Stroke and death after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting with and without high risk criteria

Outcomes Following Vascular and Endovascular Procedures Performed During the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave

Objective

The first COVID-19 pandemic wave was a period of reduced surgical activity and redistribution of resources to only those with late stage or critical presentations. This Vascular and Endovascular Research Network COVID-19 Vascular Service (COVER) study aimed to describe the six-month outcomes of patients who underwent open surgery and or endovascular interventions for major vascular conditions during this period.

Methods

In this international, multicentre, prospective, observational study, centres recruited consecutive patients undergoing vascular procedures over a 12-week period. The study opened in March 2020 and closed to recruitment in August 2020. Patient demographics, procedure details, and post-operative outcomes were collected on a secure online database. The reported outcomes at 30 days and six months were post-operative complications, re-interventions, and all cause in-hospital mortality rate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with six-month mortality rate.

Results

Data were collected on 3 150 vascular procedures, including 1 380 lower limb revascularisations, 609 amputations, 403 aortic, 289 carotid, and 469 other vascular interventions. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 59, 76), 73.5% were men, and 1.7% had confirmed COVID-19 disease. The cumulative all cause in-hospital, 30-day, and six-month mortality rates were 9.1%, 10.4%, and 12.8%, respectively. The six-month mortality rate was 32.1% (95% CI 24.2-40.8%) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 compared with 12.0% (95% CI 10.8-13.2%) in those without. After adjustment, confirmed COVID-19 was associated with a three times higher odds of six-month death (adjusted OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.18-4.83). Increasing ASA grade (3-5 vs. 1-2), frailty scores 4-9, diabetes mellitus, and urgent and or immediate procedures were also independently associated with increased odds of death by six months, while statin use had a protective effect.

Conclusion

During the first wave of the pandemic, the six-month mortality rate after vascular and endovascular procedures was higher compared with historic pre-pandemic studies and associated with COVID-19 disease.

The effect of institutional case volume on post-operative outcomes after endarterectomy and stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of yearly institutional case volume for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS) among symptomatic carotid stenosis patients on the rates of postoperative stroke and inpatient mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prior stroke ("symptomatic") undergoing CEA or CAS during an inpatient stay were identified from the National Inpatient Sample for years 2012-2015. The primary variable was volume of CEA or CAS performed annually by each institution. The primary outcome was a composite variable for in-hospital death or postoperative stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 5,628 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis underwent CEA, while 245 underwent CAS. In the symptomatic CEA population, 519 (9.2 %) patients experienced postoperative stroke or mortality, and were more likely to be treated at centers with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 10 [IQR 5-15] versus 10 [7-20] cases, p < 0.001). In the symptomatic CAS population, 32 (13.1 %) patients experienced stroke or mortality, and these patients were also more likely to undergo treatment at hospitals with a lower yearly institutional volume (median 5 [IQR 5-7] versus 5 [5-10] cases, p = 0.044). Thresholds for yearly institutional volume found differences in adverse outcome between 0-9, 10-29, and ≥30 cases/year (11.7 % vs 8.4 % vs 6.0 %, p < 0.001) for CEA, and differences in postoperative stroke between 0-9 and ≥10 cases/year for CAS (11.0 % vs 1.4 %, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals performing higher volumes of CEA or CAS have fewer postoperative strokes. The threshold reported herein is ≥30 CEA procedures or ≥10 CAS procedures annually for appreciably improved outcomes.

Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are emerging as a potential risk factor for cardiovascular disease in preclinical studies. Direct evidence that this risk extends to humans is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study involving patients who were undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. The excised carotid plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of MNPs with the use of pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, stable isotope analysis, and electron microscopy. Inflammatory biomarkers were assessed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunohistochemical assay. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause among patients who had evidence of MNPs in plaque as compared with patients with plaque that showed no evidence of MNPs.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients were enrolled in the study, and 257 completed a mean (±SD) follow-up of 33.7±6.9 months. Polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 21.7±24.5 μg per milligram of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 5.2±2.4 μg per milligram of plaque. Electron microscopy revealed visible, jagged-edged foreign particles among plaque macrophages and scattered in the external debris. Radiographic examination showed that some of these particles included chlorine. Patients in whom MNPs were detected within the atheroma were at higher risk for a primary end-point event than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 10.27; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients with carotid artery plaque in which MNPs were detected had a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than those in whom MNPs were not detected. (Funded by Programmi di Ricerca Scientifica di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05900947.).

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.

Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence

Background and Purpose

Carotid stenosis is arterial disease narrowing of the origin of the internal carotid artery (main brain artery). Knowing how to best manage this is imperative because it is common in older people and an important cause of stroke. Inappropriately high expectations have grown regarding the value of carotid artery procedures, such as surgery (endarterectomy) and stenting, for lowering the stroke risk associated with carotid stenosis. Meanwhile, the improving and predominant value of medical intervention (lifestyle coaching and medication) continues to be underappreciated.

Methods and Results

This article aims to be an objective presentation and discussion of the scientific literature critical for decision making when the primary goal is to optimize patient outcome. This compilation follows from many years of author scrutiny to separate fact from fiction. Common sense conclusions are drawn from factual statements backed by original citations. Detailed research methodology is given in cited papers. This article has been written in plain language given the importance of the general public understanding this topic. Issues covered include key terminology and the economic impact of carotid stenosis. There is a summary of the evidence-base regarding the efficacy and safety of procedural and medical (non-invasive) interventions for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusions are drawn with respect to current best management and research priorities. Several "furphies" (misconceptions) are exposed that are commonly used to make carotid stenting and endarterectomy outcomes appear similar. Ongoing randomized trials are mentioned and why they are unlikely to identify a routine practice indication for carotid artery procedures. There is a discussion of relevant worldwide guidelines regarding carotid artery procedures, including how they should be improved. There is an outline of systematic changes that are resulting in better application of the evidence-base.

Conclusion

The cornerstone of stroke prevention is medical intervention given it is non-invasive and protects against all arterial disease complications in all at risk. The "big" question is, does a carotid artery procedure add patient benefit in the modern era and, if so, for whom?

Treatment of carotid stenosis in asymptomatic, non-octogenarian, standard risk patients with stenting versus endarterectomy trials

OBJECTIVE

Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA.

