Carotid artery dissections from transcarotid artery revascularization as reported by the Food and Drug Administration

Abstract

Objectives Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a hybrid procedure that allows reversal of blood flow away from the brain while placing a stent through direct surgical access of the common carotid artery. It has been shown to have a lower risk of perioperative stroke compared with any prospective trial of transfemoral carotid artery stenting. However, intraoperative injuries related to the procedure and its management are not well characterized. One of the intraoperative complications seen in TCAR is iatrogenic carotid artery dissection (CD). We aim to add qualitative insight in further characterizing CDs and its management in this emerging technology. Methods The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for surveillance of all medical devices approved for use. This database was queried for all cases associated with Silk Road Medical’s ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System from September 2016 to October 2020. Case narratives related to CD were individually analyzed to determine time of injury (intraoperative, recovery, and post-discharge follow-up). CD reporting was further analyzed for the associated procedural event at the time of injury, number of access attempts to CD repair, and type of CD repair. Reports associated with CD repair were further categorized into endovascular repair and open surgical repair. Results Of the 115 unique adverse events in the database, there were 58 CDs. Most were identified intraoperatively ( n = 55), while three were incidentally found postoperatively. Overall, sheath placement was the most common procedural event attributed to CD ( N = 34). There was adequate narrative information about CD repair in 54 patients. Intraoperative repair was performed in 52 cases and two were repaired after post-discharge follow-up imaging was performed. Among CDs that did not require additional access to engage the true lumen, the proportion of endovascular repair (62.5%) was significantly higher ( p = .044) compared to the proportion of open surgical repair (37.5%). However, the proportion of open surgical repair (75%) was significantly higher than the proportion of endovascular repair (25%) in CDs with persistent failure to engage the true lumen despite ≥2 access attempts ( p = .039). Conclusion CD is the most common injury related to TCAR as reported on MAUDE. The most commonly reported procedural event associated with CD was sheath placement. The rate of intraoperative endovascular and open surgical CD repair was associated with whether the access to the true lumen of the carotid artery required additional access attempts or not. This should add qualitative insight among the vascular surgery community regarding intraoperative management of CDs from a TCAR procedure.