Clinical Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting According to Provider Specialty and Volume

Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study)

BACKGROUND

In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature.

METHODS

Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke: 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.

Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverTM Dual-Layer Carotid Stent System

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) using first-generation single-layer stents is widely accepted as a good alternative to standard carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but it is associated with worse outcomes in terms of both plaque prolapse and cerebral embolization.

AIM

To evaluate the perioperative and midterm outcomes of CAS using the new-generation RoadsaverTM dual-layer micromesh-covered carotid stent.

METHODS

Herein, we present the results of an observational, retrospective, multicentric study on non-consecutive patients who underwent the CAS procedure between January 2017 and December 2022 at three Italian, high-volume vascular surgery centers. The inclusion criteria were the patients' eligibility for the CAS procedure in accordance with the current Italian guidelines, and the implantation of a Roadsaver stent. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were included in the study. The patients requiring reintervention for carotid restenosis following CEA were also included. Perioperative data regarding procedural success was defined as the successful implantation of the device in the desired position, less than 30% residual stenosis, and the absence of intraoperative neurological complications. The primary outcome was any adverse cerebrovascular event such as stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the procedure and/or after discharge. The secondary outcomes were the need for further intervention, and all-cause death following procedure.

RESULTS

Three-hundred-fifty-three (353) patients were included in our study; the mean age was 74.3 years. A total of 5.9% of the patients were symptomatic on their operated side, while 7.3% had contralateral carotid occlusion. A cerebral embolic protection device (CPD) was employed in all patients. A total of 13.3% of the patients were operated on for restenosis after CEA Technical success was achieved in 96.9% of the cases with an intraoperative report of six TIAs (1.7%) and six ipsilateral strokes (1.7%). The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. The thirty-day follow up showed one TIA and one more stroke. At the mean 35-month follow-up time, the primary outcome was present in six patients (1.7%), where four TIAs (1.1%) and two strokes (0.5%) were reported. Restenosis occurred in five patients (1.4%). Death for any cause was reported in 11 patients (3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

As most recent, high-quality studies show, the CAS procedure with second-generation devices such as the Roadsaver stent is safe and effective in preventing carotid-related cerebrovascular events in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The intraoperative and postoperative cerebrovascular complication rate in high volume centers is very low, ensuring confidence in its employment for the CAS procedure along with a CPD as a valid alternative to CEA.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting Between Institutions With a Treatment Strategy Based on Risk Factors and Those With First-Line Treatment

PURPOSE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recommended based on certain risk factors. The volume of an institution's treatment experience may be associated with good clinical outcomes. There is a dilemma between the treatment strategy based on risk factors and the experience volume. Therefore, we investigated the clinical outcomes of CAS performed at institutions that selected the treatment strategy based on risk factors and those that performed CAS at the first-line treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent CAS at 5 institutions were included in this retrospective case-control study. We defined CEA/CAS institutions as those that selected the treatment option based on risk factors, and CAS-first institutions as those that performed CAS as the first-line treatment. We investigated cases of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and deaths within 30 days of the intervention between the CEA/CAS- and CAS-first institution groups. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare rates of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes within 30 days of the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 239 and 302 patients underwent CAS at the CEA/CAS institutions and CAS-first institutions, respectively; ischemic stroke occurred in 12 (5.0%) and 7 patients (2.3%), respectively (p=0.09). No differences in major ischemic strokes (0.8% vs 1.3%; p=0.59), hemorrhagic strokes (0.4% vs 0.3%; p=0.87), or deaths (0.0% vs 0.7%; p=0.21) were observed. Myocardial infarction did not occur in either group. Propensity score analysis showed that ischemic stroke (odds ratio: 1.845, 95% confidence interval: 0.601-5.668, p=0.28) and hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.0061-16.418, p=1.00) were not significantly associated with either institution group.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAS-specific treatment strategies for CAS can achieve the same level of outcomes as the treatment strategy based on risk factors. The CAS performed based on risk factors in CEA/CAS institutions and the treatment of more than 30 patients/year/institution in CAS-first institutions were associated with good clinical outcomes.

Characterizing endovascular aortic intervention outcomes for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialty

BACKGROUND

Evaluate patient outcomes after endovascular aortic interventions performed for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialties.

METHODS

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), fenestrated or branched repair (F-BEVAR), and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures were obtained from the Illinois Hospital Association Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database from 2016 to 2019. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to determine outcomes by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 4,935 procedures, 3,666 (74.3%) EVAR, 567 (11.5%) F-BEVAR, and 702 (14.2%) TEVAR were performed by vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Vascular surgeons performed interventions equally between hospital types while interventional radiologists primarily performed interventions in teaching hospitals (68.1%) and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons typically performed interventions in community hospitals (91.8% and 82.1%, respectively; P < .001). No differences in inpatient mortality were noted between specialties. Patients treated by interventional radiologists had increased odds of staying in the hospital ≥8 days (odd ration [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.19) and patients treated by interventional cardiologists had lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.95).

