Carotid endarterectomy in octogenarian: short- and midterm results

Safety of Carotid Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Stenosis by Age: Meta-Analysis With Individual Patient Data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty whether elderly patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis have higher rates of adverse events following carotid endarterectomy. In trials, recurrent stroke risk on medical therapy alone increased with age, whereas operative stroke risk was not related. Few octogenarians were included in trials and there has been no systematic analysis of all study types. We aimed to evaluate the safety of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic elderly patients, particularly in octogenarians.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (from January 1, 1980 through March 1, 2022) reporting post carotid endarterectomy risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We included observational studies and interventional arms of randomized trials if the outcome rates (or the raw data to calculate these) were provided. Individual patient data from 4 prospective cohorts enabled multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies (107 587 patients), risk of perioperative stroke was 2.04% (1.94-2.14) in octogenarians (390 strokes/19 101 patients) and 1.85% (1.75-1.95) in nonoctogenarians (1395/75 537); P=0.046. Perioperative death was 1.09% (0.94-1.25) in octogenarians (203/18 702) and 0.53% (0.48-0.59) in nonoctogenarians (392/73 327); P<0.001. Per 5-year age increment, a linear increase in perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, and death were observed; P=0.04 to 0.002. However, during the last 3 decades, perioperative stroke±death has declined significantly in octogenarians (7.78% [5.58-10.55] before year 2000 to 2.80% [2.56-3.04] after 2010); P<0.001. In Individual patient data multivariate-analysis (5111 patients), age ≥85 years was independently associated with perioperative stroke (P<0.001) and death (P=0.005). Yet, survival was similar for octogenarians versus nonoctogenarians at 1-year (95.0% [93.2-96.5] versus 97.5% [96.4-98.6]; P=0.08), as was 5-year stroke risk (11.93% [9.98-14.16]) versus 12.78% [11.65-13.61]; P=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a modest increase in perioperative risk with age in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. As stroke risk increases with age when on medical therapy alone, our findings support selective urgent intervention in symptomatic elderly patients.

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

[Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in advanced age patients]

The manuscript is devoted to world experience of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in advanced age patients. Some authors report the advantages of endovascular surgery in elderly patients while the others prefer carotid endarterectomy. Senile patients (75-80 years old) with asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis is one of the most difficult group for the management. This is due to a more complex assessment of perioperative surgical risk, high incidence of complicated atherosclerotic plaques in carotid arteries and dubious benefits of surgery considering short life expectancy and severe comorbidities. Accumulation of experience in the management of advanced age patients should be valuable for either optimizing or individualizing surgical strategy.

Relationships between 2-Year Survival, Costs, and Outcomes following Carotid Endarterectomy in Asymptomatic Patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic patients with limited life expectancy may not be beneficial or cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to examine relationships among survival, outcomes, and costs within 2 years following CEA among asymptomatic patients.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 3097 patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease from Vascular Quality Initiative VQI registry were linked to Medicare. Models were used to identify predictors of 2-year mortality following CEA. Patients were classified as low, medium, or high risk of death based on this model. Next, we examined costs related to cerebrovascular care, occurrence of stroke, rehospitalization, and reintervention within 2 years following CEA across risk strata.

RESULTS

Overall, 2-year mortality was 6.7%. Age, diabetes, smoking, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, absence of statin use, and contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis were independently associated with a higher risk of death following CEA. In-hospital costs averaged $7500 among patients defined as low risk for death, and exceeded $10,800 among high risk patients. Although long-term costs related to cerebrovascular disease were 2 times higher in patients deemed high risk for death compared with low risk patents ($17,800 vs. $8800, P = 0.001), high risk of death was not independently associated with a high probability of high cost. Predictors of high cost at 2 years were severe contralateral ICA stenosis, dialysis dependence, and American Society for Anesthesia Class 4. Both statin use and CHF were protective of high cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater than 90% of patients undergoing CEA live long enough to realize the benefits of their procedure. Moreover, the long-term costs are supported by the effectiveness of this procedure at all levels of patient risk.

Clinical predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events during long-term follow-up after carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Those patients who undergo a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) will present a higher cardiovascular risk during follow-up than the general population. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic factors and validate the accuracy of 3 cardiovascular risk scores as predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) during long-term follow-up after CEA.

METHODS

Observational retrospective follow-up study with 416 CEAs conducted consecutively in 385 patients from 1994 to 2011. The primary end point was MACE, single event including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Preoperative risk factors and medical treatment at discharge were collected. A general cardiovascular risk score, the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), was used, and 2 scores specific for CEA (Halm and Tu). Descriptive analysis and Cox regression were conducted. Informed consent from patients was obtained and approval by the ethics committee.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 4.94 years. MACEs appeared in 22.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0-26.2%) of the series during follow-up. The MACEs rate at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, was 3.1%, 9.3%, and 15.8%, respectively. In the Cox regression model, the MACE predictor variables were: the presence of peripheral artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.06-2.70) and RCRI (HR,1.61; 95% CI, 1.04-2.50). The RCRI area under the curve for predicting events, with a 2.5 cutoff point, was 0.59 with 85.9% sensitivity and a positive predictive value of 25.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral artery disease and high RCRI have an independent effect on predicting MACEs. The 3 different scores have a low ability for predicting MACEs during long-term follow-up.