Search

Objective: Transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) is a minimally invasive hybrid surgical carotid stenting technique which utilizes cerebral flow reversal as embolic protection during carotid lesion manipulation. This investigation was performed to define the perioperative risks associated with this operation in the obese patient., Methods: A retrospective review of tandem carotid revascularization databases maintained at two high-volume health systems was performed to capture all TCARs performed between 2015 and 2022. A threshold of body mass index of 35 kg/m 2 defined the "obese" patient. Demographics, intraoperative, perioperative, and follow-up characteristics were compared using univariate analysis., Results: We performed 793 TCAR procedures that qualified for study inclusion within the prespecified time. After applying our obesity definition, 129 patients qualified as obese and were compared to the remainder. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics as comparable Charlson Comorbidity Indices were noted between groups; however, obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. Intraoperative, case complexity in the obese patients did not seem to be increased, as measured by operative time (68.4 ± 23.0 vs 64.2 ± 25.8 min, p = 0.09), fluoroscopic time (4.9 ± 3.2 vs 4.6 ± 3.6 min, p = 0.38), and estimated blood loss (40.6 ± 49.0 vs 46.6 ± 49.4 min, p = 0.22). Similarly, no disparities were observed with respect to ipsilateral stroke (3.1 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.29), contralateral stroke (0 vs. 0.2%, p > 0.99), death (0 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.61), and stroke/death (3.1 vs. 3.0%, p > 0.99) in the 30-day perioperative period. Both cohorts were followed for approximately 1 year (12.0 ± 13.4 vs 11.6 ± 13.4 months, p = 0.76). During this period, rates of ipsilateral stroke (3.1% vs. 2.7%, p > 0.99), contralateral stroke (1.1 vs. 0.8%, p > 0.99), and death (4.7 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.68) were similar., Conclusions: TCAR performed in the obese population was not more challenging by intraoperative characteristics and did not result in a statistically higher incidence of adverse events in the perioperative phase., 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: Significant regional variation is known with multiple surgical procedures. This study describes regional variation in carotid revascularization within the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)., Methods: Data from the VQI carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) databases from 2016 to 2021 were used. Nineteen geographic VQI regions were divided into three tertiles based on the average annual volume of carotid procedures performed per region (low-volume: 956 cases [range, 144-1382]; medium-volume: 1533 cases [range, 1432-1589]; and high-volume: 1845 cases [range, 1642-2059]). Patients' characteristics, indications for carotid revascularization, practice patterns, and outcomes (perioperative and 1-year stroke/death) of different revascularization techniques were compared between these regional groups. Regression models that adjust for known risk factors and allow for random effects at the center level were used., Results: CEA was the most common revascularization procedure (>60%) across all regional groups. Significant regional variation was observed in the practice of CEA such as variability in the use of shunting, drain placement, stump pressure and electroencephalogram monitoring, intraoperative protamine, and patch angioplasty. For transfemoral CAS, high-volume regions had a higher proportion of asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (30.5% vs 27.8%) in addition to higher use of local/regional anesthesia (80.4% vs 76.2%), protamine (16.1% vs 11.8%), and completion angiography (81.6% vs 77.6%) during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) compared with low-volume regions. For transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), high-volume regions were less likely to intervene on asymptomatic patients with <80% stenosis (32.2% vs 35.8%) than low-volume regions. They also had a higher proportion of urgent/emergent procedures (13.6% vs 10.4%) and were more likely to use general anesthesia (92.0% vs 82.1%), completion angiography (67.3% vs 63.0%), and poststent ballooning (48.4% vs 36.8%). For each carotid revascularization technique, no significant differences were noted in perioperative and 1-year outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-volume regions. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between TCAR and CEA across the different regional groups. In all regional groups, TCAR was associated with a 40% reduction in perioperative and 1-year stroke/death compared with TF-CAS., Conclusions: Despite significant variation in clinical practices for the management of carotid disease, no regional variation exists in the overall outcomes of carotid interventions. TCAR and CEA continue to show superior outcomes to TF-CAS across all VQI regional groups., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To define the risks associated with the replacement of dual antiplatelets for alternate medication regimens., Background: Patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for atherosclerotic disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from September 2016 to June 2022 were included. In all, 29,802 TCAR procedures were captured between 2016 and 2022, consisting of 24,651 (82.7%) maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 5151 (17.3%) on alternative regimens., Methods: Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those on alternative regimens consisting of any combination of single antiplatelet monotherapy and/or anticoagulation., Results: On univariable analysis, patients on alternative medications were more likely to experience in-hospital death, ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, and transient ischemic attacks compared with patients in the DAPT group. The mortality rate was higher at 1 year in the alternative cohort (4.7% vs 7.0%, P <0.01). The use of alternate medication regimens was associated with increased odds of stroke and the composite outcome of in-hospital stroke/death compared with DAPT. There was also a significant association between alternative medication use and increased odds of in-hospital transient ischemic attack, immediate stent occlusion, and return to the operating room. