroke/death rate was 2% vs 3% (P = .2423), and the CNI rate was 3% vs 1% (P = .127). At late follow-up, rates of stroke were 1% for CEA vs 4% for TCAR (P = .0615) and stroke/death were 8% vs 15% (P = .0345). The rate of ≥80% restenosis was 0.9% for CEA vs 3% for TCAR (P = .099). The rates of freedom from stroke at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for CEA vs TCAR were 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99% vs 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively (P = .0806); stroke/death were 94%, 90%, 87%, and 86% vs 93%, 87%, 76%, and 75%, respectively (P = .0529); and ≥80% restenosis were 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98% vs 97%, 95%, 93%, and 93%, respectively (P = .1132)., Conclusions: In a propensity-matched analysis, both CEA and TCAR have similar perioperative clinical outcomes. However, CEA was superior to TCAR for the rates of late stroke/death and had a somewhat lower rate of ≥80% restenosis at 2 years, but this difference was not statistically significant., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis currently account for the majority of carotid interventions performed in the United States; therefore, the following article will review the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guidelines perspective in treating patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis., Methods: A systemic review and meta-analysis were conducted by the evidence practice center of the Mayo Clinic using a specified population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework., Results: Based on published randomized trials and related supporting evidence, the following were noted: the SVS recommends that patients with asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis can be considered for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the reduction of long-term risk of stroke, provided the patient has a life expectancy of 3 to 5 years with risk of perioperative stroke and death not exceeding 3%. The type of carotid intervention should be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention. Data from CREST, ACT, and the Vascular Quality Initiative suggest that certain properly selected asymptomatic patients can be treated with carotid stenting with equivalent outcome to CEA in the hands of experienced interventionalists. The institutions and operator performing carotid stenting must exhibit expertise sufficient to meet the established American Heart Association guidelines for treatment of patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ie, combined stroke/death rate of less than 3%)., Conclusions: SVS recommends that low surgical risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of ≥70% to be treated with CEA with best medical therapy over medical therapy alone for the long-term prevention of stroke/death (GRADE 1B). Carotid intervention should also be based on the presence or absence of high-risk criteria for each specified intervention (ie, CEA, TCAR, and TFCAS)., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Analysis of the dynamics of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the results of various types of carotid endarterectomy (СЕЕ) (classical with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch, eversion, formation of a new bifurcation, autoarterial reconstruction, glomus-saving techniques) in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (RAH)., Materials and Methods: The actual cohort, comparative, retrospective, open research for the period from January 2013 to December 2021 includes 1577 patients with significant hemodynamic stenosis of the internal carotid artery Depending on revascularization strategy five groups were formed: Group 1: 18.3% ( n = 289) - classical Carotid endarterectomy with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch (from diepoxy-treated xenopericardium or synthetic); Group 2: 29.9% ( n = 472) - eversional CEE with cut-off of carotid gloomus (CG); Group 3: 6.9% ( n = 109) - the formation of a new bifurcation; Group 4: 7.4% ( n = 117) - autoarterial reconstruction; Group 5: 37.4% ( n = 590) - glomus-saving CEE (1 technique - according to A. N . Kazantsev; two technicians - according to R.A. Vinogradov; three technicians - according to K.A.Antsupov). According to the 24-h blood pressure monitor in the preoperative period, the following degrees of AH were identified: 1° - 5.7% ( n = 89); 2° - 64.2% ( n = 1013); and 3° - 30.1% ( n = 475)., Results: In the postoperative period, no significant differences were obtained in the frequency of deaths, myocardial infarction, stroke, hemorrhagic transformation. However, according to the frequency of the combined endpoint (death + myocardial infarction + ischemic stroke + hemorrhagic transformation), the lowest rates were observed in the group of classical carotid endarterectomy with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch and glomus-sparing CEE (group 1: 1.03% ( n = 3); group 2: 3.6% ( n = 17); group 3: 3.67% ( n = 4); group 4: 2.56% ( n = 3); group 5: 0.5% ( n = 3); p = 0.10). This is due to the absence of cases of labile AH and hypertensive crises among patients of groups 1 and 5, which was ensured by the preservation of carotid glomus (CG). As a result, the number of patients with 2 and 3 degrees of hypertension in these groups decreased statistically significantly. The vast majority of patients after these operations achieved a stable target SBP. In groups 2, 3, and 4, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of patients with 2 and 3 degrees of AH, which is associated with excision of the CG., Conclusion: Classical CEE and glomus-sparing CEE techniques make it possible to achieve a stable target SBP level in patients with RAH as a result of CG preservation. Removal or traumatization of the latter during eversional CEE, the formation of a new bifurcation, autoarterial reconstruction is accompanied by the development of labile hypertension, an increase in the degree of hypertension and a high risk of hemorrhagic transformation in the brain. Thus, the most effective and safe types of CEE in the presence of RAH are classical CEE with plasty of the reconstruction zone with a patch and glomus-sparing CEE, accompanied by the lowest incidence of adverse cardiovascular events caused by postoperative hypertensive crisis and hyperperfusion syndrome., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare and to test the performance of all available risk scoring systems (RSSs) designed to predict long-term survival rate in asymptomatic candidate patients for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for significant carotid artery stenosis., Methods: Data on asymptomatic patients who underwent CEA in three high-volume centers were prospectively recorded. Through literature research using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, six RSSs were identified for the intent of the study. Primary endpoints were 3- and 5-year survival rates after CEA. All items used as variables to compose multiple RSSs were applied to every patient in the study population. The 3- and 5-year mortality prediction rates for each score were assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and predictive negative and positive value calculation, as well as univariable Cox proportional hazard models with the Harrell C index., Results: During the study period, 825 CEAs in 825 asymptomatic patients were analyzed. All items used in RSSs were available in the dataset, with some concerns regarding their definition and application among RSSs. The 3- and 5-year survival rates of the study cohort were 94.5% and 90.3%, respectively. Among the six RSSs analyzed, no RSS demonstrated optimal results in terms of mortality rate prediction accuracy, although some scores had good diagnostic and risk of death precision., Conclusions: RSSs, when used alone, fail to optimally detect postoperative life expectancy in asymptomatic CEA patient candidates. Further prospective controlled studies are needed to compose and validate RSSs with better calibration to predict outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Limited data are available to guide the choice of intervention for patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis (RICS), either transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patients who had undergone these carotid artery interventions for RICS and the associated outcomes., Methods: Patients in the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) carotid artery stenting surveillance project registry and the SVS VQI CEA modules who had undergone carotid artery intervention (TCAR, TFCAS, or CEA) for RICS were included. Those aged >90 years and those with concomitant interventions (eg, coronary bypass) were excluded. A composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included death, MI, stroke, cranial nerve injury (CNI), and other local and systemic complications. