Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Primary mechanism of stroke reduction in transcarotid artery revascularization is dynamic flow reversal.

Authors
  • Naazie, Isaac N1
  • Magee, Gregory A2
  • Mathlouthi, Asma1
  • Elsayed, Nadin1
  • Dakour-Aridi, Hanaa1
  • Malas, Mahmoud B3
  • 1 Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
  • 2 Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.
  • 3 Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif. Electronic address: [email protected]
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
Publication Date
Jul 01, 2021
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
187–194
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.10.082
PMID: 33276041
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

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. 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. 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). 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.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times