• Patric Liang, Peter Soden, Mark C Wyers, Mahmoud B Malas, Brian W Nolan, Grace J Wang, Richard J Powell, and Marc L Schermerhorn.
• Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2020 Nov 1; 72 (5): 1701-1710.

ObjectiveRecent data have shown that transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal provides a superior method of embolic protection compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) with distal embolic protection. Flow reversal or flow arrest systems with proximal endovascular balloon occlusion can also be used through the transfemoral approach; however, their outcomes compared with TCAR with flow reversal and tfCAS with distal embolic protection are poorly described.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion, tfCAS with distal embolic protection, and TCAR with flow reversal in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to May 2019. We assessed in-hospital outcomes in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients using tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion as the comparison cohort. The primary outcome was stroke or death. Secondary end points included the individual outcomes of stroke, death, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and myocardial infarction.ResultsOf the 24,232 patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, 561 (2.3%) procedures were performed through tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion, 18,126 (74%) through tfCAS with distal embolic protection, and 5545 (22.9%) through TCAR with flow reversal. After matching, 463 pairs of patients undergoing tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion and tfCAS with distal embolic protection were identified. There were no differences in stroke or death (proximal balloon, 3.2%; distal embolic protection, 3.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.73; P = .73), stroke (2.4% vs 2.6%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.42-2.00; P = .83), death (1.1% vs 1.5%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-3.15; P = .80), TIA (1.7% vs 1.5%; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.41-3.15; P = .80), or myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.6%; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.11-3.99; P = .65). However, after matching 357 pairs of patients undergoing tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion and TCAR with flow reversal, tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion was associated with higher rates of stroke or death (3.1% vs 0.8%; RR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.02-13.14; P = .03) and a trend toward higher rates of stroke (2.5% vs 0.8%; RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.81-11.08; P = .08) and death (0.8% vs 0.0%; P = .08), but no statistically significant differences in TIA (0.8% vs 0.8%; P > .99) or myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 0.3%; RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.18-22.06; P = .56).ConclusionsCompared with tfCAS with distal embolic protection, tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion has similar major outcomes. However, tfCAS with proximal balloon occlusion does not offer the same degree of embolic protection compared with TCAR with flow reversal, given the significantly higher risk of perioperative stroke or death.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

27 keywords...

hide…