Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Tower Health Reading Hospital, Department of Vascular Surgery, Reading, PA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 May;73:329-335. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.10.023. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are accepted revascularization modalities to treat carotid artery stenosis. Higher incidences of perioperative adverse neurological events and death have been reported in patients with transfemoral CAS. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a newer operative technique that involves direct transcervical carotid access, mitigating aortic arch manipulation and minimizing the risk of embolic stroke via cerebral blood flow reversal. Perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death rates have been shown to be similar between TCAR and CEA, with TCAR having fewer complications. The objective of this study was to ascertain the safety and viability of TCAR by evaluating perioperative outcomes. We hypothesized that patients undergoing TCAR and CEA have equivalent outcomes.
We performed a single-institution retrospective review of a prospectively maintained Vascular Quality Initiative database on patients who underwent TCAR or CEA between 2012 and 2019. A total of 66 TCAR cases from February 2018 to December 2019 and 501 CEA cases from January 2012 to December 2019 were reviewed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics as well as perioperative outcomes were captured for the statistical analyses.
From 2012 to 2019, 567 patients underwent TCAR or CEA. Patients who underwent TCAR were found to have higher rates of comorbidities compared with CEA. There were no procedure-related strokes in patients who underwent TCAR. There was no statistically significant difference between TCAR and CEA procedure-related strokes (0% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.42). There were 5 CEA procedure-related strokes because of technical problems resulting in thrombosis of the target vessels. Three patients who underwent CEA had strokes unrelated to the operations. Overall, there were no perioperative deaths, MI, cranial nerve injury (CNI), or hematoma in patients who underwent TCAR. There were no complications of surgical site infection, pseudoaneurysm, or arteriovenous fistula among patients who underwent TCAR or CEA.
This single-center retrospective analysis of TCAR and CEA for the treatment of carotid artery disease suggests TCAR can result in equivalent perioperative procedure-related stroke as CEA as well as equivalent incidence of perioperative complications including MI, CNI, hematoma, and death in selected patients or patients with proper anatomy. TCAR may be considered a safe, feasible carotid revascularization option for carotid artery stenosis.
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)是治疗颈动脉狭窄的公认的血管重建方式。经股动脉 CAS 的围手术期不良神经事件和死亡率较高。经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)是一种较新的手术技术,涉及直接经颈颈动脉入路,减轻主动脉弓操作,通过脑血流逆转最大限度地降低栓塞性中风的风险。TCAR 与 CEA 的围手术期中风、心肌梗死(MI)和死亡率相似,TCAR 的并发症较少。本研究的目的是通过评估围手术期结果来确定 TCA 的安全性和可行性。我们假设接受 TCA 和 CEA 的患者具有等效的结果。
我们对 2012 年至 2019 年期间在一家血管质量倡议机构进行 TCA 或 CEA 的前瞻性维护的血管质量倡议数据库进行了单机构回顾性审查。共回顾了 2018 年 2 月至 2019 年 12 月的 66 例 TCA 病例和 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月的 501 例 CEA 病例。为了进行统计分析,捕获了术前、术中、术后特征和围手术期结果。
2012 年至 2019 年,567 例患者接受了 TCA 或 CEA。与 CEA 相比,接受 TCA 的患者发现合并症的发生率更高。接受 TCA 的患者没有手术相关中风。TCA 和 CEA 手术相关中风之间无统计学显著差异(0%对 1.0%,P=0.42)。有 5 例 CEA 手术相关中风是由于血栓形成导致目标血管的技术问题。3 例 CEA 患者发生与手术无关的中风。总体而言,接受 TCA 的患者无围手术期死亡、MI、颅神经损伤(CNI)或血肿。接受 TCA 或 CEA 的患者无手术部位感染、假性动脉瘤或动静脉瘘等并发症。
这项针对治疗颈动脉疾病的 TCA 和 CEA 的单中心回顾性分析表明,TCA 可导致与 CEA 相当的围手术期手术相关中风,以及在选定患者或具有适当解剖结构的患者中,围手术期并发症(包括 MI、CNI、血肿和死亡)的发生率相当。TCA 可被视为一种安全可行的颈动脉血运重建选择。