Risk of Stroke, Death, and Myocardial Infarction Following Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients With Standard Surgical Risk

IMPORTANCE: Carotid artery stenting has been limited to use in patients with high surgical risk; outcomes in patients with standard surgical risk are not well known. OBJECTIVE: To compare stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with standard surgical risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study was conducted from August 2016 to August 2019 with follow-up until August 31, 2020, using data from the multicenter Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Artery Stent and Carotid Endarterectomy registries. Patients with standard surgical risk, defined as those lacking Medicare-defined high medical or surgical risk characteristics and undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (n = 2962) or carotid endarterectomy (n = 35 063) for atherosclerotic carotid disease. In total, 760 patients were excluded for treatment of multiple lesions or in conjunction with other procedures. EXPOSURES: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke. RESULTS: After 1:3 matching, 2962 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.9] years; 1910 [64.5%] male) and 8886 undergoing endarterectomy (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [6.5] years; 5777 [65.0%] male) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary composite end point between the 2 cohorts (transcarotid 3.0% vs endarterectomy 2.6%; absolute difference, 0.40% [95% CI, -0.43% to 1.24%]; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.50]; P = .34). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a higher risk of 1-year ipsilateral stroke (1.6% vs 1.1%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.08]; RR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.11%]; P = .02) but no difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (2.6% vs 2.5%; absolute difference, -0.13% [95% CI, -0.18% to 0.33%]; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.39]; P = .67). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, the risk of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke was similar in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization compared with those undergoing endarterectomy for carotid stenosis

The "Woundosome" Concept and Its Impact on Procedural Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

This editorial assembles endovascular specialists from diverse clinical backgrounds and nationalities with a global call to address key challenges to enhance revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients.- Dedicated below-the-ankle (BTA) angiography and revascularization is underutilized in ischemic foot treatment. Existing guidelines do not address comprehensive BTA vessel analysis. CLTI trials also often lack data on in-line arterial flow to the ischemic lesion and BTA vessel evaluation, hindering outcome assessment.- Dedicated multi-planar angiographic evaluation of the distal microcirculation is key: Direct arterial flow or good-quality collaterals are crucial in influencing wound healing and need to be assessed diligently to the level of the distal ischemic wound territory, termed “woundosome.”- An important primary emphasis of future trials should be on validating technologies and strategies for assessing tissue perfusion before, during, and after revascularization undertaken to heal tissue loss in CLTI patients. This will allow determination of a potentially significant delta in tissue perfusion prior to and following intervention at the “woundosome” level. Once changes in arterial perfusion have been identified as positively correlated to wound healing, these could serve as a much-needed novel primary technical outcome measure for patients with tissue loss undergoing surgical, hybrid, or endovascular revascularization

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high‐level field‐wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co‐moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI\u27s Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward

Standardized data elements for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: A consensus report from the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes