Factors Associated with Hospital Dependent Delay to Carotid Endarterectomy in the Dutch Audit for Carotid Interventions

Determinants of prehospital and in-hospital delay in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and their influence on the outcome after elective carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

This study analyses the determinants of prehospital (index event to admission) and in-hospital delay (admission to carotid endarterectomy (CEA)). In addition, the analysis addresses the association between prehospital or in-hospital delay and outcomes after CEA for symptomatic patients in German hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis is based on the nationwide German statutory quality assurance database. 55 437 patients were included in the analysis. Prehospital delay was grouped as follows: 180-15, 14-8, 7-3, 2-0 days or 'in-hospital index event'. In-hospital delay was divided into: 0-1, 2-3 and >3 days. The primary outcome event (POE) was in-hospital stroke or death. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed for statistical analysis. The slope of the linear regression line is given as the β-value, and the rate parameter of the logistic regression is given as the adjusted OR (aOR).

RESULTS

Prehospital delay was 0-2 days in 34.9%, 3-14 days in 29.5% and >14 days in 18.6%. Higher age (β=-1.08, p<0.001) and a more severe index event (transitory ischaemic attack: β=-4.41, p<0.001; stroke: β=-6.05, p<0.001, Ref: amaurosis fugax) were determinants of shorter prehospital delay. Higher age (β=0.28, p<0.001) and female sex (β=0.09, p=0.014) were associated with a longer in-hospital delay. Index event after admission (aOR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.47) and an intermediate in-hospital delay of 2-3 days (aOR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.33) were associated with an increased POE risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that older age, higher American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) stage, increasing severity of symptoms and ipsilateral moderate stenosis were associated with shorter prehospital delay. Non-specific symptoms were associated with a longer prehospital delay. Regarding in-hospital delay, older age, higher ASA stage, contralateral occlusion, preprocedural examination by a neurologist and admission on Fridays or Saturdays were associated with lagged treatment. A very short (<2 days) prehospital and intermediate in-hospital delay (2-3 days) were associated with increased risk of perioperative stroke or death.

Factors associated with delay to carotid endarterectomy for acute ischaemic stroke in South Australia: A multicentre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The greatest benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) accrue when performed within two weeks of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) due to symptomatic carotid stenosis. Previous studies have identified multiple factors contributing to CEA delay.

AIMS

To determine factors associated with delayed CEA in patients admitted to tertiary stroke centres within a major metropolitan region with AIS METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients admitted to the tertiary hospitals with stroke units within South Australia (Lyell McEwin Hospital, Royal Adelaide Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre) between 2016 to 2020 were included. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify individual factors associated with time from symptom onset to CEA of over two weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients were included. The median time to CEA was 5 days (IQR 3-9.75). Delayed CEA beyond 14 days occurred in 28/174 (16%). Factors most associated with delayed CEA included presentation to a tertiary hospital without onsite Vascular Surgical Unit (OR 3.71, 95%CI 1.31-10.58), history of previous stroke (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.11-9.84) and presenting NIHSS above 6 (OR 5.16, 95% CI 1.60-16.39).

CONCLUSION

This study identified that presentation to a tertiary hospital without a Vascular Surgery Unit, history of previous stroke and presenting NIHSS above 6 were associated with delay to CEA in AIS patients in South Australia. Interventional studies aiming to improve the proportion of patients that receive CEA within 14 days are required.

Editor's Choice - Risk of Bleeding Complications With Different Peri-Operative Antithrombotic Regimens During Carotid Endarterectomy: a National Registry Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Antithrombotic therapy is one of the cornerstones of the prevention of (recurrent) ocular or cerebral ischaemic events in patients with carotid artery stenosis. Randomised controlled trials on antithrombotic therapy for patients with minor ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the three weeks following the index event. However, these trials excluded patients undergoing carotid revascularisation. To date, the optimal antithrombotic therapy during the peri-operative period of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains unclear.

METHODS

Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing primary CEA from the Dutch Audit for Carotid Interventions registry between June 2013 and December 2020 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was defined as post-operative cervical bleeding needing re-intervention or intracranial haemorrhage during the first 30 days following CEA. The secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke or TIA or all cause mortality during the first 30 days following CEA. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regressions analyses were applied, with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) as the reference value.

RESULTS

A total of 12 317 patients were included. In the peri-operative phase, 31.0% of patients were treated with ASA, 32.4% with clopidogrel, 11.1% with ASA plus clopidogrel, 10.4% with ASA plus dipyridamole, 10.3% with vitamin K antagonist, and 4.8% with direct acting oral anticoagulants therapy. After multiple logistic regression analysis, no association was seen with the primary outcome in ASA plus clopidogrel (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; confidence interval [CI] 0.58 - 1.13; p = .23), and ASA plus dipyridamole (OR 0.69; CI 0.47 - 1.00; p = .059). Both the DAPT therapies were not associated with the secondary outcome.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of DAPT did not differ from single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in patients undergoing CEA and further evaluation is needed in prospective studies. Considering additional data from the literature and guideline recommendations, DAPT should be started immediately after stroke until 30 days after CEA followed by SAPT, due to a possible reduction in the risk of recurrence.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

Factors associated with delays in revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prompt revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is important, and recent guidance has suggested that patients should undergo revascularization within 5 days of an emergency admission to hospital. The aim of this cohort study was to identify factors associated with the ability of UK vascular services to meet this standard of care.

METHODS

Data on all patients admitted non-electively with CLTI who underwent open or endovascular revascularization between 2016 and 2019 were extracted from the National Vascular Registry. The primary outcome was interval between admission and procedure, analysed as a binary variable (5 days or less, over 5 days). Multivariable Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between time to revascularization and patient and admission characteristics.

RESULTS

The study analysed information on 11 398 patients (5973 open, 5425 endovascular), 50.6 per of whom underwent revascularization within 5 days. The median interval between admission and intervention was 5 (i.q.r. 2-9) days. Patient factors associated with increased risk of delayed revascularization were older age, greater burden of co-morbidity, non-smoking status, presentation with infection and tissue loss, and a Fontaine score of IV. Patients admitted later in the week were less likely undergo revascularization within 5 days than those admitted on Sundays and Mondays (P < 0.001). Delays were slightly worse among patients having open compared with endovascular procedures (P = 0.005) and in hospitals with lower procedure volumes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Several factors were associated with delays in time to revascularization for patients with CLTI in the UK, most notably the weekday of admission, which reflects how services are organized. The results support arguments for vascular units providing revascularization to have the resources for a 7-day service.