METHODS

Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97).

CONCLUSIONS

In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA.

Impact of hospital safety-net status on clinical outcomes following carotid artery revascularization

BACKGROUND

High hospital safety-net burden has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. We aimed to characterize the association of safety-net burden with outcomes in a national cohort of patients undergoing carotid interventions.

METHODS

The 2010-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database was used to identify adults undergoing carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting. Hospitals were classified as low (LBH), medium, or high safety-net burden (HBH) based on the proportion of uninsured or Medicaid patients. Multivariable models were developed to evaluate associations between HBH and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 540,558 hospitalizations for a carotid intervention, 28.5% were at HBH. Patients treated at HBH were more likely to be admitted non-electively (28.7% vs 20.2%, P < .001), have symptomatic presentation (11.0% vs 7.7%, P < .001), and undergo carotid artery stenting (18.7% vs 8.9%, P < .001). After adjustment, HBH remained associated with increased odds of postoperative stroke (AOR 1.19, P = .023, Ref = LBH), non-home discharge (AOR 1.10, P = .026), 30-day readmissions (AOR 1.14, P < .001), and 31-90-day readmissions (AOR 1.13, P < .001), but not in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.18, P = .27). HBH was linked to increased hospitalization costs (β +$2,169, P = .016).

CONCLUSION

HBH was associated with postoperative stroke, non-home discharge, readmissions, and increased hospitalization costs after carotid revascularization. Further studies are warranted to alleviate healthcare inequality and improve outcomes at safety-net hospitals.

Impact of Frailty on Clinical Outcomes after Carotid Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Frailty has been increasingly recognized as an important risk factor for vascular procedures. To assess the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and resource utilization in patients undergoing carotid revascularization using a national cohort.

METHODS

The 2005-2017 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS). Patients were classified as frail using diagnosis codes defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty indicator. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate associations between frailty and in-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization costs, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Of 1,426,343 patients undergoing carotid revascularization, 59,158 (4.2%) were identified as frail. Among frail patients, 79.4% underwent CEA and 20.6% underwent CAS. Compared to CEA, a greater proportion of patients undergoing CAS were frail (6.0% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001). Compared to the nonfrail cohort, frail patients had higher rates of mortality (2.2% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), postoperative stroke (2.6% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001), MI (2.2% vs. 0.8%, P < 0.001), and stroke/death (4.4% vs. 1.4%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, frailty was associated with increased odds of mortality (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.80, P < 0.001), stroke (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.38-1.83 P < 0.001), MI (AOR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.29-1.72, P < 0.001), and stroke/death (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.45-1.81, P < 0.001). Furthermore, frailty was associated with increased hospitalization costs (β = +$5,980, 95% CI: $5,490-$6,470, P < 0.001) and LOS (β = +2.6 days, 95% CI: 2.4-2.8, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes and greater resource use for those undergoing carotid revascularization. Risk models should include an assessment of frailty to guide management and improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Early-Term Complications after Carotid Endarterectomy and Their Risk Factors: Eight-Year Employment of Local Treatment Protocol of a Russian High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

More than 20,000 carotid endarterectomies are performed annually in the Russian Federation. Until now, no studies based on the national carotid data set have been published. The objectives of this study were to evaluate early outcomes after carotid endarterectomy and to identify potential risk factors for major adverse cardiovascular events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective analysis was based on data recorded in a single-center registry, including all carotid endarterectomies performed between 2010 and 2017. A univariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors for perioperative mortality, and predictors of stroke were determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Data from 1,832 patients with a mean age of 64.1 ± 7.6 years were analyzed. The combined in-hospital mortality was 0.65% (12/1,832). The rate of stroke was 0.7% (13/1,832), and the rate of myocardial infarction was 1.1% (20/1,832). The 30-day stroke-free survival was 99%. A history of stroke (p = 0.02) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; p = 0.0001) were found to be predictive of a lethal stroke. Previous myocardial infarction (p = 0.0001), an advanced stage of congestive heart failure (p = 0.0001), and angina pectoris (p = 0.01) were associated with cardiac-related mortality. Moreover, diabetes mellitus (p = 0.03), COPD (p = 0.0001), and carotid calcinosis (p = 0.006) increased the risk of poor survival due to myocardial infarction. The mean duration of clamping was found to be an independent predictor of any perioperative stroke (OR = 1.109; 95% CI 1.052-1.129; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present retrospective analysis of the local carotid surgery register showed appropriate outcomes after CEA regarding the cumulative incidence of MACE, which is comparable to previously published international register data. A previous history of stroke, myocardial infarction, COPD, a prolonged clamping time during CEA, and diabetes mellitus were found to be factors of high-risk for cardiovascular mortality. A prolonged clamping was identified as an independent predictor of any stroke.

Risk Factors of Cerebral Infarction and Myocardial Infarction after Carotid Endarterectomy Analyzed by Machine Learning

Objective

The incidence of cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction is higher in patients with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Based on the concept of coprotection of heart and brain, this study attempts to screen the related factors of early cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction after CEA with the method of machine learning to provide clinical data for the prevention of postoperative cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction.

Methods

443 patients who received CEA operation under general anesthesia within 2 years were collected as the research objects. The demographic data, previous medical history, degree of neck vascular stenosis, blood pressure at all time points during the perioperative period, the time of occlusion, whether to place the shunt, and the time of hospital stay, whether to have cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction were collected. The machine learning model was established, and stable variables were selected based on single-factor analysis.

Results

The incidence of cerebral infarction was 1.4% (6/443) and that of myocardial infarction was 2.3% (10/443). The hospitalization time of patients with cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction was longer than that of the control group (8 (7, 15) days vs. 7 (5, 8) days, P = 0.002). The stable related factors were screened out by the xgboost model. The importance score (F score) was as follows: average arterial pressure during occlusion was 222 points, body mass index was 159 points, average arterial pressure postoperation was 156 points, the standard deviation of systolic pressure during occlusion was 153 points, diastolic pressure during occlusion was 146 points, mean arterial pressure after entry was 143 points, systolic pressure during occlusion was 121 points, and age was 117 points.