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for presenting symptomatic status and comorbid medical conditions was conducted for the outcome variables, except for death, which was analyzed using Cox regression modeling., Results: A total of 1927 patients with RICS had undergone CEA (n = 1172), TCAR (n = 253), or TFCAS (n = 502). The CEA group had a higher rate of diabetes (31% vs 25% for TCAR and 25% for TFCAS; P = .01), hypertension (85% vs 82% for TCAR and 79% for TFCAS; P < .01), and peripheral vascular disease (8% vs 4% for TCAR and 4% for TFCAS; P < .01). The TCAR and TFCAS groups had higher rates of coronary artery disease (21% for CEA vs 30% for TCAR and 29% for TFCAS; P < .01). The patients who had undergone TFCAS were more likely to have had symptomatic lesions (57% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 41% for TCAR; P < .01) and prior stroke (55% for TFCAS vs 47% for CEA and 40% for TCAR; P < .001). The composite outcome occurred in 3.2% of TCAR patients, 11.2% of TFCAS patients, and 11.1% of CEA patients (P < .01) with an odds ratio of 0.27 for TCAR, 0.91 for TFCAS, and 1.00 for CEA. However, no differences in the individual outcomes were noted for any procedure. TCAR exhibited the lowest odds ratio for CNI (0.15) compared with TFCAS at 0.9, both relative to CEA (P = .03)., Conclusions: RICS patients treated by TCAR in the SVS VQI had the lowest risk of the composite of stroke, death, and MI and CNI. Therefore, TCAR might be the preferred treatment modality. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes in this population and to elucidate the relationship of these procedures to the individual outcomes of stroke, MI, and death., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Racial disparities in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) continue to persist. We aimed to provide a large-scale analysis of racial disparities in perioperative outcomes of carotid revascularization in a nationally representative cohort of patients, with sub-analyses stratifying by procedure type and symptomatic status., Methods: We studied all patients undergoing carotid revascularization between 2011 and 2018 in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. Univariate methods were used to compare patients' demographic and medical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare adjusted perioperative outcomes between white patients (WP) and non-white patients (NWP). Sub-analysis was performed stratifying by method of revascularization and symptomatic status., Results: A total of 31,356 carotid revascularizations were performed in 26,550 (84.7%) white patients and 4,806 (15.3%) non-white patients. On adjusted analysis, NWP had increased odds of stroke (OR:1.2, 95%CI:1.1-1.5, P = 0.0496), unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.1-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.6, 95%CI:1.7-3.9, P < 0.001). On sub-analysis, NWP undergoing CAS had increased odds of stroke/death (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.1-4.3, P = 0.025), stroke (OR:2.9, 95%CI:1.3-6.0, P = 0.007), and stroke/TIA (OR:2.1, 95%CI:1.0-4.2, P = 0.025). NWP undergoing CEA had increased odds of unplanned return to the OR (OR:1.4, 95%CI:1.2-1.6, P < 0.001) and restenosis (OR:2.7, 95%CI:1.7-4.0, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: NWP had higher rates of 30-day stroke, driven primarily by higher rates of perioperative stroke/death in NWP undergoing CAS. NWP undergoing CEA did not have higher rates of stroke/death after adjusted analysis, although they had higher rates of unplanned return to OR and restenosis. Upon stratification for symptomatic status, the stroke/death rate between NWP and WP was shown to be non-significant., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Contralateral carotid stenosis (clCS) has been described as a perioperative predictor of mortality after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, its predictive value on long-term cardiovascular events remains controversial. The study aims to assess the potential role of clCS as a long-term predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients who underwent CEA. From January 2012 to July 2020, patients undergoing CEA under regional anesthesia for carotid stenosis in a tertiary care and referral center were eligible from a prospective database, and a post hoc analysis was performed. The primary outcome consisted in the occurrence of long-term MACE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, and major adverse limb events. A total of 192 patients were enrolled. With a median 50 months follow-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (mean survival time (MST) 51.7 vs. 103.3, P < 0.010) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) (MST 75.1 vs. 90.3, P = 0.001) were associated with decreased survival time. After propensity score matching (PSM), CKD (MST 49.1 vs. 106.0, P = 0.001) and PAD (MST 75.7 vs. 94.0, P = 0.001) maintained this association. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, contralateral stenosis was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.035; 95% CI: 1.113-3.722, P = 0.021 and all-cause mortality (HR = 2.564; 95% CI: 1.276-5,152 P = 0.008). After PSM, only all-cause mortality (HR 2.323; 95% CI: 0.993-5.431, P = 0.052) maintained a significant association with clCS. On multivariable analysis, clCS (aHR 2.367; 95% CI: 1.174-4.771, P = 0.016), age (aHR 1.039, 95% CI: 1.008-1.070), CKD (aHR 2.803; 95% CI: 1.409-5.575, P = 0.003) and PAD (aHR 3.225, 95% CI: 1.695-6.137, P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased all-cause mortality. Contrary to MACE, clCS is a strong predictor of long-term all-cause mortality after CEA. However, MACE risk may compromise CEA benefits by other competitive events. Therefore, further studies are needed to establish the role of clCS on postoperative events and on patients' specific assessments in order to determine the best medical treatment and easy access to surgical intervention., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Recent studies have demonstrated that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has comparable outcomes to the surgical gold standard, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, few studies have analyzed the cost of TCAR, and no study has evaluated its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TCAR with CEA for carotid artery stenosis., Methods: We built a Markov microsimulation using transition probabilities and utilities from existing literature for symptomatic patients undergoing TCAR or CEA. Costs were derived from literature then converted to 2019 dollars. The model included six health states with monthly cycle lengths: surgery, death, alive after surgery, alive after myocardial infarction, alive after stroke, and alive after stroke and death. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were analyzed over a 5-year period. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to study the impact of parameter variability on cost effectiveness., Results: For symptomatic patients, CEA cost $7821 for 2.85 QALYs, whereas TCAR cost $19154 for 2.92 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $152,229 per QALY gained in the TCAR arm. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that our model was most sensitive to probability of restenosis, costs of TCAR, and costs of CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated TCAR would be considered cost-effective in 49% of iterations., Conclusions: This study found that, although 5-year costs for TCAR were greater than CEA, TCAR afforded greater QALYs than CEA. TCAR became cost-effective at 6 years of follow-up., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients is unclear. The aim was to evaluate early outcomes of CEA with routine "delayed" shunt insertion, for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis., Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study of symptomatic patients undergoing CEA (2009-2020). All CEAs were performed under general anesthesia using a standardized technique, based on delayed routine shunt insertion after plaque removal. Primary endpoints were 30-days mortality and stroke. A logistic regression was performed to identify clinical and procedural factors associated with postoperative stroke., Results: Two-hundred-sixty-three CEAs were performed for TIA (N.=178, 47%) or acute ischemic stroke (N.=85, 32%). Mean delay of surgery was 6±19 days, and early CEA (<48 hours) was performed in 98 cases (37%). Conventional CEA was performed in 171 patients (67%), eversion CEA in 83 (33%). Early (30-days) mortality was 0.3%. Stroke/death rate was 2.3%. Female sex (OR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.32-24.93; P=0.023), use of anticoagulants (OR=10.57, 95% CI: 2.67-51.86; P=0.001), preoperative stroke (OR=5.34, 95% CI: 1.62-69.21; P=0.006), and the presence of preoperative CT/MRI cerebral ischemic lesions (OR=5.96, 95% CI: 1.52-28.59; P=0.013) were associated with early neurological complications. Statin medication (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; P=0.019) and CEA timing <2 days (OR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.03-0.55; P=0.005) were protective from postoperative stroke. CEA outcomes were independent from time period (P=0.201) and operator's volume (P=0.768). A literature systematic review identified other four studies describing the CEA outcomes with routine shunting in symptomatic patients, with a large variability in the selection of patients, surgical technique, and description of the results., Conclusions: Routine delayed shunting after plaque removal seems to be a safe and effective technique, that contributed to maintain a low complication rate in neurologically symptomatic patients. Statin use and expedited timing were associated with improved outcomes using this technique.

