Journal of Vascular Surgery Cases and Innovative Techniques (Sep 2023)

Use of a prosthetic conduit for stent delivery in transcarotid artery revascularization for patients with unfavorable anatomy

  • Kathryn DiLosa, MD, MPH,
  • Joel Harding, DO,
  • Matthew Vuoncino, MD,
  • Mimmie Kwong, MD, MAS,
  • Misty Humphries, MD, MAS,
  • Steven Maximus, MD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 3
p. 101271

Abstract

Read online

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) provides a safe alternative to carotid endarterectomy. The anatomic requirements include a 5-cm minimum clavicle to carotid bifurcation distance for sheath access proximal to the lesion. In the present report, we describe our experience with conduit use for patients not meeting that requirement. Patients undergoing elective TCAR with a conduit from 2021 to 2022 were retrospectively identified. After carotid artery exposure, a 6-mm prosthetic graft was anastomosed to the common carotid artery in an end-to-side fashion. After stent delivery, the conduit was ligated and oversewn. The patient demographics, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded and compared with our nonconduit TCAR experience. A total of 11 patients (64% male; age, 75 ± 5 years) underwent TCAR with a conduit, 5 (46%) for symptomatic disease, and 77 patients underwent TCAR with no conduit, 52 (60%) with symptomatic disease (P = .50). Other than a higher rate of prior coronary interventions in the conduit group (55% vs 47%; P = .007), no significant differences were found in age, gender, race, comorbidities, or high risk for carotid endarterectomy criteria. In the conduit group, the average skin to carotid artery depth was 4.2 cm (range, 1.9-6.1 cm). The average clavicle to bifurcation distance was 4.4 cm (range, 3.3-4.9 cm) vs 6.5 cm (range, 3.3-9.7 cm; P = .002) in the nonconduit group. Dacron was the most common conduit material used (73%). No differences were found in the mean procedure times (121 ± 32 vs 129 ± 53 minutes; P = .785) or flow reversal times (14 ± 5 vs 19 ± 13 minutes; P =.989) for the conduit and nonconduit cohorts, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 100% of the conduit and nonconduit cases. Excluding one outlier of a prolonged stay (7 days) for management of unrelated medical issues (gastrostomy tube placement for chronic dysphagia after mass resection and neck radiation), the mean hospital stay was 2 days (1.2 ± 0.4 intensive care unit days) compared with 3.8 ± 5.7 days for our nonconduit cohort (P = .2). Hypotension was the most common reason for delayed discharge for the conduit group (n = 3; 27%). The average follow-up was 2.7 months (range, 1-10 months). For all 11 conduit patients, the stent remained patent without stenosis, thrombus, or pseudoaneurysm at the conduit stump site on surveillance duplex ultrasound. No strokes or complications had occurred at 30 days in the conduit group compared with four strokes or transient ischemic attacks (P = .469) and 18 minor complications in the nonconduit group (P = .091). For patients lacking a sufficient distance between the clavicle and carotid artery bifurcation, a prosthetic conduit facilitates safe use of flow reversal for stent delivery and can be ligated at procedural completion without consequences.

Keywords