Conclusion

Eight factors, such as blood pressure, body mass index, and age, may be related to the postoperative cerebral infarction and myocardial infarction in patients with CEA. The machine learning method deserves further study.

Learning curve and proficiency of transcarotid artery revascularization compared to transfemoral carotid artery stenting

Both transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) are competing endovascular alternatives to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. TF-CAS is an endovascular procedure associated with a long learning curve and higher periprocedural stroke and death rates during an operator's early experience. Estimates suggest that more than 50 cases are required to achieve outcomes similar to carotid endarterectomy. TCAR is a novel hybrid procedure combining direct common carotid artery access and cerebral blood flow reversal with carotid stent placement. In distinction from TF-CAS, TCAR has a rather short learning curve. A multi-institutional analysis showed that operators achieved technical proficiency after approximately 10 to 15 cases. This was reinforced by a large Society for Vascular Surgery, Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Surveillance Project analysis that demonstrated that expertise peaked after approximately 20 cases. Both studies found that TCAR was not associated with an increased rate of stroke or death during operator's early experience. These data suggest that TCAR is readily learned and patients are not at increased risk during a surgeon's early experience.

The less invasive paradox, why carotid artery stenting is not suitable for the high-risk patient

Carotid artery stenosis causes significant morbidity and mortality accounting for approximately 8% of all ischaemic strokes. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) offers an endovascular alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), suggested as a viable option in those deemed high-risk for open CEA due to comorbidities or operative technical considerations. A number of large randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis comparing CAS vs. CEA in unselected patient populations support the conclusion that CAS is associated with a higher risk of stroke and CEA is associated with a higher risk of myocardial infraction. Initial promise for CAS in high-risk patients was demonstrated by The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial that reported CAS was non-inferior to CEA. However, there is evidence to suggest age-related adverse outcome in patients undergoing CAS. There is limited evidence to suggest that CEA could be suitable even in patients deemed high-risk for medical or technical reasons. Further contemporary research on the use of CAS and CEA in high-risk patients is required to re-evaluate current guidelines and high-risk criterion. It is common for a composite outcome of death, ipsilateral stroke and MI which should be questioned as subsequent quality of life is likely to differ after suffering a stroke in comparison to MI. This literature review will discuss the current evidence for CAS and CEA interventions in unselected populations and high-risk patients with carotid disease requiring intervention.

Hidden Readmissions after Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting

BACKGROUND

Historically, carotid procedures incur a readmission rate of approximately 6%; however, these studies are not nationally representative and are limited to tracking only the index hospitals. We sought to evaluate a nationally representative database for readmission rates (including different hospitals) after both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) and determine risk factors for poor outcomes including postoperative mortality and myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis utilizing the 2010-2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database to query patients aged >18 years undergoing CEA or CAS. Outcomes included initial admission mortality, and 30-day readmission, including mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). Univariable analysis of 39 demographic, clinical, and hospital variables was conducted with significance set at P < 0.05. Significant variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for readmission. Results were weighted for national estimates.

RESULTS

There were 527,622 patients undergoing carotid procedures and 13% (n = 69,187) underwent CAS. The 30-day readmission rate was 7% (n = 35,782), and of those, 25% (n = 8,862) were readmitted to a different hospital. When controlling for other factors, CAS was a risk factor for mortality at both index admission (odds ratio [OR] 2.29 [2.11-2.49]) and 30-day readmission (OR 1.48 [1.3-1.69]) and 30-day readmissions at both index hospital (OR 1.11 [1.07-1.14]) and different hospital (OR 1.38 [1.29-1.48]). Readmission to a different hospital increased mortality risk (OR 1.45 [1.29-1.63]) but did not have an effect on MI. Postoperative infections comprised 15% of readmissions while 6% of all readmissions were for stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously unreported, one in 4 readmissions after carotid procedures occur at a different hospital and this fragmentation of care could increase mortality risk after carotid procedures particularly for CAS which was also an independent risk factor for postoperative mortality and readmissions. Further validation is required to decrease unnecessary hospital after carotid procedures.

Contemporary outcomes after carotid endarterectomy in high-risk anatomic and physiologic patients

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines state that the acceptable 30-day postoperative stroke/death rate after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is <3% for asymptomatic patients and <6% for symptomatic patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has identified certain high-risk characteristics used to define patients at highest risk for CEA for whom carotid artery stenting would be reimbursed. We evaluated the impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physiologic and anatomic high-risk criteria on major adverse event rates after CEA in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CEA from 2011 to 2017 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular targeted database. Patients with high-risk anatomic or physiologic characteristics were identified by a predefined variable and were compared with normal-risk patients. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death, stratified by symptom status.

RESULTS

We identified 25,788 patients undergoing CEA, of whom 60% were treated for asymptomatic carotid disease. Among all patients, high-risk physiology or anatomy was associated with higher rates of 30-day stroke/death compared with normal-risk patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 3.6% vs 2.3% [P < .001]). Patients who met criteria for high-risk physiology or anatomy also had higher rates of cardiac events (physiologic risk, 3.1% vs 1.6% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.3% vs 1.6% [P < .01]), but only patients with high-risk anatomy had higher rates of cranial nerve injury (physiologic risk, 2.4% vs 2.5% [P = .81]; anatomic risk, 4.3% vs 2.5% [P < .001]). Asymptomatic patients with high-risk physiology or anatomy had higher rates of 30-day stroke/death, especially in the physiologic high-risk group (physiologic risk, 4.7% vs 1.5% [P < .001]; anatomic risk, 2.6% vs 1.5% [P < .01]), compared with normal-risk patients. However, among symptomatic patients, differences in stroke/death were seen only with high-risk anatomic patients and not with high-risk physiologic patients (physiologic risk, 4.6% vs 3.4% [P = .12]; anatomic risk, 4.8% vs 3.4% [P = .01]).

CONCLUSIONS

As currently selected, contemporary real-world outcomes after CEA in asymptomatic carotid disease patients meeting high-risk physiologic criteria show an unacceptably high 30-day stroke/death rate, well above the 3% threshold. These results suggest the need for better selection of patients and preoperative optimization before elective CEA.