Objective: Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) has higher combined stroke and death rates in elderly patients with carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) may have similar outcomes to CEA. This study compared outcomes after TCARs relative to those after CEAs and TFCAS, focusing on elderly patients., Methods: We included all patients with carotid artery stenosis and no prior endarterectomy or stenting who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 (TCAR commercially available) to December 2019. We categorized patients into age decades: 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and 80 to 90 years. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year composite rates of stroke or death. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated both outcomes after adjusting for patient demographics, clinical factors, symptomatology, hospital CEA volume, and clustering., Results: We identified 33,115 patients who underwent either a CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR for carotid artery stenosis (35% in their 60s, 44% in their 70s, and 21% in their 80s), where one-half (50%) were symptomatic. The majority of patients had CEAs (80%), followed by TFCAS (11%) and TCARs (9.1%). The overall rate of 30-day stroke/death was 1.5% and of 1-year stroke/death was 4.4%. Octogenarians had the highest 30-day and 1-year stroke/death rates relative to their peers (2.3% and 6.3%, respectively). Among all patients, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for 30-day stroke/death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.62) and slightly higher for 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76). Among octogenarians, however, the adjusted hazards of TCARs relative to CEAs was similar for both 30-day stroke/death (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.59-2.13) and 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.85-1.94). TFCAS relative to CEAs had higher hazards of both 30-day stroke/death (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.10-2.89) and 1-year stroke/death (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.35-2.54) in octogenarians., Conclusions: TCARs had similar outcomes relative to CEAs among octogenarians with respect to 30-day and 1-year rates of stroke/death. TCAR may serve as a promising less invasive treatment for carotid disease in older patients who are deemed high anatomic, surgical, or clinical risk for CEAs., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients who are obese or underweight are traditionally at higher risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. The effect of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is unclear. Our goal was to analyze the association of BMI with perioperative and long-term outcomes after elective CEA., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was queried from 2003-2018 for patients undergoing elective CEAs. Patients were categorized into 5 BMI cohorts - underweight (UW, BMI < 18.5 kg/m 2 ), normal weight (NW, BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m 2 ), overweight (OW, BMI 25-29.9 kg/m 2 ), obese (OB, BMI 30-39.9 kg/m 2 ), and morbidly obese (MO, BMI ≥ 40 kg/m 2 ). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were assessed with univariable and multivariable analyses., Results: There were 89,079 patients included: 2% UW, 26% NW, 38.4% OW, 29.9% OB, and 3.6% MO. Overall, the mean age was 70.6 years, 60% were male, and 91.8% were of white race. There were significant differences among the BMI cohorts in regards to age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidities (all P < 0.05). For perioperative outcomes, the BMI cohorts differed significantly in reoperation for bleeding and 30-day mortality. On multivariable analysis, BMI was not associated with stroke or perioperative mortality. MO was associated with perioperative cardiac complications (Odds Ratios [OR] 1.26, 95% CI 1-1.57, P = 0.05). UW status was associated with increased return to the operating room (OR 1.89, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.28-2.78, P = 0.001), 30-day mortality (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1-2.86, P =0.05), 1-year mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.74, P = 0.01), and 5-year mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41, P =0.005)., Conclusions: BMI status was not associated with perioperative stroke, cranial nerve injury, or surgical site infections. Patients with MO had higher perioperative cardiac complications. UW patients have lower short and long-term survival and should be a focus for long-term targeted risk factor stratification and modification., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rapid and objective preoperative assessment of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains difficult and variable. The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) is a validated medical record-based assessment of frailty that has been used to predict clinical outcomes for patients undergoing surgical procedures including CEA. We applied RAI to a veteran population following CEA for asymptomatic cerebrovascular disease and examined the factors related to post-operative morbidity and mortality., Methods: After obtaining IRB approval, Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program data was queried for CEA procedures from 2002 to 2015 for ICD-9 codes indicating asymptomatic patients. RAI was then calculated based on Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program variable medical record extraction. Three groupings of patients were undertaken including non-frail (RAI < 30), frail (RAI 30-34) and very frail (RAI ≥ 35). Chi squared and ANOVA were used to assess cohort differences. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of post-operative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), any complication, and death., Results: Between 2002 and 2015, 37,873 asymptomatic patients underwent CEA. Over 98% (37,266) of the patients were male with an average age of 68.3 ± 8.55 years. The cohorts contained 82.8% (n = 31,362), 12.4% (n = 4,678), and 4.8% (n = 1,833) for the non-frail, frail and very frail groups respectively. Frailty was associated with increased rates of post-operative stroke, MI, any complication, death, and longer hospital length of stay (P< 0.001). Operative time did not significantly differ between the groups. Increasing frailty was associated with having one or more complications (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.50-1.90 for frail and OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.41-3.24 for very frail, (P< 0.001), post-operative stroke in frail (OR 1.33 95% CI 1.06-1.67) and very frail (OR 1.57 1 95% CI 1.14-2.16) patients, and MI in both frail (OR 1.68, CI 1.17-2.43) and very frail (OR 3.73, CI 2.52-5.51) patients. Frailty was also significantly associated with death with in very frail patients (OR 4.14, 95% CI 3.00-5.71, P< 0.001)., Conclusion: Increasing frailty as determined by RAI was associated with worse post-operative outcomes in asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA. Higher RAI score cohorts were associated with higher rates of postoperative stroke, MI, complications, and death. We recommend the use of this frailty index as a screening tool to guide risk discussions with asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Both Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are the most common procedures to treat patients with symptomatic, and asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. Poor preoperative functional status (FS) is increasingly being recognized as predictor for postoperative outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of preoperative functional status on the outcomes of patients who undergo CEA or CAS., Methods: Data was obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from the years 2011-2018. All patients in the database who underwent CEA or CAS during this time period were identified. Patients were then further divided into 2 subgroups: FS-Independent and FS-dependent. Bivariate and multivariate analyses was performed for pre, intra and post-operative variables with functional status. Outcomes for treatment of symptomatic carotid disease were compared to those with asymptomatic disease among the cohort of functionally dependent patients., Results: A total of 27,163 patients (61.2% Males, 38.8% Females) underwent CEA (n = 26,043) or CAS (n = 1,120) from 2011-2018. Overall, primary outcomes were as follows: mortality 0.77% (n = 210) and stroke 1.87% (n = 507).Risk adjusted multivariate analysis showed that FS-D patients undergoing CEA had higher mortality (AOR 3.06, CI 1.90-4.92, P < 0.001), longer operative times (AOR 1.36, CI 1.17-1.58, P< 0.001) higher incidence of unplanned reoperation (AOR 1.68, CI 1.19-2.37, P = 0.003), postoperative pneumonia (AOR 5.43, CI 1.62 - 18.11, P = 0.006) and ≥3 day LOS (AOR 3.05, CI 2.62-3.56, P < 0.001) as compared to FS-I patients. FS-D patients undergoing CAS had higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia (AOR 20.81, CI 1.66-261.54, P = 0.019) and higher incidence of LOS ≥3 days (AOR 2.18, CI 1.21-3.93, P < .01) as compared to FS-I patients. Survival analysis showed that the best 30-day survival was observed in FS-I patients undergoing CEA, followed by FS-I patients undergoing CAS, followed by FS-D patients undergoing CEA, followed by FS-D patients undergoing CAS. FS-D status increased mortality after CEA by 2.11%. When the outcomes of CAS and CEA were compared to each other for the cohort of FS-D patients, CAS was associated with higher incidence of stroke (AOR 3.46, CI 0.32-1.97, P= 0.046), shorter operative times (AOR 0.25, CI 0.12-0.52, P < 0.001) and higher incidence of pneumonia (AOR 11.29, CI 1.32-96.74, P = 0.027). Symptomatic patients undergoing CEA had higher LOS as compared to symptomatic patients undergoing CAS, and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or CAS., Conclusions: FS-D patients, undergoing CEA have higher mortality as compared to FS-I patients undergoing CAS. FS-D patients undergoing CAS have higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia and longer LOS as compared to FS-I patients. For the cohort of FS-D patients undergoing either CEA or CAS, CAS was associated with higher risk of stroke and reduced operative times. Risk benefit ratio for any carotid intervention should be carefully assessed before offering it to FS-D patients. Preoperative Dependent Functional Status Is Associated with Poor Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting in Both Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Addition of ipsilateral proximal endovascular intervention (PEI, common carotid/innominate) increases the risk of perioperative stroke/death for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS). However, these approaches have not been directly compared and is the subject of this study., Methods: VQI (2005-2020) was queried for CEA and CAS with PEI, excluding emergent, bilateral, and repeat procedures, patients with prior ipsilateral CAS, ICA lesions with stenosis<50%, and transcarotid ICA stents. Primary outcome were the composite of perioperative stroke/death and long-term stroke/reintervention/death. Operative approach was evaluated with logistic regression, adjusted propensity scores, symptomatic status, and stenosis>70%. Long-term outcomes were compared with Kaplan-Meier Analysis., Results: There were 1,433 patients (795 endovascular;638 hybrid); mean age 69.8±9.4 years. Patients undergoing hybrid procedures were more likely to be female (49.4% vs. 37.5%; P < 0.001), less likely to have diabetes (29.5% vs. 38.2%; P P< 0.001), less likely to have a prior ipsilateral CEA (3.8% vs. 32.2%; P< 0.001), less likely to be symptomatic (34.6% vs. 52.8%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have >70% stenosis (77.3% vs. 95.6%%; P < 0.001). Perioperative stroke/death was 3.6% for hybrid and 3.9% for endovascular approaches (P = 0.77). In the multivariable model, hybrid operative approach (compared to the total endovascular approach) was not significantly associated with stroke/death (OR 1.29; 95%CI: 0.55-3.07; P = 0.56). For the 981 patients with long-term follow-up (556 endovascular; 425 hybrid), 1-year freedom from stroke/reintervention/death was 94.0% (95%CI: 90.9%-96.0%) for hybrid approach vs. 92.3% (95%CI: 89.5%-94.4%) for endovascular approach (P = 0.27)., Conclusion: Although simultaneous repair of tandem carotid lesions portends worse outcomes when compared to CEA or CAS alone, there was no difference in short or long-term stroke and death rates with a hybrid or totally endovascular approach.  Therefore, it is reasonable to use either approach in the select patients who require simultaneous repair of both lesions., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA., Methods: Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group., Results: A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13)., Conclusions: The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease., Methods: We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use., Results: A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups., Conclusions: Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) prevent stroke in selected patients. However, each intervention carries a risk of perioperative complications including stroke or death (S/D). We aimed to determine the relationship between operator volume, hospital volume, and the perioperative risk of S/D in carotid revascularization in Australia and New Zealand. Retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected data extracted from the Australasian Vascular Audit between 2010 and 2017. Annual caseload volume was analyzed in quintiles (Q) using multivariate regression to assess its impact on perioperative S/D. Carotid endarterectomy procedures (n = 16 765) demonstrated higher S/D rates for lower-volume operators (2.21% for Q1-Q3 [1-17 annual cases] vs 1.76% for Q4-Q5 [18-61 annual cases]; odds ratio [OR]: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.001-1.64; P = .049). Carotid artery stenting procedures (n = 1350) also demonstrated higher S/D rates for lower-volume operators (2.63% for Q1-Q3 [1-11 annual cases] vs 0.37% for Q4-Q5 [12-31 annual cases]; OR: 6.11; 95% CI: 1.27-29.33; P = .024). No significant hospital volume-outcome effect was observed for either procedure. An inverse relationship was demonstrated between operator volume and perioperative S/D rates following CEA and CAS. Consideration of minimum operator thresholds, restructuring of services and networked referral pathways of care in Australia and New Zealand, would likely result in improved patient outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) after thrombolytic therapy (TT)., Data Sources: Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases., Review Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients who underwent CEA/CAS after TT., Results: In 25 studies (n = 147 810 patients), 2 557 underwent CEA (n = 2 076) or CAS (n = 481) following TT. After CEA, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3 - 7.5) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) was 3.4% (95% CI 1.7 - 5.6). After CAS, the pooled peri-procedural stroke/death rate was 14.9% (95% CI 11.9 - 18.2) and ICH was 5.5% (95% CI 3.7 - 7.7). In case control studies comparing CEA outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural death/stroke was non-significantly higher after TT (4.3% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% CI 0.74 - 7.47), but ICH was significantly higher after TT (2.2% vs. 0.12%; OR 7.82, 95% CI 4.07 - 15.02), as was local haematoma formation (3.6% vs. 2.26%; OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.33). In case control studies comparing CAS outcomes in patients receiving TT vs. no TT, peri-procedural stroke/death was significantly higher after TT (5.2% vs. 1.5%; OR 8.49, 95% CI 2.12 - 33.95) as was ICH (5.4% vs. 0.7%; OR 7.48, 95% CI 4.69 - 11.92). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated an inverse association between the time interval from intravenous (IV) TT to undergoing CEA and the risk of peri-procedural stroke/death (p = .032). Peri-operative stroke/death was 13.0% when CEA was performed three days after TT and 10.6% when performed four days after TT, with the risk reducing to within the currently accepted 6% threshold after six-seven days had elapsed., Conclusion: Peri-procedural ICH and local haematoma were significantly more frequent in patients undergoing CEA after TT (vs. no TT), although there were no randomised comparisons. Peri-procedural hazards were also significantly higher for CAS after TT. The inverse relationship between timing to CEA and peri-procedural stroke/death mandates careful patient selection and suggests that it may be safer to defer CEA for six-seven days after TT., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Following a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) procedure, patients are discharged to their homes or other locations than home such as an acute care facility or skilled nursing facility based on their functional status and level of medical attention needed. Decision-making for discharge destination following a CEA to home or nonhome locations is important due to the differences in survival and postoperative complications. While primary outcomes such as mortality and occurrence of stroke following CEA have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of information characterizing outcomes of discharge destination and the factors associated. The purpose of this study was to explore the factors associated with discharge to nonhome destinations after CEA, and outcomes after discharge., Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, we identified patients who underwent CEA from 2011 to 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on their discharge destination (home versus nonhome). Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with different discharge destinations. Postoperative complications associated with discharge to nonhome destinations were analyzed and mortality after discharge from hospital was compared between the 2 groups., Results: A total of 25,094 patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study, of which 39% were females and 61% were males; median age was 71 years. Twenty four thousand one hundred twenty-five patients (93.13%) were discharged to home (Group I) and 1,779 (6.87%) were discharged to nonhome destinations (Group II). Following preoperative and intraoperative factors were associated with discharge to nonhome locations: older age, diabetes mellitus, functional independent status, transfer from other hospitals, symptomatic status, need for preoperative blood transfusions, severe ipsilateral carotid stenosis, elective CEA, need for intraoperative shunt and general anesthesia (all P< 0.05). Following postoperative complications had statistically significant association with discharge to nonhome destinations: postoperative blood transfusion, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, longer than 48 hours on ventilator, development of stroke, myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, and sepsis (all P< 0.05). Mortality after discharge from hospital was 0.39% (n = 100). Mortality among those who were discharged to home was 0.29% vs. 1.63% for those who were discharged to nonhome locations (P< 0.05)., Conclusions: Majority of the patients after CEA are discharged back to their homes. This study identifies the factors which predispose patients discharged to locations, other than home. Patients who are not discharged home have higher mortality as compared to those who are discharged to their homes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Which type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether primary, patching, or eversion, will provide the optimal results has remained controversial. In the present study, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic meta-analyses of the various types of closure., Methods: We conducted a PubMed literature review search to find studies that had compared CEA with primary closure, CEA with patching, and/or eversion CEA (ECEA) during the previous three decades with an emphasis on RCTs, previously reported systematic meta-analyses, large multicenter observational studies (Vascular Quality Initiative data), and recent single-center large studies., Results: The results from RCTs comparing primary patching