Skip to main content

Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Journal
Stroke (Q1)
Published
14 September 2026
Study design
Unclassified
Evidence level
Level 5, Expert Opinion (CEBM 5)
Authors
Huanwen Chen, Dhairya A Lakhani, Marco Colasurdo, Jay Kakadiya, Matthew K McIntyre, Sridhara S Yaddanapudi, et al.
PMID
42734077
DOI
10.1161/STROKEAHA.126.055324

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Neurology (clinical) (paper of the day, 16 September 2026): TCAR vs CAS outcomes for asymptomatic carotid stenosis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The CREST-2 trial demonstrated superiority of carotid artery stenting (CAS) over intensive medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but it did not evaluate transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Herein, we compared ischemic stroke outcomes between TCAR and CAS among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis in contemporary real-world practice. METHODS: We identified adults with asymptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing TCAR versus CAS using the 2016 to 2024 TriNetX database, which is a multicenter federated database of electronic health records. Propensity score matching was performed for demographics, laboratory values, risk factors, comorbidities, and medications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke within 4 years. RESULTS: Among 7303 identified patients, 2207 patients remained in each group after matching. TCAR did not demonstrate a significantly different stroke risk compared with CAS (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.44-1.06]). The absolute risk difference was numerically but nonsignificantly lower for patients with TCAR throughout the follow-up period, progressively widening over time: 0.35% at 6 months (0.61% versus 0.96%; P=0.18) to 1.55% at 4 years (3.26% versus 4.81%; P=0.086). CONCLUSIONS: TCAR did not significantly lower stroke risk compared with CAS for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Although nonsignificant trends towards lower stroke risk were observed for TCAR, the widening of absolute risk differences over time suggests residual confounding rather than potential procedural benefit.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.