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke between the 2 groups. However, the use of alternate regimens was associated with higher 1-year of mortality after multivariable adjustment., Conclusions: Patients not maintained on DAPT after TCAR experienced an increased risk of stroke and death in the perioperative and follow-up periods. Increased surgeon vigilance is required to ensure compliance with dual antiplatelets as recommended., Competing Interests: R.L.M. is the national principal investigator for the Silk Road Medical sponsored DW-MRI TCAR study but does not receive any personal remuneration. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continues to be the preferred medication regimen after the placement of a carotid stent using the transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) technique despite a dearth of quality data. Therefore, this investigation was performed to define the risks associated with antiplatelet choice., Methods: We queried all patients who underwent TCAR captured by the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to June 2022, to determine the association between antiplatelet choice and outcomes. Patients maintained on DAPT were compared with those receiving alternative regimens consisting of single antiplatelet, anticoagulation, or a combination of the two. A 1:1 propensity-score match was performed with respect to baseline comorbidities, functional status, anatomic/physiologic risk, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared between the groups., Results: During the study period, 29,802 procedures were included in our study population, with 24,651 (82.7%) receiving DAPT and 5151 (17.3%) receiving an alternative antiplatelet regimen. A propensity-score match with respect to 29 variables generated 4876 unique pairs. Compared with patients on DAPT, in-hospital ipsilateral stroke was significantly higher in patients receiving alternative antiplatelet regimens (1.7% vs 1.1%, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.54 [1.10-2.16], P = .01), whereas no statistically significant difference was noted with respect to mortality (0.6% vs 0.5%, 1.35 [0.72-2.54], P = .35). A composite of stroke/death was also more likely in patients receiving an alternative regimen (2.4% vs 1.7%, 1.47 [1.12-1.93], P = .01). Immediate stent thrombosis (2.75 [1.16-6.51]) and a nonsignificant trend toward increased return to the operating room were more common in the alternative patients. Conversely, the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was lower in the alternative regimen group (0.4% vs 0.7%, 0.53 [0.31-0.90], P = .02). At 1 year after the procedure, we observed an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.34 [1.11-1.63], P < .01) but not stroke (0.52 [0.27-0.99], P = .06) in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen., Conclusions: This propensity-score-matched analysis demonstrates an increased risk of in-hospital stroke and 1-year mortality after TCAR in patients treated with an alternative medication regimen instead of DAPT. Further studies are needed to elucidate the drivers of DAPT failure in patients undergoing TCAR to improve outcomes for carotid stenting patients., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Carotid revascularization in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) continues to be a controversial topic, as life expectancy is poor, thus, preventing the recouperation of cumulative stroke-risk reduction in the postoperative period. We performed this primarily descriptive analysis of the results of transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) in renal failure patients., Methods: A retrospective review of two independent carotid revascularization databases maintained at two large health systems were performed to capture all consecutive TCAR procedures. Patients were classified as either (1) ESRD or (2) preserved renal function (PRF) and compared with standard univariate techniques, where appropriate., Results: From December 2015 to April 2022, 851 consecutive TCARs were attempted at our participating facilities. Of these, 27 were performed in ESRD patients (all hemodialysis). These patients were younger and presented with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. The incidence of a high anatomic risk criterion as defined for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were similar between groups, as was the incidence of a symptomatic carotid lesion. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative characteristics and the postoperative medication management were grossly similar by renal function. In the 30-day perioperative period, there were no stroke, death, or myocardial infarction in the 27 ESRD patients treated with TCAR. The mean duration of follow-up in the ESRD cohort was 15.0 months. During this time, there was no ipsilateral stroke events, one contralateral stroke, and one MI. All 27 carotid stents remained patent during this period. Six patients perished after TCAR at a mean interval of 12.2 months after TCAR., Conclusion: Survival is poor after carotid revascularization via the TCAR technique on intermediate follow-up. Careful patient selection is required to identify those who will survive to collect on the cumulative stroke-risk reduction afforded by carotid intervention.

Introduction: Much of the previous robust analyses of the results associated with transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) derives from industry-sponsored trials or the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). This investigation was performed to identify preoperative predictors of 30-day stroke and death using institutional databases., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of carotid revascularization databases created at two high-volume TCAR centers and maintained independently of the VQI carotid module between December 2015 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate regression analyses, followed by multivariate regression analyses, were performed to identify potential predictors of adverse events., Results: During the study period, 750 TCAR procedures were performed at our combined health systems, resulting in 24 (3.2%) individuals who experienced either stroke and/or death in the perioperative period. Of these, we observed nine (1.2%) mortality events and 18 (2.4%) strokes. On univariate analysis, candidate protectors of stroke/death were found to be coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-1.01; P = 0.05) and protamine reversal (0.51; 0.21-1.21; P = 0.15). Candidate predictors of the primary outcome were anticoagulant usage (3.03; 1.26-7.24; P = 0.01), postprocedural debris in the filter (2.30; 0.97-5.43; P = 0.06), symptomatic carotid lesion (2.03; 0.90-4.50), and cardiac arrhythmia (1.98; 0.80-4.03; P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, two predictors remained, cardiac arrhythmia (4.21; 1.10-16.16; P = 0.04) and symptomatic carotid lesion (14.49; 1.80-116.94; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: A symptomatic carotid lesion, and to a lesser extent cardiac arrhythmia, are strong predictors of 30-day stroke/death after TCAR. Surgeons should be cognizant of the increased risk of adverse events in the perioperative period in these patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid open and endovascular technique to treat carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study is to present a large cohort of patients who underwent TCAR at 2 high-volume TCAR health systems., Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of all instances of TCAR within the Memorial Hermann Health System and Indiana University Health, from December 2015-January 2022, using the ENROUTE Neuroprotection Device (Silk Road Medical, Sunnyvale, CA). We report patient demographics, intraoperative metrics, 30-day results and long-term results., Results: In all, 750 patients underwent TCAR in the designated time period. Average patient age was 73 years, with 68% being male. Overall, 53.9% of patients had coronary artery disease, 45.4% had diabetes, and 36.9% were symptomatic. Technical success was achieved in 98.8% of patients with conversion to open endarterectomy in 1.1%. Average reverse flow time was 9.1 minutes with length of stay greater than 1 day 38%. Ipsilateral stroke rate within 30 days was 2.3% and long-term cumulative stroke rate was 3.0%. Death within 30 days occurred in 1.2% of patients and in 5.9% over long-term follow up. In all, 1% of patients required reintervention., Conclusions: TCAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for carotid artery stenotic disease. Its outcomes are similar to historical results associated with carotid endarterectomy, long considered the gold standard.

Objective: Initial studies showed no significant differences in perioperative stroke or death between transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and lower stroke/death rates after TCAR compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). This study focuses on the 1-year outcomes of ipsilateral stroke or death after TCAR, CEA, and TFCAS., Methods: All patients undergoing TCAR, TFCAS, and CEA between September 2016 and December 2019 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database. The latest follow-up was September 3, 2020. One-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed for patients with available 1-year follow-up data for TCAR vs CEA and for TCAR vs TFCAS. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate 1-year ipsilateral stroke or death after the three procedures., Results: A total of 41,548 patients underwent CEA, 5725 patients underwent TCAR, and 6064 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and had recorded 1-year outcomes. The cohorts were well-matched in terms of baseline demographics and comorbidities. Among 4180 TCAR vs CEA matched pairs of patients, there were no significant differences in 30-day stroke, death, and stroke/death. However, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of 30-day stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.30% vs 3.25%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91; P = .008), driven by a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.55% vs 1.12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .004). At 1 year, no significant difference was observed in the risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (6.49% vs 5.68%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37; P = .157). Among 4036 matched pairs in the TCAR vs TFCAS group, TCAR was also associated with lower risk of perioperative stroke or death compared with TFCAS (1.83% vs 2.55%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = .027). At 1 year, the risks of ipsilateral stroke or death of TCAR and TFCAS were comparable (6.07% vs 7.07%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). Symptomatic status did not modify the association in TCAR vs CEA. However, asymptomatic patients had favorable outcomes with TCAR vs TFCAS at 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .033)., Conclusions: In this propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in ipsilateral stroke/death-free survival were observed between TCAR and CEA or between TCAR and TFCAS. The advantages of TCAR compared with TFCAS seem to be mainly in the perioperative period, which makes it a suitable minimally invasive option for surgically high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. Larger studies, with longer follow-up and data on restenosis, are warranted to confirm the mid- and long-term benefits and durability of TCAR., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Recent studies have suggested that the low risk of stroke and death associated with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is partially attributable to a robust dynamic flow reversal system and the avoidance of the atherosclerotic aortic arch during stenting. However, the benefits of flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection (DEP) in reducing stroke or death in TCAR have not been studied., Methods: All patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) via the transcarotid route with either dynamic flow reversal (TCAR) or DEP (TCAS-DEP) in the Vascular Quality Initiative from September 2016 to November 2019 were analyzed. Both multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score-matched analysis were performed to explore the differences in outcomes between the two procedures. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. The secondary outcomes were stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite of stroke, death, and MI. A secondary analysis was performed to compare transcarotid stenting with DEP vs transfemoral CAS with DEP to evaluate the effects of crossing the aortic arch., Results: A total of 8426 patients were identified (TCAS-DEP, n = 287; 3.4%). TCAR was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 5.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.64; P = .001), stroke (1.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P = .002), and stroke/death/MI (2.0% vs 5.2%; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.71; P = .001) compared with TCAS-DEP. Among the 274 pairs of patients identified with propensity score matching, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of stroke/death (1.1% vs 4.7%; risk ratio [RR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .021) and stroke (0.4% vs 4.0%; RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70; P = .006) compared with TCAS-DEP but no differences in stroke/death/MI (1.8% vs 4.7%; RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-1.02; P = .077). The secondary analysis found no differences in stroke between TCAS-DEP and transfemoral CAS with DEP (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.36-1.63; P = .65)., Conclusions: Compared with TCAS-DEP, TCAR was associated with a lower risk of perioperative stroke or death and stroke. This finding implies that dynamic flow reversal might provide better neuroprotection than does a distal embolic filter in reducing the perioperative risk of stroke. Avoiding the aortic arch did not confer any reduction in the stroke rate. The present findings serve to separate the clinical benefit of dynamic flow reversal from that of avoiding the aortic arch during TCAR., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the best revascularization procedure for patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion (CCO). We aim to compare the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in patients with CCO., Study Design: Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative dataset who underwent CEA, TFCAS, or TCAR, and had CCO between September 2016 and April 2020, were included. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to evaluate in-hospital outcomes., Results: The final cohort included 1,144 TCARs, 1,182 TFCAS, and 2,527 CEA procedures performed in patients with CCO. Compared with TFCAS, TCAR was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of in-hospital stroke or death (odds ratio [OR] 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.59; p < 0.01). However, no significant difference in stroke was noted (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.34-1.51; p = 0.38). These results persisted after stratifying with respect to symptomatic status (p values of interaction = 0.92 and 0.74, respectively). There was no significant difference between TCAR and CEA in odds of in-hospital stroke or death on multivariable adjustment (OR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.29-1.10, p = 0.10). The interaction between procedure type and symptomatic status in predicting in-hospital stroke was statistically significant (p = 0.04). In asymptomatic patients, TCAR was associated with a 50% to 60% reduction in the odds of stroke (p = 0.04). Yet, no significant differences were observed in symptomatic patients., Conclusions: TCAR has lower odds of in-hospital stroke or death compared to TFCAS, independent of symptomatic status. Compared to CEA, TCAR seems to be a better option in asymptomatic patients, with lower odds of in-hospital stroke. Yet, no significant difference is observed in symptomatic patients., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) was introduced as an alternative carotid revascularization procedure in patients deemed to be at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. Although techniques and selection criteria for patients have dramatically improved, CAS continues to have higher risk of stroke and death in comparison to carotid endarterectomy. Several risk factors are known to be associated with worse outcomes. Whereas knowledge of these independent factors is helpful, clinical decision-making is further refined when these are considered in aggregate. This study aimed to develop a score to predict the risk of stroke/death after transfemoral CAS (TFCAS)., Methods: We analyzed the Vascular Quality Initiative CAS data set from 2010 to 2018. Lesions due to trauma, dissection, or transcarotid artery stenting and cases performed without an embolic protection device were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods with bootstrapping (1000 repetitions) were used to identify predictors associated with 30-day stroke/death. Stepwise backward selection for variables was used to achieve model parsimony. A risk score was made by converting regression coefficients for each predictor to integers from which probability was calculated. Scores were grouped into simplified categories., Results: We identified 10,753 patients undergoing TFCAS during the study period with a combined 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.1%. On multivariable adjustment, independent predictors of 30-day stroke/death