vs primary closure were as follows. Most of the randomized trials showed CEA with patching was superior to CEA with primary closure in lowering the perioperative stroke rates, stroke and death rates, carotid thrombosis rates, and late restenosis rates. These studies also showed no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials, including synthetic patches (polyethylene terephthalate [Dacron; DuPont, Wilmington, Del], Acuseal [Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Ariz], polytetrafluoroethylene, or pericardial patches) and vein patches (saphenous or jugular). The results from observational studies comparing patching vs primary closure were as follows. The Vascular Study Group of New England data showed that the use of patching increased from 71% to 91% (P < .001). Also, the 1-year restenosis and occlusion (P < .01) and 1-year stroke and transient ischemic attack (P < .03) rates were significantly lower statistically with patch closure. The results from the RCTs comparing ECEA vs conventional CEA (CCEA) were as follows. Several RCTs that had compared ECEA with CCEA showed equivalency of CCEA vs ECEA (level 1 evidence) with patching in the perioperative carotid thrombosis and stroke rates. At 4 years after treatment, the incidence of carotid stenosis was lower for ECEA than for primary closure (3.6% vs 9.2%; P = .01) but was comparable between patching and eversion (1.5% for patching vs 2.8% for eversion)., Conclusions: Routine carotid patching or ECEA was superior to primary closure (level 1 evidence). We found no significant differences between the preferential use of several patch materials. The rates of significant post-CEA stenosis for CEA with patching was similar to that with ECEA, and both were superior to primary closure., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The risk of ipsilateral neurological recurrence (NR) was assessed in patients awaiting carotid endarterectomy (CEA) due to symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and whether current national guidelines of performing CEA within 14 days are adequate in present day practice., Methods: This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study. Patients scheduled for CEA due to symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in a five year period, 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018, from four centres were included. Data from the Danish Vascular Registry (www.karbase.dk), operative managing systems, and electronic medical records were reviewed., Results: In total, 1 125 patients scheduled for CEA were included and 1 095 (97%) underwent the planned surgery. During a median delay from index event to CEA of 11 days (interquartile range 8-16 days), 40 patients (3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5%-5%) experienced a NR. One third were minor strokes (n = 12, 30%); half were transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) (n = 22, 55%); and amaurosis fugax accounted for 15% (n = 6). Twenty-six (2%) CEA procedures was cancelled, of which one was due to a disabling recurrent ischaemic event (aphasia). There were no deaths or major strokes in the waiting time for CEA. Best medical treatment (BMT) with platelet inhibitory or anticoagulation drugs and a statin was initiated in nearly all patients (98%) at first assessment. The overall 30 day risk of a post-operative major event (death or stroke) was (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimate) 2.7% (95% CI 1.8-3.8), and not significantly correlated with the timing of surgery. Most (69%) occurred within the first three days. One, two, and three year mortality rate for CEA patients was (KM estimate) 4.8%, 7.8%, and 11.5% respectively., Conclusion: In symptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients awaiting CEA, very few NRs occurred within 14 days. Institution of immediate BMT in specialised TIA/stroke units followed by early, but not necessarily urgent, CEA is a reasonable course of action in patients with high grade symptomatic carotid artery stenosis., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The current Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines recommend carotid revascularization for asymptomatic disease in patients with at least a 3-year life expectancy and stenosis >60% when the expected perioperative stroke and death rate is <3%. Based on this recommendation, it was previously determined that asymptomatic patients who require dialysis would not meet the perioperative stroke and death thresholds nor the long-term survival benchmarks to justify carotid surgery. To determine whether carotid surgery for patients requiring dialysis is appropriate, the present study compared the perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization for dialysis-dependent patients relative to nondialysis patients in a contemporary, national cohort., Methods: The targeted vascular module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients who undergone carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic carotid disease from 2011 to 2018. The cohort was categorized as requiring or not requiring dialysis. The primary 30-day outcomes included mortality and the composite of stroke/death and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI). Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the independent associations of the estimated glomerular filtration rate and dialysis dependence with the stroke/death rate., Results: A total of 17,579 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 226 (1.3%) required dialysis at revascularization. No difference was found in the degree of severe stenosis (80%-99%) demonstrated by 69% of the dialysis cohort and 72% of the nondialysis cohort (P = .9). Of the dialysis and nondialysis cohorts, 5% and 3.6% underwent carotid artery stenting (P = .3). The dialysis-dependent patients were younger (68 vs 71 years; P < .001) and were more likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes (47% vs 12%; P < .001), congestive heart failure (8.4% vs 1.4%; P < .001), and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15% vs 10%; P = .03). In the dialysis and nondialysis cohort, 2 (0.9%) and 88 (0.5%) patients died (P = .3); 4 (1.8%) and 247 (1.4%) experienced strokes (P = .6); and 3 (1.3%) and 185 (1.1%) patients experienced MI (P = .5), respectively. The composite outcomes of stroke/death and stroke/death/MI was 2.2% (n = 5) and 1.8% (n = 319; P = .6) and 3.5% (n = 8) and 2.8% (n = 479; P = .4) in the dialysis and nondialysis cohorts, respectively. After multivariable analysis, neither the estimated glomerular filtration rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.01; P = .26) nor dialysis dependence (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.57; P = .13) was independently associated with the composite outcome of stroke/death., Conclusions: The 30-day carotid revascularization outcomes for asymptomatic disease in dialysis-dependent patients met the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines in this national cohort and might be better than previously surmised. Hence, vascular surgeons could consider carotid revascularization for select dialysis-dependent patients with the appropriate expected longevity and perioperative risk., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The safety and effectiveness of using the hybrid approach to treat tandem carotid lesions is controversial, and the clinical significance of the technical variants on the perioperative outcomes has not been evaluated. The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the technique, safety, effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of the hybrid approach., Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify studies from January 1, 1996 to January 11, 2020. The baseline patient characteristics, comorbidities, procedural details, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were collected and analyzed. A pooled overall survival curve was drawn. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the perioperative stroke risk between subgroups., Results: Overall, 275 patients (mean age, 66.94 years) from 15 studies were included. All the patients had presented with tandem stenosis of ≥50%, and 67.2% were symptomatic. The overall technical success rate was 99.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98.0%-100.0%). The pooled perioperative complications rates were as follows: death, 1.5% (95% CI, 0.0%-2.9%); stroke, 2.6% (95% CI, 0.7%-4.4%); combined stroke/death, 3.3% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.4%); and myocardial infarction, 3.2% (95% CI, 0.7%-9.1%). The overall primary patency rates were 99.2% (95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%) and 88.2% (95% CI, 78.8%-95.4%) at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Reintervention was performed in 6.6% of the patients (95% CI, 3.0%-11.2%). The pooled overall survival rates were 89.9% (95% CI, 83.7%-96.7%), 83.7% (95% CI, 75.9%-92.2%), and 75.9% (95% CI, 66.5%-86.7%) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Operations in which carotid endarterectomy was performed first carried a significantly greater risk of perioperative stroke compared with those in which proximal intervention had been performed first (5.7% vs 0.0%; P = .01). No difference was found in perioperative stroke risk between the subgroups of baseline symptomatic status (asymptomatic, 5.1%; symptomatic, 1.9%; P = .32), preoperative antiplatelet therapy (dual, 3.6%; single, 5.8%; P = .79), and carotid clamping during intervention (clamping, 2.8%; unclamping, 6.3%; P = .40)., Conclusions: For patients with a presumed high risk of neurologic events because of carotid tandem lesions, the hybrid approach could be considered a reasonable option with high technical success and acceptable perioperative and long-term results. Performing carotid artery stenting before carotid endarterectomy and administering perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy should be considered to promote technical success and better outcomes. Prospective and randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the results and provide recommendations on patient selection for the hybrid approach., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

[Figure: see text].

Background: One of the ongoing debates about carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the closure technique of arterial wall in the operation. Current guidelines recommend routine patch closure (PAC); this recommendation is based on the evidence reported 10-20 years ago. Therefore, the exact role of PAC and primary closure (PRC) remains uncertain. The objectives of this study were to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent CEA with different closure techniques., Methods: From January 2013 and December 2018, one senior vascular surgeon performed CEA for 126 patients in the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. The closure technique (PAC or PRC) was determined on the characteristics (diameter and level) of carotid arteries. Patient demographics and clinical data were retrospectively collected by two research fellows by reviewing the hospital medical records and relevant radiologic studies, as were carotid duplex reports, indications, intraoperative data, closure technique, and perioperative complications. Data of long-term outcomes were gathered by reviewing outpatient clinic visits and associated supplementary examinations., Results: PRC was performed in 78 operations (61.9%), and PAC was performed in 48 operations (38.1%). There were no statistical differences in demographic and clinical data between the two groups. Carotid clamp time (P < 0.001) and operating time (P < 0.001) were significantly longer when performing PAC (P < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly more when performing PAC than that of PRC (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome and the follow-up results showed that there was no significant difference in the short-term and middle-term overall survival rate and restenosis-free survival rate between the two groups., Conclusions: There are no differences in postoperative and middle-term outcomes between PAC and selective PRC, whereas PRC technique can save operation time and shorten the intraoperative carotid clamp time. PRC can be safely applied in patients with a greater than 5 mm internal carotid artery (ICA)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a proven intervention for stroke risk reduction in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. High-risk patients are often offered carotid stenting to minimize the risk and optimize the outcomes. As a referral center for high-risk patients, we evaluated and analyzed our experience with high-risk CEA patients., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who had undergone CEA at a tertiary referral center. The demographics, indications for surgery, physiologic and anatomic risk factors, intraoperative surgical management, perioperative complications, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. The high-risk physiologic factors identified included an ejection fraction <30%, positive preoperative stress test results, and compromised pulmonary function test results. The high-risk patients included those requiring home oxygen, those with a partial pressure of oxygen of <60 mm Hg, and patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second of <30%. The high-risk anatomic factors identified included previous head and/or neck radiation, a history of ipsilateral neck surgery, contralateral nerve palsy, redo CEA, previous ipsilateral stenting, contralateral occlusion, contralateral CEA, nasotracheal intubation, and digastric muscle division. After propensity score matching, patients with and without high-risk physiologic and anatomic factors were compared. The primary outcomes were a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were cranial injury and surgical site infection., Results: During a 10-year period, 1347 patients had undergone CEA at the Cleveland Clinic main campus. Of the 1347 patients, 1152 met the criteria for analysis. Propensity score matching found adequate matches for 424 high-risk patients, with 173 patients having at least one physiologic high-risk factor and 293 at least one anatomic high-risk factor. No significant differences were found in the primary composite outcome or any of its components. Overall, the stroke rate for the standard-risk and high-risk patients was 1.9% and 1.4%, respectively. The high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have experienced a cranial nerve injury, although most were temporary. When patients with one or multiple risk factors were analyzed, no significant difference was found in the primary composite outcome or any of its components. Patients with two or more risk factors were significantly more likely to have experienced a cranial nerve injury, with most being temporary., Conclusions: In our large series, CEA remained a viable and safe surgical solution for patients with high-risk anatomic and physiologic risk factors, with acceptable stroke, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality rates., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The choice of anesthetic for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) continues to be controversial. Recent literature suggests improved outcomes with the use of regional anesthesia (RA) compared with general anesthesia (GA). The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and outcomes of RA for CEA using a national database., Methods: The targeted CEA files of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified based on anesthesia type into RA and GA, and patients' characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The outcomes of CEA under GA and RA were compared after 2:1 propensity matching., Results: There were 26,206 CEAs, and 14% (n = 3,664) were performed under RA, with no change in relative utilization during the study period (P = 0.557). Patients treated under RA were more likely to be older than 65 years (80.6% vs. 75.8%; P < 0.001) and White (90.8% vs. 83.5%; P < 0.001) but less likely to have diabetes (28.2% vs. 31.2%; P = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.2% vs. 10.5%; P < 0.001), and heart failure (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02) and be symptomatic (37.4% vs. 42.7%; P < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients undergoing RA were less likely to experience the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality compared with GA. GA patients were more likely to have longer operating time and hospital length of stay., Conclusions: CEA performed under RA is associated with improved outcomes compared with GA. RA is underutilized in carotid surgery, and strategies to optimize its use are needed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate early and long-term outcomes after treatment of carotid artery stenosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared to patients without T2D., Design/method: This observational nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study investigated all T2D patients treated for carotid stenosis registered in the National Swedish Vascular Surgery and the National Diabetes Registries. Data was collected prospectively for all patients after carotid intervention, during 2009-2015. We estimated crude early (within 30-days) hazard ratios (HRs) risk of stroke and death, and long-term HRs risk, adjusted for confounders with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for stroke and death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by using inverse probability of treatment weighting matching., Results: A total of 1341 patients with T2D and 4162 patients without T2D were included; 89% treated for symptomatic carotid stenosis, 96% with carotid endarterectomy. There was an increased early risk, HRs (95% CI), for stroke in T2D patients 1.65 (1.17-2.32), whereas risk for early death 1.00 (0.49-2.04) was similar in both groups. During a median follow-up of 4.3 (T2D) and 4.6 (without T2D), with a maximum of 8.0 years; after propensity score matching there was an increased HRs (95% CI) of stroke 1.27 (1.05-1.54) and death 1.27 (1.10-1.47) in T2D patients compared to patients without T2D. Corresponding numbers for MACE were 1.21 (1.08-1.35)., Conclusions: Patients with T2D run an increased risk for stroke, death, and MACE after carotid intervention. They also have an increased perioperative risk for stroke, but not for death.