Sex-Based Differences in Ten-Year Nationwide Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

We compared the rates of stroke, death, and/or MI between men and women, stratified by symptomatic status and procedure type (carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or carotid artery stent [CAS]).

STUDY DESIGN

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, crude and propensity-matched rates of the composite end point of stroke/death/MI were estimated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of stroke/death/MI associated with sex.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2015, there were 1,242,688 carotid interventions performed (1,083,912 CEA; 158,776 CAS; 515,789 [41.5%] were female patients). Symptomatic admissions comprised 11.3% of the cohort. In-hospital stroke/death/MI rates were more prevalent in men compared with women (4.2% vs 3.9%; p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed symptomatic women vs men had higher rates of stroke after CEA (7.7% vs 6.2%; p < 0.01) and CAS (9.9% vs 7.6%; p < 0.01). Asymptomatic women experienced the same rates of stroke after either CEA (0.3% vs 0.3%; p = 0.051) or CAS (0.4% vs 0.5%; p = 0.09). Propensity-matched logistic regression revealed that symptomatic males vs females had lower odds of stroke after CEA (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.91) and CAS (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90). Asymptomatic men and women had similar odds of stroke after both CEA (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.14) and CAS (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest cohort study to date that demonstrates asymptomatic women undergoing CEA or CAS do not have a higher risk of perioperative stroke, death, or MI. Symptomatic men experience lower rates of stroke after CEA or CAS.

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.

Analysis of the ROADSTER pivotal and extended-access cohorts shows excellent 1-year durability of transcarotid stenting with dynamic flow reversal

OBJECTIVE

We report the 1-year outcomes of the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial. This trial introduced a novel transcarotid neuroprotection system (NPS), the ENROUTE transcarotid NPS (Silk Road Medical Inc, Sunnyvale, Calif). Postoperative results demonstrated that the use of the ENROUTE transcarotid NPS is safe and effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and to present the 1-year outcomes.

METHODS

This study is a prospective, single-arm clinical trial. Current enrollment occurs in 14 centers. Primary end points were incidence rates of ipsilateral stroke at 1 year after TCAR. Occurrence of stroke was ascertained by an independent Clinical Events Committee. Patients with anatomic or medical high-risk factors for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were eligible to be enrolled in the ROADSTER trial.

RESULTS

Overall, 165 patients were included in the long-term follow-up (112 of 141 patients from the pivotal phase and 53 of 78 patients from the extended access). Mean age was 73.9 years (range, 42.1-91.3 years). Patients aged 75 years and older were 43.3% of the cohort. The majority of patients were white (92.7%) and male (75.2%). Most patients were asymptomatic (79.9%). Anatomic risk factors were distributed as follows: contralateral carotid artery occlusion (11.0%), tandem stenosis of >70% (1.8%), high cervical carotid artery stenosis (25.0%), restenosis after CEA (25.6%), bilateral stenosis requiring treatment (4.3%), and hostile neck (14.6%). Medical high-risk criteria included two-vessel coronary artery disease (14.0%) and severe left ventricular dysfunction with ejection fraction <30% (1.8%). In general, 43.3% of patients had at least one anatomic high-risk factor, whereas 29.9% of patients had medical high-risk factors. Both subsets of factors were present simultaneously in 26.8% of the cohort. At 1-year follow-up, ipsilateral stroke incidence rate was 0.6%, and seven patients (4.2%) died. None of the deaths were neurologic in origin.

CONCLUSIONS

TCAR with dynamic flow reversal had previously shown favorable 30-day perioperative outcomes. This excellent performance seems to extend to 1 year after TCAR as illustrated in this analysis. The promising results from the ROADSTER trial likely stem from the novel cerebral protection provided through the ENROUTE transcarotid NPS in comparison to distal embolic protection devices as well as the transcarotid approach's circumventing diseased aortic arch manipulation and minimizing embolization. TCAR offers a safe and durable revascularization option for patients who are deemed to be at high risk for CEA.

Comparing Long-term Mortality After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Stenting Using a Novel Instrumental Variable Method for Risk Adjustment in Observational Time-to-Event Data

IMPORTANCE

Choosing between competing treatment options is difficult for patients and clinicians when results from randomized and observational studies are discordant. Observational real-world studies yield more generalizable evidence for decision making than randomized clinical trials, but unmeasured confounding, especially in time-to-event analyses, can limit validity.

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in real-world practice using a novel instrumental variable method designed for time-to-event outcomes, and to compare the results with traditional risk-adjustment models used in observational research for survival analyses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter cohort study was performed. The Vascular Quality Initiative, an observational quality improvement registry, was used to compare long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS. The study included 86 017 patients who underwent CEA (n = 73 312) or CAS (n = 12 705) between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016. Patients were followed up for long-term mortality assessment by linking the registry data to Medicare claims. Medicare claims data were available through September 31, 2015.

EXPOSURE

Procedure type (CEA vs CAS).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality using unadjusted, adjusted, propensity-matched, and instrumental variable methods were examined. The instrumental variable was the proportion of CEA among the total carotid procedures (endarterectomy and stenting) performed at each hospital in the 12 months before each patient's index operation and therefore varies over the study period.

RESULTS

Participants who underwent CEA had a mean (SD) age of 70.3 (9.4) years compared with 69.1 (10.4) years for CAS, and most were men (44 191 [60.4%] for CEA and 8117 [63.9%] for CAS). The observed 5-year mortality was 12.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-13.2%) for CEA and 17.0% (95% CI, 16.0%-18.1%) for CAS. The unadjusted HR of mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71), and Cox-adjusted and propensity-matched HRs were similar (0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74 and 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77, respectively). These findings are comparable with published observational studies of CEA vs CAS. However, the association between CEA and mortality was more modest when estimated by instrumental variable analysis (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98), a finding similar to data reported in randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study found a survival advantage associated with CEA over CAS in unadjusted and Cox-adjusted analyses. However, this finding was more modest when using an instrumental variable method designed for time-to-event outcomes for risk adjustment. The instrumental variable-based results were more similar to findings from randomized clinical trials, suggesting this method may provide less biased estimates of time-dependent outcomes in observational analyses.

A comparative analysis of long-term mortality after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting

BACKGROUND

The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of "real-world" outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort.

