Fixed compared to mobile imaging arms for transcarotid artery revascularization

Abstract

Objective Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a new surgical option for carotid artery stenosis. While this procedure is optimally performed in hybrid operating rooms (OR), it is currently unclear whether it could be safely performed using portable, C-arm fluoroscopy with equivalent results. The aim of this study is to determine whether there are differences in intraoperative and perioperative outcomes stratified by imaging modality. Methods A retrospective review of all TCAR procedures attempted within our health system was performed, capturing all cases between September 2017 and May 2022. Procedures were divided into 2 cohorts, based on whether they were performed in a hybrid OR or with portable, C-arm in a standard OR. Patient demographics, intraoperative results, and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate strategies. Results A total of 503 patients were included for review, of which 422 were performed in a hybrid OR (84%) and 81 were performed using a portable C-arm (16%). Intraoperatively, an increased estimated blood loss (47.7 ± 54.7 vs 26.1 ± 26.9 mLs, p < 0.01) and operative time was found in the cases performed in a hybrid OR. However, the fluoroscopy time was lower (4.0 ± 2.6 vs 5.2 ± 5.8 min, p = 0.01) in the setting of advanced intraoperative imaging. Postoperatively, we found no differences with respect to myocardial infarction (0.2% vs. 0%, p > 0.99), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.96), or death (0.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.15) between groups. Conclusions While there are some intraoperative variabilities between TCAR performed in hybrid versus standard ORs, postoperative outcomes are comparable. Therefore, the lack of a hybrid room should not be a deterrent to the adoption of TCAR.