CONCLUSION

Differences in practice patterns among specialties performing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for nonruptured aneurysms suggest opportunities for collaboration to optimize quality of care.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates after carotid procedures performed by different specialties

OBJECTIVE

Different competencies and skills are required and obtained during medical specialization. However, whether these have an impact on procedural outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear. We assessed the reported association between operator specialization and procedural outcomes after CEA or CAS to determine whether CEA and CAS should be performed by specific specialties.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Embase up to August 21, 2017, for randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more specialties performing CEA or CAS for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The composite primary outcome was procedural stroke or death (ie, occurring within 30 days of the procedure or before discharge). Risk estimates were pooled with a generic inverse variance random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies (26 providing data on CEA, 8 providing data on CAS, and 1 providing data on both CEA and CAS) were included, describing 256,033 CEA and 38,605 CAS procedures. For CEA, decreased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by vascular surgeons was found with pooled unadjusted relative risk (RR) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.86; seven studies) compared with neurosurgeons and RR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.99; six studies) compared with general surgeons. An increased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by neurosurgeons compared with cardiothoracic surgeons was found with a pooled unadjusted RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.46). No studies adjusted for potential confounding, and no significant unadjusted associations were found in other comparisons of operator specialty for the primary outcome. For CAS, no differences in procedural stroke or death were found by operator specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies were at high risk of bias mainly because of potential confounding by patient selection for CEA and CAS. Current evidence is insufficient to restrict CEA or CAS to specific specialties.

Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting When Performed by a Single Vascular Surgeon

OBJECTIVES:

Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are 2 effective treatment options for carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The long-term outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) reported similar stroke and death rate between the 2 procedures. This study presents the short- and long-term outcomes of CEA and CAS of all risk patients performed by a single vascular surgeon in a real-world setting.

METHODS:

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent CEA and CAS from September 2005 to June 2017 at our institute. Student t test, χ², and Fisher exact tests were used to compare patient's characteristics. Multivariate logistic, cox regression models and survival analysis were used to compare postoperative and long-term outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS:

Over 2000 patients were evaluated for carotid artery stenosis during the study period, and 313 revascularization procedures were performed (CEA: 47%, CAS: 53%). Patients' age (Mean [95% confidence interval, CI] 68.8 [67.2-70.4] vs 69.7 [68.2-71.3], P = .40) was similar between CEA and CAS. Patients who underwent CAS had significantly higher comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], chronic heart failure [CHF], hyperlipidemia, and prior ipsilateral intervention, all P < .05). No difference was found in 30-day complications after CEA versus CAS including stroke (2.0% vs 1.2%), myocardial infarction (MI; 0.7% vs 1.2%), death (0% vs 1.2%) as well as combined major adverse events (stroke/death/MI; 2.7% vs 3.0%; all P > .05). Overall 7-year survival, stroke-free survival and restenosis-free survival were similar between the 2 groups ( P > .5). Significant predictors of mortality were diabetes (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.15-5.08]), chronic kidney disease (HR [95% CI]: 4.89 [1.97-12.13]), and COPD (HR [95% CI]: 3.31 [1.43-7.71]; all P values <.05). Statin use was protective with 71% reduction in risk of mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.12-0.67], P = .004).

CONCLUSION:

Our experience showed comparable short- and long-term outcomes of CAS and CEA performed for carotid artery stenosis by vascular surgeon. There was no difference between single institutional long-term outcomes and CREST outcomes following CEA and CAS.

Predictors of Perioperative Stroke/Death after Carotid Artery Stenting: A Review Article

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for patients with significant carotid stenosis. Only a few studies have analyzed clinical/anatomical and technical variables that affect perioperative outcomes of CAS. Following a comprehensive Medline search, it was reported that clinical factors, including age of >80 years, chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus, symptomatic indications, and procedures performed within 2 weeks of transient ischemic attack symptoms, are associated with high perioperative stroke and death rates. They also highlighted that angiographic variables, e.g., ulcerated and calcified plaques, left carotid intervention, >90% stenosis, >10-mm target lesion length, ostial involvement, type III aortic arch, and >60°-angulated internal carotid and common carotid arteries, are predictors of increased stroke rates. Technical factors associated with increased perioperative risk of stroke include percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) without embolic protection devices, PTA before stent placement, and the use of multiple stents. This review describes the most widely quoted data in defining various predictors of perioperative stroke and death after CAS. (This is a review article based on the invited lecture of the 45th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for Vascular Surgery.)