METHODS

We studied all patients who underwent CEA or CAS within the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2013 (CEA, n = 29,235; CAS, n = 4415). Long-term mortality information was obtained by linking patients in the registry to their respective Medicare claims file. We assessed the long-term rate of mortality for CEA and CAS using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We assessed the crude, adjusted, and propensity-matched (total matched pairs, n = 4261) hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for CEA vs CAS using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year mortality was 14.0% for CEA and 18.3% for CAS. The crude HR of all-cause mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.81), indicating that patients who underwent CEA were 25% less likely to die before those who underwent CAS. This survival advantage persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). This effect was confirmed on a propensity-matched analysis, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Finally, these findings were robust to subanalyses that stratified patients by presenting symptoms and were more pronounced in symptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) than in asymptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

During the last 15 years, patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative have a long-term survival advantage over those who underwent CAS in real-world practice. Despite no difference in long-term survival in randomized trials, our observational study demonstrated a survival benefit for CEA that did not diminish with risk adjustment.

Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) can be used to prevent stroke due to arteriosclerotic lesions of the carotid artery. In Germany, legally mandated quality assurance (QA) enables the evaluation of outcome quality after CEA and CAS performed under routine conditions.

METHODS

We analyzed data on all elective CEA and CAS procedures performed over the periods 2009-2014 and 2012-2014, respectively. The endpoints of the study were the combined in-hospital stroke and death rate, stroke rate and mortality separately, local complications, and other complications. We analyzed the raw data with descriptive statistics and carried out a risk-adjusted analysis of the association of clinically unalterable variables with the risk of stroke and death. All analyses were performed separately for CEA and CAS.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 142 074 CEA procedures (67.8% of them in men) and 13 086 CAS procedures (69.7% in men). The median age was 72 years (CEA) and 71 years (CAS). The periprocedural rate of stroke and death after CEA was 1.4% for asymptomatic and 2.5% for symptomatic stenoses; the corresponding rates for CAS were 1.7% and 3.7%. Variables associated with increased risk included older age, higher ASA class (ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists), symptomatic vs. asymptomatic stenosis, 50-69% stenosis, and contralateral carotid occlusion (for CEA only).

CONCLUSION

These data reveal a low periprocedural rate of stroke or death for both CEA and CAS. This study does however not permit any conclusions as to the superiority or inferiority of CEA and CAS.

An institutional study of time delays for symptomatic carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess time delays between first cerebrovascular symptoms and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at a single center and to systematically evaluate causes of these delays.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients who underwent CEAs between January 2010 and September 2011 at a single university-affiliated center (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université Montréal-Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Montreal) were identified from a clinical database and operative records. Covariates of interest were extracted from electronic medical records. Timing and nature of the first cerebrovascular symptoms were also documented. The first medical contact and pathway of referral were also assessed. When possible, the ABCD² score (age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, and diabetes) was calculated to calculate further risk of stroke. The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences in time intervals between two variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in time intervals in comparing more than two variables. A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed using covariates that were determined to be statistically significant in our sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 111 patients with documented symptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing surgical intervention. Thirty-nine percent of all patients were operated on within 2 weeks from the first cerebrovascular symptoms. The median time between the occurrence of the first neurologic symptom and the CEA procedure was 25 (interquartile range [IQR], 11-85) days. The patient-dependent delay, defined as the median delay between the first neurologic symptom and the first medical contact, was 1 (IQR, 0-14) day. The medical-dependent delay was defined as the time interval between the first medical contact and CEA. This included the delay between the first medical contact and the request for surgery consultation (median, 3 [IQR, 1-10] days). The multivariate regression model demonstrated that the emergency physician as referral source (P = .0002) was statistically significant for reducing CEA delay. Patients who were investigated as an outpatient (P = .02), first medical contact with a general practitioner (P = .0002), and hospital center I as referral center (P = .045) were also found to be statistically significant to extend CEA delay when the model was adjusted over all covariates. In this center, there was no correlation between ABCD² risk score and waiting time for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of our cohort falls short of the recommended 2-week interval to perform CEA. Factors contributing to reduced CEA delay were presentation to an emergency department, in-patient investigations, and a stroke center where a vascular surgeon is available.

Optimal contemporary management of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis

This commentary addresses the issue of optimal contemporary management of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Based on current data, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should be performed in the majority of patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) should be reserved for a minority of these symptomatic patients, in whom CEA is contraindicated. In asymptomatic patients, all should be placed on best medical treatment (BMT). With the use of one or more of the proposed stroke risk stratification models or some as yet undetermined method, the identification of those asymptomatic individuals may be possible in whom stroke risk is higher than usual with BMT. This asymptomatic subgroup, which may be small and is yet to be determined with certainty, could be offered an invasive carotid procedure (either CAS or CEA).

Predictors of 30-day postoperative stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy using the 2012 carotid endarterectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

OBJECTIVE

This study used a recently released procedure-targeted multicenter data source to determine independent predictors of postoperative stroke or death in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

The 2012 CEA-targeted American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was used for this study. Patient, disease, and procedure characteristics of patients undergoing CEA were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent risk factors for 30-day postoperative stroke/death or other major complications.

RESULTS

The analysis included 3845 patients undergoing CEA (58.1% with asymptomatic and 41.9% with symptomatic carotid disease). The overall 30-day postoperative stroke/death rate was 3.0% (1.9% in asymptomatic patients, 4.6% in symptomatic patients). The variables that maintained an independent association with postoperative stroke/death after adjustment for other known patient-related and procedure-related factors were age ≥80 years, active smoking, contralateral internal carotid artery stenosis of 80% to 99%, emergency procedure status, preoperative stroke, presence of one or more ACS NSQIP-defined high-risk characteristics (including any or all of New York Heart Association class III/IV congestive heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, recent unstable angina, or recent myocardial infarction), and operative time ≥150 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for a comprehensive array of patient-related and procedure-related variables of particular import to patients with carotid artery stenosis, we have identified several factors that are independently associated with early stroke or death after CEA. These factors are generally related to the comorbid condition of CEA patients and to specific characteristics of their carotid disease, and not to technical features of the CEA procedure. Knowledge of these factors will assist surgeons in selecting appropriate patients for this procedure.

Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in comparable medical risk patients

OBJECTIVE

In medically high-risk patients the choice between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be difficult. The purpose of this study was to compare risk-stratified outcomes of CAS and CEA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent isolated primary CEA (n = 11,336) or primary CAS (n = 544) at 29 centers in the Vascular Study Group of New England were analyzed (2003-2013); patients with previous ipsilateral CEA or CAS, or concomitant coronary artery bypass graft were excluded. A medical risk score based on predicted 5-year mortality was developed for each patient using a Cox proportional hazards model. Patients in the highest risk score quartile were termed high-risk (vs normal-risk for the other three quartiles). Medically high-risk patients had a 5-year survival of 65% and comprised 23% of CEA and 25% of CAS patients. Risk-stratified outcomes were compared within neurologically symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Among asymptomatic patients, rates of in-hospital stroke and/or death were not different between CAS and CEA in normal and high-risk cohorts, ranging from 0.7% in normal-risk CEA patients to 1.6% in high-risk CAS patients. In symptomatic patients, significantly worse outcomes were seen with CAS compared with CEA in normal-risk and high-risk patients. Normal-risk symptomatic patients had a stroke or death rate of 1.3% with CEA, but 5.2% with CAS (P < .01). In high-risk symptomatic patients, the stroke or death rate was 1.5% with CEA and 9.3% with CAS (P < .01). No significant differences were seen between asymptomatic CEA and CAS within risk strata across secondary outcome measures of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction, and ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, or death. However, symptomatic high-risk CAS patients had significantly greater rates of all secondary outcomes compared with CEA except death, and symptomatic normal-risk CAS patients had only significantly greater rates of death and stroke, death, or myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Vascular Study Group of New England, asymptomatic normal- and high-risk patients do equally well after CEA or CAS. However, normal- and high-risk symptomatic patients have substantially worse outcomes with CAS compared with CEA. High medical risk alone might be an insufficient indication for CAS in symptomatic patients.

Frequency of acute changes found on head computed tomographies in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The frequency of positive findings on computed tomography (CT) of the head in critically ill patients who develop neurologic dysfunction is not known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cohort study of head CTs for patients admitted to 3 intensive care units from 2005 to 2010. We documented the frequency of acute changes for all head CTs and for the subgroup of patients with altered mental status (AMS). We also examined associations between patient characteristics or medications administered before head CT and the odds of an acute change on head CT using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

During 11 338 intensive care unit admissions, there were 901 eligible head CTs on 706 patients (6% of patients). Among head CTs, 155 (17.2%) assessed concern of new focal deficit, 99 (11.0%) concern for a seizure, and 635 (70.5%) for AMS. Acute changes were found on 109 (12.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0%-14.2%) of all head CTs, and 30% (22.4%-36.9%) of patients with focal deficits, 16.2% (8.8%-23.5%) of patients with seizures but only 7.4% (5.4%-9.4%) for patients with AMS. A diagnosis of sepsis was associated with a decreased odds of an acute change on head CT for all head CTs (odds ratio 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.95; P = .028) but was not significantly associated with a decreased risk among the cohort of head CTs for AMS (odds ratio 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62; P = .56). No other factors were associated with an altered risk of acute change on head CT for all patients in our cohort or for those with AMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute changes on head CTs performed for concern regarding new focal neurologic deficit or seizures are frequent compared with those performed for AMS with a nonfocal examination. No specific patient characteristics or medications were associated with a large change in the likelihood of finding an acute change for patients with AMS.

US nationwide trends in carotid revascularization: hospital outcome and predictors of outcome from 1998 to 2007

OBJECTIVES

The goals of the study were to assess US nationwide trends in hospital outcome following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and to determine potential predictors of outcome.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample, constituting a 20% representative and stratified sample of non-federal US hospitals, was analyzed retrospectively from years 1998 to 2007.

RESULTS

The annual number of CEA decreased (137,877-111,658) and increased for CAS (2318-14,415). Inhospital mortality following CEA decreased from 0.4% to 0.3% (P < 0.001), whereas long-term facility (LTF) discharge increased from 8.2% to 10.5% (P < 0.001). Discharge outcome improved for CAS in both categories (mortality 2-0.5%; LTF discharge 10.7-8.3%; both P < 0.001). The trend analysis revealed an increase in patient age and a worsening comorbid profile over time. Age, women, length of stay, atrial fibrillation, and carotid stenosis with infarction were important determinants of unfavorable hospital outcome.

CONCLUSION

From a nationwide practice perspective, the number of carotid revascularizations fell by 10%. CEA has resulted in stable hospital mortality rates. Meanwhile, CAS has been increasingly utilized with overall improvement in short-term outcome. Our results further suggest a decrease in the number of patients with treatment-eligible carotid disease over time. However, the increasing prevalence of high-risk comorbidity in the aging population may pose a challenge to revascularization strategies.

US nationwide trends in carotid revascularization: is there a clinical opportunity cost associated with the introduction of novel medical devices?

OBJECTIVES

Nationwide practice patterns during the implementation of novel technology, such as carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and embolic protection devices (EPD), and the clinical impact thereof have received less attention.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample, constituting a 20% representative sample of non-federal US hospitals, was analyzed from years 1998 to 2007. Hospital outcome was stratified into in-hospital mortality (IHM), long-term facility discharge, and home/ short-term facility discharge (HSF).

RESULTS

Discharge outcome improved for CAS over the decade. However, this improvement occurred in two phases with a period of worsening (2003-2005) in between. During this transition period, the risk of IHM following CAS was increased (RR 1.29-2.43) and was lower for good outcome (HSF: RR 0.97-0.99) when compared with 2002/2003. During the same transition period, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was associated with a lower risk of IHM (RR 0.75-1.00), but also a lower risk of HSF (RR 0.98-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The results lead to the hypothesis that the nationwide introduction of CAS-EPD may have been associated with temporary increases in in-hospital mortality and discharge morbidity. If such 'clinical opportunity costs' exist with the widespread introduction and adoption of new medical technology with proven efficacy in randomized trials, effective mechanisms are needed for mitigation or prevention during the transition period.

