目的:医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)现在批准经股颈动脉支架术(TFCAS)治疗标准风险颈动脉闭塞性疾病患者的报销。已知具有复杂主动脉弓解剖结构的患者的TFCAS具有挑战性,结果较差。由于避免了主动脉弓并在支架部署期间使用了血流逆转,因此在这些患者中,经颈动脉血运重建(TCAR)可能是一种优选的选择。我们旨在比较TCAR和TFCAS在所有主动脉弓类型和弓动脉粥样硬化程度的结果。
方法:在VQI数据库中确定了2016年9月至2023年10月期间接受颈动脉支架术(CAS)的所有患者。患者分为四组:A组(轻度动脉粥样硬化和I/II型Arch),B组(轻度动脉粥样硬化和III型Arch),C组(中度/重度动脉粥样硬化和I/II型动脉粥样硬化),D组(中度/重度动脉粥样硬化和III型动脉粥样硬化)。主要结局是院内复合卒中或死亡。方差分析和χ2检验分析基线特征的差异。Logistic回归模型对潜在的混杂因素进行了调整,并实施了向后逐步选择,以识别包含在最终模型中的重要变量。KaplanMeier生存估计,日志等级测试,多变量Cox回归模型分析了1年死亡率的风险比.
结果:共纳入20,114例患者[A组:12,980(64.53%);B组:1,175(5.84%);C组:5,124(25.47%);D组:835(4.15%)]。TCAR在四组中更常见(72.21%,67.06%,74.94%69.22%;p<0.001)。与轻度弓动脉粥样硬化患者相比,C组和D组晚期足弓动脉粥样硬化患者更可能是女性,高血压,吸烟者,患有CKD。B组和D组的III型弓型患者术前更有可能出现卒中。在多变量分析中,在动脉粥样硬化最轻和单纯足弓解剖的患者(A组)中,TCAR的卒中/死亡和一年死亡率风险低于TFCAS的一半(OR=0.43,95CI:0.31-0.61,p<0.001;HR=0.42,95CI:0.32-0.57,p<0.001)。与TFCAS相比,动脉粥样硬化相似但足弓解剖更复杂的B组患者使用TCAR的卒中/死亡几率降低了70%(OR=0.30,95CI:0.12-0.75,p=0.01)。在动脉粥样硬化更严重和单纯足弓解剖的患者中也有类似的发现(OR=0.66,95CI:0.44-0.97,p=0.037)。晚期拱型动脉粥样硬化和复杂拱型(D组)患者的卒中/死亡几率没有显着差异(OR=0.91,95CI:0.39-2.16,p=0.834)。
结论:TCAR在简单和高级足弓解剖的患者中比TFCAS更安全。这可能与逆流与远端栓塞保护的效率有关。如果不实施多学科方法和适当的患者选择,当前的CMS决定可能会增加全国范围内颈动脉支架置入术的中风和死亡结果。
OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now approve reimbursement for Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting (TFCAS) in the treatment of standard-risk patients with carotid artery occlusive disease. TFCAS in patients with complex aortic arch anatomy is known to be challenging with worse outcomes. Transcarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) could be a preferable alternative in these patients owing to avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal during stent deployment. We aim to compare the outcomes of TCAR versus TFCAS across all aortic arch types and degrees of arch atherosclerosis.
METHODS: All patients undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) between September 2016 and October 2023 were identified in the VQI database. Patients were stratified into four groups: Group-A (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-B (Mild Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch), Group-C (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type I/II Arch), Group-D (Moderate/Severe Atherosclerosis and Type III Arch). The primary outcome was in-hospital composite stroke or death. ANOVA and χ2tests analyzed differences for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders, and backward stepwise selection was implemented to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final models. Kaplan Meier survival estimates, Log Rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models analyzed hazard ratios for one-year mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 20,114 patients were included [Group-A:12,980 (64.53%); Group-B: 1,175 (5.84%); Group-C: 5,124 (25.47%); Group-D: 835 (4.15%)]. TCAR was more commonly performed across the four groups (72.21%, 67.06%, 74.94% 69.22%; p<0.001). Compared to patients with mild arch atherosclerosis, patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis in Group-C and Group-D were more likely to be female, hypertensive, smokers, and have CKD. Patients with Type-III arch in Group-B and Group-D were more likely to present with stroke preoperatively. On multivariable analysis, TCAR had less than half the risk of stroke/death and one-year mortality compared to TFCAS in the patients with the mildest atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (group A) (OR=0.43,95%CI:0.31-0.61, p<0.001; HR=0.42,95%CI:0.32-0.57, p<0.001). Group-B patients with similar atherosclerosis but more complex arch anatomy had 70% lower odds of stroke/death with TCAR compared to TFCAS (OR=0.30,95%CI:0.12-0.75, p=0.01). Similar findings were also evident in patients with more severe atherosclerosis and simple arch anatomy (OR=0.66,95%CI:0.44-0.97, p=0.037). There was no significant difference in odds of stroke/death in patients with advanced arch atherosclerosis and complex arch (Group-D) (OR=0.91,95%CI:0.39-2.16, p=0.834).
CONCLUSIONS: TCAR is safer than TFCAS in patients with simple and advanced arch anatomy. This could be related to the efficiency of flow reversal vs distal embolic protection. Current CMS decision will likely increase stroke and death outcomes of carotid stenting nationally if multidisciplinary approach and appropriate patient selection are not implemented.