Objective: The development of in-stent restenosis (ISR) hinders the long-term patency of carotid artery stenting (CAS), yet no optimal treatment has been established. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of redo CAS (rCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for ISR., Methods: A systematic search using the terms "in-stent restenosis," "carotid endarterectomy," and "carotid artery stenting" was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting perioperative stroke, death, and other important complications of rCAS or CEA for ISR after previous CAS with four or more patients were included. Pooled and sensitivity analyses were conducted to synthesize and compare estimates of the outcomes., Results: A total of 11 studies with 1057 patients who had undergone rCAS (n = 894) or CEA (n = 163) met the inclusion criteria. The CEA group had a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (rCAS vs CEA, 30.4% vs 42.1%; P < .01). The duration from primary CAS to reintervention was relatively longer in the CEA group (rCAS vs CEA, median, 8.8 months [range, 3-26 months] vs 19.9 months [range, 0-54 months]). In the rCAS group, a greater proportion of patients had hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease and had received antiplatelet therapy before reintervention. Because of insufficient data or a low incidence, the only complications feasible for further analysis were restenosis, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and neck hematoma. No significant differences were found in the primary end point of mortality/stroke event-free rate (rCAS vs CEA, 99% vs 98%; P > .05) or other secondary end points (event-free restenosis, 100% vs 100%; event-free myocardial infarction, 100% vs 98%; event-free cranial nerve injury, 100% vs 98%; event-free neck hematoma, 100% vs 100% for rCAS vs CEA; P > .05 for all)., Conclusions: rCAS is commonly used to treat patients with severe and/or symptomatic ISR after primary CAS. Although the endovascular approach is less invasive, both rCAS and CEA can be performed safely with similar short- and midterm outcomes of stroke, death, and surgery-related complications., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: "Structural factors" relating to organization of hospitals may affect procedural outcomes. This study's aim was to clarify associations between structural factors and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid endarterectomy stenting (CAS)., Methods: A systematic review of studies published in English since 2005 was conducted. Structural factors assessed were as follows: population size served by the vascular department; number of hospital beds; availability of dedicated vascular beds; established clinical pathways; surgical intensive care unit (SICU) size; and specialty of surgeon/interventionalist. Primary outcomes were as follows: mortality; stroke; cardiac complications; length of hospital stay (LOS); and cost., Results: There were 11 studies (n = 95,100 patients) included in this systematic review. For CEA, reduced mortality (P < 0.0001) and stroke rates (P = 0.001) were associated with vascular departments serving >75,000 people. Larger hospitals were associated with lower mortality, stroke rate, and cardiac events, compared with smaller hospitals (less than 130 beds). Provision of vascular beds after CEA was associated with lower mortality (P = 0.0008) and fewer cardiac events (P = 0.03). Adherence to established clinical pathways was associated with reduced stroke and cardiac event rates while reducing CEA costs. Large SICUs (≥7 beds) and dedicated intensivists were associated with decreased mortality after CEA while a large SICU was associated with reduced stroke rate (P = 0.001). Vascular surgeons performing CEA were associated with lower stroke rates and shorter LOS (P = 0.0001) than other specialists. CAS outcomes were not influenced by specialty but costless when performed by vascular surgeons (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Structural factors affect CEA outcomes, but data on CAS were limited. These findings may inform reconfiguration of vascular services, reducing risks and costs associated with carotid interventions., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Currently, there are various types of patches available on the market for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with enlargement angioplasty, prosthetic, and biological patches including bovine pericardial patches. Despite the increasing use of these biological patches, there are little data in the literature comparing the results of these 2 types of patch. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term results of bovine pericardium patches (BPPs) with prosthetic patches (PPs) in carotid thromboendarterectomy., Methods: This study presents a retrospective analysis of all CEAs performed at Montpellier and Nîmes University Hospitals (France) in 2014 and 2015. Patients who underwent eversion were excluded. Preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative clinical and Doppler ultrasound results were collected and analyzed. The primary end point was the comparison of the restenosis rate between the BPP and the PP group. Secondary end points were the analysis of restenosis risk factors (type of patch, gender, renal failure, smoking, diabetes, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, and redo surgery were analyzed); the comparison of morbidity-mortality and infection between the BPP and the PP group and the comparison of morbidity-mortality between symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis., Results: In total, 342 CEAs were performed: 168 (49%) with BPP and 174 (51%) with PP. Median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range = 24). The stroke rate at day 30 was 3.22% and mortality at day 30 was 1.86%. There was no significant difference between groups concerning anyone of the variables of interest. At the end of follow-up, the restenosis rate >50% was 7.31% (6.45% for the BPP group vs. 8.22% for the PP group, P = 0.55). The severe restenosis rate (>70%) was 4.65% (5.16% for the BPP group vs. 4.11% for the PP group, P = 0.79). The univariate analysis identified renal failure (odds ratio = 2.69) as the main risk factor. The postoperative infection rate was 1.17% (0.59% for the BPP group vs. 1.75% for the PP group, P = 0.62)., Conclusions: The rates of stroke and postoperative death, bleeding, infection, and restenosis are comparable between BPPs and PPs in our study. The use of prosthetic or biological patches seems to deliver comparable outcomes. Further studies on larger samples are required., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Informed debate regarding the optimal use of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for stroke risk reduction requires contemporary assessment of both long-term risk and periprocedural risk. In this study, we report long-term stroke and death risk after CEA in a large integrated health care system., Methods: All patients with documented severe (70%-99%) stenosis from 2008 to 2012 who underwent CEA were identified and stratified by asymptomatic or symptomatic indication. Those with prior ipsilateral interventions were excluded. Patients were followed up through 2017 for the primary outcomes of any stroke/death within 30 days of intervention and long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke; secondary outcomes were any stroke and overall survival., Results: Overall, 1949 patients (63.2% male; mean age, 71.3 ± 8.9 years) underwent 2078 primary CEAs, 1196 (58%) for asymptomatic stenosis and 882 (42%) for symptomatic stenosis. Mean follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.7 years. Median time to surgery was 72.0 (interquartile range, 38.5-198.0) days for asymptomatic patients and 21.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-55.0) days for symptomatic patients (P < .001). Most of the patients' demographics and characteristics were similar in both groups. Controlled blood pressure rates were similar at the time of CEA. Baseline statin use was seen in 60.5% of the asymptomatic group compared with 39.9% in the symptomatic group (P < .001), and statin adherence by 80% medication possession ratio was 19.3% asymptomatic vs 12.4% symptomatic (P < .001). The crude overall 30-day any stroke/death rates were 0.9% and 1.5% for the asymptomatic group and the symptomatic group, respectively. The 5-year risk of ipsilateral stroke and a combined end point of any stroke/death by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were 2.5% and 28.7% for the asymptomatic group and 4.0% and 31.4% for the symptomatic group, respectively. Unadjusted cumulative all-cause survival was 74.2% for the asymptomatic group and 71.8% for the symptomatic group at 5 years., Conclusions: In a contemporary review of CEA, outcomes for either operative indication show low adverse events perioperatively and low long-term stroke risk up to 5 years. These results are well within consensus guidelines and published trial outcomes and should help inform the discussion around optimal CEA use for severe carotid stenosis., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Concomitant carotid endarterectomy (CEA; for severe internal carotid artery stenosis) with carotid-subclavian bypass grafting (CSBG; for proximal common carotid artery or subclavian artery occlusion) is rarely used. Only a few studies have been reported. This report analyzed early and late clinical outcomes of the largest study to date of the combined procedures in our institution., Methods: Electronic medical records of patients who had concomitant CEA with CSBG during three decades were analyzed. Indications for surgery were arm ischemia, neurologic events, and clinical subclavian steal. Early (30 days) perioperative complications (stroke, death, and others) and late complications (stroke, death) were recorded. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate late graft/CEA primary patency, freedom from stroke, and stroke-free survival rates. Graft patency was determined clinically and confirmed using duplex ultrasound. Outcomes were compared with previously published data on isolated CSBG by the same group., Results: There were 37 combined procedures analyzed. Mean age was 64 years (range, 45-81 years). Indications for surgery were arm ischemia in 12 (32%), hemispheric transient ischemic attack or stroke in 15 (41%), vertebrobasilar insufficiency in 4 (11%), symptomatic subclavian steal in 10 (27%), and asymptomatic common carotid artery occlusion with severe internal carotid artery stenosis in 6 (16%). The 30-day perioperative (stroke and death) rate was 5.4% (one stroke and one death). Immediate symptom relief was noted in 100%, with 2.7% (transient ischemic attack) symptom recurrence. The crude patency rate of both CEA and CSBG was 92%. At 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively, primary patency rates were 100%, 96%, 96%, 96%, and 85%; freedom from stroke rates were 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, and 97%; and stroke-free survival rates were 94%, 94%, 87%, 82%, and 78%. When these outcomes were compared with the isolated CSBG group alone (28 patients), there was no difference in perioperative stroke (2.7% for concomitant CEA/CSBG vs 0% for isolated CSBG), perioperative death (2.7% vs 2.8%), or late patency rates (92% vs 96%)., Conclusions: Concomitant CEA/CSBG is safe and durable. There was no significant difference in perioperative stroke/death or late patency rates compared with isolated CSBG., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with concomitant distal endovascular intervention (CEA+D) is infrequently necessary but has often been used as a salvage maneuver when complications occur during CEA. The present study aimed to determine whether preoperative risk factors associated with CEA requiring CEA+D exist and to evaluate the outcomes compared with isolated CEA., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative CEA registry was used to identify patients who had undergone CEA or CEA+D for asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis from 2013 to 2019. Data regarding distal intervention included whether angioplasty or stenting of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) and/or bifurcation had been required. However, information regarding the indication or whether the intervention had been planned was not included. The χ 2 test and analysis of variance were used to evaluate the categorical and continuous perioperative variables. Variables with P < .20 on univariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis to assess for preoperative predictors of the need for CEA+D and the association with perioperative stroke., Results: From 2013 to 2019, 327 CEA+D cases were identified and compared with 105,192 isolated CEA cases. The CEA+D patients were more likely to have undergone previous ipsilateral CEA (CEA, 1.8%; CEA+D, 4.9%; P < .01) and contralateral ICA occlusion (CEA, 4.6%; CEA+D, 11.0%; P < .01) but were less likely to have had ipsilateral stenosis ≥70% (CEA, 88.3%; CEA+D, 80.6%; P < .01). The preoperative factors associated with the need for CEA+D on multivariable analysis included previous peripheral vascular intervention, American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4, contralateral ICA occlusion, low-volume surgeon, and previous ipsilateral CEA. CEA+D was associated with significantly increased rates of stroke in both asymptomatic (CEA+D, 3.9%; CEA, 0.9%; P < .01) and symptomatic (CEA+D, 9.4%; CEA, 1.9%; P < .01) patients. CEA+D was associated with decreased rates of 30-day survival in both asymptomatic (CEA+D, 98.3%; CEA, 99.4%; P = .02) and symptomatic (CEA+D, 94.8%; CEA, 99.1%; P < .01) cohorts. On multivariable analysis, CEA+D remained significantly associated with stroke (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-5.60; P < .01). Other factors significantly associated with perioperative stroke included procedure length >135 minutes, diabetes, hypertension, shunt for indication, symptomatic status, previous ipsilateral CEA, contralateral ICA occlusion, urgent or emergent procedure, intravenous medications for hemodynamic instability, and re-exploration at the initial operation., Conclusions: Although markers of more significant cardiovascular disease burden were associated with the use of CEA+D, their power to predict CEA+D use was limited. In cases in which CEA+D was used, CEA+D was associated with significantly greater rates of perioperative stroke and mortality compared with isolated CEA for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, which could be useful for framing the expected outcomes after these procedures., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extracranial carotid artery stenosis is the major cause of stroke, which can lead to disability and mortality. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with carotid patch angioplasty is the most popular technique for reducing the risk of stroke. Patch material may be made from an autologous vein, bovine pericardium, or synthetic material including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Dacron, polyurethane, and polyester. This is an update of a review that was first published in 1996 and was last updated in 2010., Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of different types of patch materials used in carotid patch angioplasty. The primary hypothesis was that a synthetic material was associated with lower risk of patch rupture versus venous patches, but that venous patches were associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke and early or late infection, or both., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 25 May 2020); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 25 May 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 May 2020); the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 2019); the Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) comparing one type of carotid patch with another for CEA., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and trial quality; extracted data; and determined the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes, for example, perioperative ipsilateral stroke and long-term ipsilateral stroke (at least one year), were collected and analysed., Main Results: We included 14 trials involving a total of 2278 CEAs with patch closure operations: seven trials compared vein closure with PTFE closure, five compared Dacron grafts with other synthetic materials, and two compared bovine pericardium with other synthetic materials. In most trials, a patient could be randomised twice and could have each carotid artery randomised to different treatment groups. Synthetic patch compared with vein patch angioplasty Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on perioperative ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 6.38; 5 studies, 797 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may have little to no difference in effect on long-term ipsilateral stroke between synthetic versus vein materials, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.07; P = 0.33; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). Vein patch may increase pseudoaneurysm formation when compared with synthetic patch, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; 4 studies, 776 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the numbers involved were small. Dacron patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Dacron versus PTFE patch materials  PTFE patch may reduce the risk of perioperative ipsilateral stroke (OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 59.06; 2 studies, 400 participants; very low-quality evidence). PTFE patch may reduce the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.27; 1 study, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence). Dacron may result in an increase in perioperative combined stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 4.41 95% CI 1.20 to 16.14; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with PTFE. Early arterial re-stenosis or occlusion (within 30 days) was also higher for Dacron patches. During follow-up for longer than one year, more 'any strokes' (OR 10.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 83.43; 2 studies, 304 participants; low-quality evidence) and stroke/death (OR 6.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 28.07; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence) were reported with Dacron patch closure, although numbers of outcome events were small. Dacron patch may increase the risk of re-stenosis when compared with other synthetic materials (especially with PTFE), but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.71 to 19.65; 3 studies, 490 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardium patch compared with other synthetic patch angioplasty Bovine pericardium versus PTFE patch materials  Evidence suggests that bovine pericardium patch results in a reduction in long-term ipsilateral stroke (OR 4.17, 95% CI 0.46 to 38.02; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence). Bovine pericardial patch may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to synthetic material (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.24 to 108.83; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.48 to 39.95; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-quality evidence for PTFE, and low-quality evidence for Dacron; OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.37 to 143.16; 1 study, 195 participants; low-quality evidence, respectively), but the numbers of outcomes were small. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of the patch on infection outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: The number of outcome events is too small to allow conclusions, and more trial data are required to establish whether any differences do exist. Nevertheless, there is little to no difference in effect on perioperative and long-term ipsilateral stroke between vein and any synthetic patch material. Some evidence indicates that other synthetic patches (e.g. PTFE) may be superior to Dacron grafts in terms of perioperative stroke and TIA rates, and both early and late arterial re-stenosis and occlusion. Pseudoaneurysm formation may be more common after use of a vein patch than after use of a synthetic patch. Bovine pericardial patch, which is an acellular xenograft material, may reduce the risk of perioperative fatal stroke, death, and infection compared to other synthetic patches. Further large RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be reached., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Cranial and cervical nerve (CCN) injury is recognized as a possible complication after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), which may result in minor local neurologic deficiencies and significant discomfort for the patient. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of a mini-skin incision (<5 cm) on the CCN injury after CEA in comparison to standard longitudinal incision of 12-15 cm in a high volume center, and to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in those patients who had undergone both types of the skin incision., Methods: From January 2013 to December 2019, 446 CEAs (47.3%) were performed through a standard neck incision of 12-15 cm (group A), while 496 (52.7%) were performed through a mini-skin incision (<5 cm) (group B). Sixty-two patients underwent standard neck incision on one side and mini-skin incision on the other side (subgroup B). The main outcome measures were stroke, death, CCN injuries, cervical hematoma rates, and reinterventions. The HRQOL was assessed at baseline and after 30 days using Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 and 6 disease-specific modified Likert scales., Results: The stroke and death rate at 30 days was 1.12% in group A and 1% in group B (P = 1). The incidence of CCN deficits was significantly lower in group B (5.1%) in comparison to group A (13.4%) (P < 0.001). The cervical hematoma was more common after standard incision (4.9% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.02). HRQOL at 1 month showed that the outcomes after mini-skin incision were significantly better for less difficulty with eating/swallowing and neck pain (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: CEA through a small incision (<5 cm) may reduce CCN complications without additional perioperative neurologic risks. As validated by patients with bilateral disease who experienced both surgical techniques, mini-skin incision is also associated with better HRQOL at 1 month, particularly with regard to eating/swallowing and neck pain., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)