Recent trends in neuroendovascular therapy in Japan: analysis of a nationwide survey--Japanese Registry of Neuroendovascular Therapy (JR-NET) 1 and 2

The present study retrospectively analyzed the database of the Japanese Registry of Neuroendovascular Therapy 1 and 2 (JR-NET1&2) to determine annual trends, including adverse events and clinical outcomes at 30 days after undergoing neuroendovascular therapy. JR-NET1&2 are surveys that targeted all patients in Japan who underwent neuroendovascular therapy delivered by physicians certified by the Japanese Society of Neuroendovascular Therapy (JSNET) between 2005 and 2009. Medical information about the patients was anonymized and retrospectively registered via a website. Data from 32,608 patients were analyzed. The number of treated patients constantly increased from 5,040 in 2005 to 7,406 in 2009 and the rate of octogenarians increased from 7.0% in 2005 to 10.4% in 2009. The proportion of procedures remained relatively constant, but ratios of angioplasty slightly increased from 32.8% in 2005 to 33.7% in 2009. Procedural complications were associated more frequently with acute stroke (9.6%), ruptured aneurysms (7.4%), intracranial artery disease (ICAD) (5.4%), and arteriovenous malformation (AVM, 5.2%). The number of patients requiring neuroendovascular treatment in Japan is increasing and the outcomes of such therapy are clinically acceptable. Details of each type of treatment will be investigated in sub-analyses of the database.

Hispanic ethnicity is associated with increased costs after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in the United States

OBJECTIVE

We have previously demonstrated an adverse impact of black race and Hispanic ethnicity on the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). The current study was undertaken to examine the influence of race and ethnicity on the cost of CEA and CAS.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2005-2009) was queried using ICD-9 codes for CEA and CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis. The primary outcome was total hospital charges. Multivariate analysis was performed using a generalized linear model adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities (Charlson index), high-risk status, procedure type, symptomatic status, year, insurance type, and surgeon and hospital operative volumes and characteristics.

RESULTS

Hispanic and black patients were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation, and were more likely to undergo either CEA or CAS by low-volume surgeons at low-volume hospitals (P < 0.05, all). They were also less likely to have private insurance or Medicare (P < 0.001). Overall, CEA was less expensive than CAS over the 4-y study period ($29,502 ± $104 versus $46,713 ± $409, P < 0.001). Total hospital charges after CEA were increased in both blacks ($39,562 ± $843) and Hispanics ($45,325 ± $735) compared with whites on univariate analysis ($28,403 ± $101, P < 0.001). After CAS, total hospital charges were similarly increased in both blacks ($51,770 ± $2085) and Hispanics ($63,637 ± $2766) compared with whites on univariate analysis ($45,550 ± $412, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, however, only Hispanic ethnicity remained independently associated with increased charges after both CEA (exponentiated coefficient 1.18; 95% CI [1.15-1.20]; P < 0.001) and CAS (exponentiated coefficient 1.17; 95% CI [1.09-1.24]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hispanic ethnicity was independently associated with increased hospital charges after both CEA and CAS. The increased charges seen in black patients were explained, in part, by decreased surgeon operative volume and increased postoperative complications. Further efforts are warranted to contain costs in minorities undergoing carotid revascularization.

The impact of the present on admission indicator on the accuracy of administrative data for carotid endarterectomy and stenting

BACKGROUND

Administrative data are often hampered by coding errors, absent data, and the difficulty of distinguishing pre-existing conditions from perioperative complications. We evaluated whether the introduction of the present on admission (POA) indicator improved outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) using administrative data.

METHODS

State inpatient databases from California (2005-2008), New York (2008), and New Jersey (2008) were used to identify patients undergoing CAS and CEA. We first analyzed morbidity data without the POA indicator, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision complication codes (eg, 997.02, iatrogenic cerebrovascular infarction or hemorrhage, postoperative stroke) and diagnosis codes (eg, 433.11, occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery with cerebral infarction). Then, we applied the POA indicator to both diagnosis and complication codes and calculated the proportion of events that were labeled POA. Symptom status and perioperative stroke rate were compared using these coding approaches.

RESULTS

We identified 21,639 patients who underwent CEA and 3688 patients who underwent CAS. Without the POA indicator, the complication code for stroke indicated a postoperative stroke rate of 1.4% for CEA and 2.4% for CAS. After applying the POA indicator, 54% (CEA) and 62% (CAS) of these strokes were labeled POA. These POA strokes were either preoperative or intraoperative events. Proportion of symptomatic patients ranged from 7% to 16% for CEA and from 5% to 22% for CAS. Perioperative stroke rate was the lowest in the POA method (1.1% CEA, 1.8% CAS) compared with two other methods without POA information (1.4% and 9.5% CEA and 2.4% and 16.4% CAS). Kappa indicated a poor (0.2) to fair (0.7) agreement between these approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data has known limitations for assignment of symptom status and nonfatal perioperative outcomes. Given the uncertain timing of POA events as preoperative vs intraoperative and its apparent underestimation of the perioperative stroke rate, the use of administrative data even with the POA indicator for symptom status and non-fatal outcomes after CEA and CAS is hazardous.

The current national criteria for carotid artery stenting overestimate its efficacy in patients who are symptomatic and at high risk

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have established guidelines that outline patients who are considered "high risk" for complications after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for which carotid artery stenting (CAS) may provide benefit. The validity of these high-risk criteria are yet unproven. In this study, we stratified patients who underwent CAS or CEA by CMS high-risk criteria and symptom status and examined their 30-day outcomes.