included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.06; P < .001), nonwhite race (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.16-1.74; P = .001), diabetes (OR,1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.67; P = .01), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.73; P = .001), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.85; P = .02), symptomatic status (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.64-2.72; P < .001), and contralateral occlusion (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22-2.19; P = .001). On the other hand, preoperative use of statins (OR, 0.074; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93; P = .02) and dual antiplatelet therapy (P2Y 12 inhibitors and aspirin; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P < .001) were associated with a significant reduction in stroke/death after TFCAS. The model had a C statistic of 69.0%. The coefficients of these predictors were used to develop a risk score calculator that estimates the probability of 30-day stroke/death after TFCAS., Conclusions: In an analysis of 10,753 patients undergoing TFCAS between 2010 and 2018, significant predictors of perioperative stroke or death included old age, nonwhite race, symptomatic status, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and contralateral occlusion in addition to perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy and statin use. These variables were used to develop a risk score calculator that estimates the probability of 30-day stroke/death after TFCAS. External validation of this tool in different populations of patients and data sets is warranted to evaluate its predictive performance., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The timing of carotid revascularization in symptomatic patients is a matter of ongoing debate. Current evidence indicates that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within 2 weeks of symptoms is superior to delayed treatment. However, there is little evidence on the outcomes of emergent CEA (eCEA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of emergency eCEA vs nonemergent CEA (non-eCEA), stratified by type of presenting symptoms., Methods: We analyzed the Vascular Targeted-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset from 2011 to 2016. Symptomatic patients were divided into two groups: eCEA and non-eCEA. Univariable and multivariable methods were used to compare patient characteristics and to evaluate stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI within 30 days of surgery adjusting for all potential confounders. A further subgroup analysis was done to compare the outcomes of eCEA vs non-eCEA stratified by the type of presenting symptoms (amaurosis, transient ischemic attack [TIA], and stroke)., Results: A total of 9271 patients were identified, of which 10.7% were eCEA vs 89.3% non-eCEA. Comparing eCEA vs non-eCEA, the two groups were similar in age (70.8 vs 70.5), female gender (36.3% vs 36.9%), diabetes (26.2% vs 28.9%), and smoking status (31.9% vs 28.7%; all P > .05). Patients undergoing eCEA were less likely to be hypertensive (76.2% vs 80.2%; P = .025), but more likely to belong to non-white race (51.5% vs 20.5%; P < .001). The eCEA patients were less likely to be on preprocedural medication vs non-eCEA (antiplatelets, 76.8% vs 89.2%; statins, 74.2% vs 79.9%; beta-blockers, 44.6% vs 50.4%; all P < .05). The 30-day outcomes comparing eCEA vs non-eCEA were: stroke, 6.2% vs 3.1%; death, 2% vs 1%; and stroke/death, 6.9% vs 3.7% (all P < .05). After risk adjustment, perioperative stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-3.0), stroke/death (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and stroke/death/MI (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) were higher after eCEA (all P < .01). When stratified by the type of presenting symptom, eCEA vs non-eCEA stroke outcomes were similar in patients who presented with stroke or amaurosis fugax. However, in the subset of patients presenting with TIA, eCEA had much worse outcomes compared with non-eCEA (stroke, 8.3% vs 2.5%; stroke/death, 8.3% vs 3.2%) and had significantly higher odds of stroke (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.71-5.68) and stroke/death (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.25-4.03) in the adjusted analysis (all P < .05)., Conclusions: In patients presenting with stroke, eCEA does not seem to add significant risk compared with non-eCEA. However, patients presenting with TIA might be better served with non-emergent surgery as their risk of stroke is tripled when CEA is performed emergently., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To quantify and compare the incremental cost associated with in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS)., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 100,185 patients (mean age 70.7±9.5 years; 58.3% men) who underwent CEA (n=86,035) or CAS (n=14,150) between 2009 and 2015 and were entered into the Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariate logistic models and generalized linear models were used to analyze binary outcomes and hospitalization costs, respectively. Outcomes are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: CAS was associated with 1.6 times higher adjusted odds of stroke [aOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.77), p<0.001] and with 2.6 times higher odds of death [aOR 2.60 (95% CI 2.14 to 3.17), p<0.001] compared with CEA. There was no significant difference in MI risk between the 2 procedures. The adjusted incremental cost of death and MI were similar between the 2 procedures. However, the adjusted incremental cost of stroke was significantly higher in CEA compared with CAS by an estimated $2000. When stratified with respect to symptomatic status, the increased adjusted incremental cost of stroke in CEA was mainly seen in asymptomatic patients ($5284 vs $2932, p<0.01)., Conclusion: The incremental cost of in-hospital stroke is relatively higher in CEA compared to CAS. However, CEA remains a more cost-effective carotid intervention due to lower complication rates and baseline costs compared with CAS. Long-term cost-effectiveness studies are needed before definite conclusions are made.