METHODS

A nonrandomized, retrospective cohort study was performed by chart review of all patients undergoing CEA or CAS from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010, at our institution. Demographic data and data pertaining to the presence or absence of high-risk factors were collected. Patients were stratified using symptom status and high-risk status as variables, and 30-day adverse events (stroke, death, myocardial infarction [MI]) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients underwent CAS, with 30-day complication rates of stroke (3.0%), death (1.1%), MI (1.5%), stroke/death (3.7%), and stroke/death/MI (5.2%). A total of 830 patients underwent CEA with 30-day complication rates of stroke (2.0%), death (0.1%), MI (0.6%), stroke/death (1.9%), and stroke/death/MI (2.7%). Among symptomatic patients, physiologic high-risk status was associated with increased stroke/death (6 of 42 [14.3%] vs 2 of 74 [2.7%]; P < .01), and anatomic high-risk status was associated with a trend toward increased stroke/death (5 of 31 [16.1%] vs 0 of 20 [0.0%]; P = .14) in patients who underwent CAS vs CEA. Analysis of asymptomatic patients showed no differences between the two groups overall, except for a trend toward a higher rate of MI after CAS than after CEA (3 of 71 [4.2%] vs 0 of 108 [0.0%]; P = .06) in those who were physiologically at high risk. Among symptomatic patients who underwent CAS, patients with physiologic and anatomic high-risk factors had a higher rate of stroke/death than non-high-risk patients (6 of 42 [14.3%] vs 0 of 24 [0.0%] and 5 of 31 [16.1%] vs 0 of 24 [0.0%], respectively; both P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologic high-risk status was associated with increased stroke/death, whereas anatomic high-risk status showed a trend toward increased stroke/death in symptomatic patients undergoing CAS compared with non-high-risk patients undergoing CAS or physiologically high-risk patients undergoing CEA. Our results suggest that the current national criteria for CAS overestimate its efficacy in patients who are symptomatic and at high risk.

Accuracy of administrative data versus clinical data to evaluate carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting

OBJECTIVE

Administrative data have been used to compare carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, there are limitations in defining symptom status, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk status, as well as complications. Therefore, we did a direct comparison between administrative data and physician chart review as well as between data collected for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and physician chart review for CEA and CAS.

METHODS

We performed an outcomes analysis on all CEA and CAS procedures from 2005 to 2011. We obtained International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes from hospital discharge records regarding symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke. We also obtained data on all CEA patients submitted to NSQIP over the same time period. One of the study authors (R.B.) then performed a chart review of the same patients to determine symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative strokes and the results were compared.

RESULTS

We identified 1342 patients who underwent CEA or CAS between 2005 and 2011 and 392 patients who underwent CEA that were submitted to NSQIP. Administrative data identified fewer symptomatic patients (17.0% vs 34.0%), physiologic high-risk patients (9.3% vs 23.0%), and anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs 15.2%). Although administrative data identified a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.9% vs 2.0%), this was due to the fact that these data identified eight false positive and nine false negative perioperative strokes. NSQIP data identified more symptomatic patients compared with chart review (44.1% vs 30.3%), fewer physiologic high-risk patients (13.0% vs 18.6%), fewer anatomic high-risk patients (0% vs 6.6%), and a similar proportion of perioperative strokes (1.5% vs 1.8%, only one false negative stroke and no false positives).

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data are unreliable for determining symptom status, high-risk status, and perioperative stroke and should not be used to analyze CEA and CAS. NSQIP data do not adequately identify high-risk patients, but do accurately identify perioperative strokes and to a lesser degree, symptom status.

United Kingdom carotid artery stent registry: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has evolved to treat carotid artery disease with the intention of prevent stroke. The British Society of Interventional Radiologists developed a voluntary registry to monitor the practice of this novel procedure. We present the data from the United Kingdom (UK) CAS registry for short and long-term outcomes for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease.

METHODS

The UK CAS registry collected data from 1998 to 2010 from 31 hospitals across the UK for 1,154 patients. All interventions were enrolled in the registry for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Initial entry forms were completed for each patient entered with data including indications, demographic data, CAS data (including stents and protection device details) and 30-day outcomes. Complications were documented. Follow-up data were collected at yearly intervals.

RESULTS

Nine hundred fifty-three (83 %) symptomatic and 201 (17 %) asymptomatic patients were enrolled into the registry. The 30-day all stroke and death rates for symptomatic patients were 5.5 and 2.2 % for those with asymptomatic disease. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.7 % for symptomatic and 0.6 % for asymptomatic patients. For symptomatic patients undergoing CAS, the 7-year all-cause mortality rate was 22.2 % and for asymptomatic patients 18.1 %. The 7-year all-cause mortality and disabling stroke rates were 25.3 and 19.4 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that outside of the tight constraints of a randomised trial, CAS provides effective prophylaxis against stroke and death.

The impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services high-risk criteria on outcome after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the SVS Vascular Registry

OBJECTIVE

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require high-risk (HR) criteria for carotid artery stenting (CAS) reimbursement. The impact of these criteria on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and CAS remains uncertain. Additionally, if these HR criteria are associated with more adverse events after CAS, then existing comparative effectiveness analysis of CEA vs CAS may be biased. We sought to elucidate this using data from the SVS Vascular Registry.

METHODS

We analyzed 10,107 patients undergoing CEA (6370) and CAS (3737), stratified by CMS HR criteria. The primary endpoint was composite death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]) at 30 days. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes using univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

CAS patients were more likely to have preoperative stroke (26% vs 21%) or transient ischemic attack (23% vs 19%) than CEA. Although age ≥ 80 years was similar, CAS patients were more likely to have all other HR criteria. For CEA, HR patients had higher MACEs than normal risk in both symptomatic (7.3% vs 4.6%; P < .01) and asymptomatic patients (5% vs 2.2%; P < .0001). For CAS, HR status was not associated with a significant increase in MACE for symptomatic (9.1% vs 6.2%; P = .24) or asymptomatic patients (5.4% vs 4.2%; P = .61). All CAS patients had MACE rates similar to HR CEA. After multivariable risk adjustment, CAS had higher rates than CEA for MACE (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5), death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), and stroke (OR, 1.3; 95% CI,1.0-1.7), whereas there was no difference in MI (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). Among CEA patients, age ≥ 80 (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.02-1.8), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.03-2.8), EF <30% (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7), angina (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6-9.9), contralateral occlusion (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.1-4.7), and high anatomic lesion (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.33-5.6) predicted MACE. Among CAS patients, recent MI (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-7.0) was predictive, and radiation (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and restenosis (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96) were protective for MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CMS HR criteria can successfully discriminate a group of patients at HR for adverse events after CEA, certain CMS HR criteria are more important than others. However, CEA appears safer for the majority of patients with carotid disease. Among patients undergoing CAS, non-HR status may be limited to restenosis and radiation.