Patient preference survey in the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease.

RESULTS

Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

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

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

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

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

National Patterns of Carotid Revascularization Before and After the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST)

Importance

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) showed greater safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients younger than 70 years and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in those older than 70 years. It is unknown how the result of CREST has influenced carotid revascularization choices in the United States.

Objective

To evaluate national patterns in CAS performance in patients older than 70 years in the post-CREST (2011-2014) compared with the pre-CREST (2007-2010) era.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All adults older than 70 years undergoing carotid revascularization in the United States from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively identified from the 2007-2014 National Inpatient Sample using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision procedural codes. From 61 324 882 unweighted hospitalizations contained in the 2007-2014 National Inpatient Sample, 494 733 weighted carotid revascularization admissions in adults older than 70 years were identified using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision procedural codes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of CAS performed in all age groups over time was estimated and multivariable-adjusted models were used to compare the odds of receiving CAS in the pre-CREST with those in the post-CREST era in adults older than 70 years.

Results

A total of 41.8% of all patients were women, and mean (SE) age at presentation was 78.1 (0.03) years. A total of 16.3% of CAS and 10.1% of CEA procedures were performed in patients with symptomatic stenosis. The proportion of patients older than 70 years receiving CAS increased from 11.9% in the pre-CREST to 13.8% in the post-CREST era (P = .005). In multivariable models, the odds of receiving CAS increased by 13% in all patients older than 70 years in the post-CREST compared with the pre-CREST period (odds ratio [OR], 1.13, 95% CI, 1.00-1.28, P = .04), including symptomatic women (OR, 1.31, 1.05-1.65, P = .02). Symptomatic stenosis (OR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52; P < .001), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.35-1.63; P < .001), and peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.27-1.43; P < .001) were associated with higher odds of CAS; comorbid hypertension (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74; P < .001), smoking (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91; P < .001), and weekend admission (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88; P < .001) were negatively associated with the odds of CAS.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite concerns for higher periprocedural complications with CAS in elderly patients, the odds of CAS increased in the post-CREST compared with pre-CREST era in patients older than 70 years, including symptomatic women.

Comparison of Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes of Concurrent Carotid Artery Revascularization and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: The United States Experience 2004 to 2012

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare trends and outcomes of 3 approaches to carotid revascularization in the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) population when performed during the same hospitalization.

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to managing coexisting severe carotid and coronary disease remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are used to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with carotid disease undergoing CABG surgery.

METHODS

The authors conducted a serial, cross-sectional study with time trends of 3 revascularization groups during the same hospital admission: 1) combined CEA+CABG; 2) staged CEA+CABG; and 3) staged CAS+CABG from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 2004 to 2012. The primary composite endpoints were in-hospital all-cause death, stroke, and death/stroke.

RESULTS

During the 9-year period, 22,501 concurrent carotid revascularizations and CABG surgeries during the same hospitalization were performed. Of these, 15,402 (68.4%) underwent combined CEA+CABG, 6,297 (28.0%) underwent staged CEA+CABG, and 802 (3.6%) underwent staged CAS+CABG. The overall rate of CEA+CABG decreased by 16.1% (p_trend = 0.03) from 2004 to 2012, whereas the rate of CAS+CABG did not significantly change during these years (p_trend = 0.10). The adjusted risk of death was greater, whereas risk of stroke was lower with both combined CEA+CABG (death odds ratio [OR]: 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 3.97; p = 0.03; stroke OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.06) and staged CEA+CABG (death OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.43 to 4.05; p = 0.001; stroke OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.80; p = 0.004) approaches compared with CAS+CABG. The adjusted risk of death or stroke was similar in the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with concomitant carotid and coronary disease undergoing combined revascularization, combined CEA+CABG is utilized most frequently, followed by staged CEA+CABG and staged CAS+CABG strategies. The staged CAS+CABG strategy was associated with lower risk of mortality, but higher risk of stroke. Future studies are needed to examine the risks/benefits of different carotid revascularization strategies for high-risk patients requiring concurrent CABG.

The Association of Publication of Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services Guidelines for Carotid Artery Angioplasty and Stenting (CAS) and CREST Results on the Utilization of CAS in Carotid Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Since the 2004 approval of carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS), there have been 2 seminal publications about CAS reimbursement (Center for Medicaid and Medicare Several guidelines [CMSG]; 2008) and clinical outcomes (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial [CREST]; 2010). We explored trends in CAS utilization after these publications nationally.

METHODS

The most recent datasets of the nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) was queried for patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Utilization proportions of CAS were calculated quarterly from 2005 to 2011 for NIS. Three-time intervals related to CMSG and CREST publication were selected 2005-2008, 2008-2010, and after 2010. Logistic regression with piecewise linear trend for time was used to estimate different trends in CAS utilization for overall samples and for neurologically asymptomatic and symptomatic cases.

RESULTS

The majority (95%) of the carotid revascularizations were performed on asymptomatic patients. Overall, CAS utilization constituted 12.5% of carotid revascularization procedures with a significant period increase of CAS; from 9.4% to 14%; P < 0.001. There was a small but significant decrease in the rate of CAS utilization after CMSG were published corresponding to a 2% decline in the odds ratio (OR) of CAS per quarter (OR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-0.99; P = 0.001). After CREST, CAS utilization continued to increase in both NIS but the rate of increase did not change significantly from the prepublication to the postpublication time interval. The odds of in-hospital mortality and postoperative stroke were independently and significantly higher for CAS patients in both overall and within the symptomatic cohorts. In all 3 periods of the study, and compared to carotid endarterectomy, the odds of mortality and postoperative stroke were significantly higher among patients who underwent CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall utilization of CAS increased since 2005, it was not uniformly associated by the publication of CMSG or CREST. Despite increased utilization, the odds of adverse outcomes were independently higher among CAS patients.

Impact of risk scoring on decision-making in symptomatic moderate carotid atherosclerosis

Background

Benefit from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic moderate (50–69 per cent) carotid stenosis remains marginal. The Fourth National Clinical Guideline for Stroke recommends use of the risk score from the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) to aid decision-making in symptomatic carotid disease. It is not known whether clinicians are, in fact, influenced by it.

Methods

Using the ECST risk prediction model, three scenarios of patients with a low (less than 10 per cent), moderate (20–25 per cent) and high (40–45 per cent) 5-year risk of stroke were devised and validated. Invitations to complete an online survey were sent by e-mail to vascular surgeons and stroke physicians, with responses gathered. The questionnaire was then repeated with the addition of the ECST risk score.

Results

Two hundred and one completed surveys were analysed (21·5 per cent response rate): 107 by stroke physicians and 94 by vascular surgeons. The high-risk scenario after the introduction of the ECST risk score showed an increased use of CEA (66·7 versus 80·1 per cent; P = 0·009). The low-risk scenario after risk score analysis demonstrated a swing towards best medical therapy (23·4 versus 57·2 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). CEA was preferred in the moderate-risk scenario and this was not altered significantly by introduction of the risk score (71·6 versus 75·6 per cent; P = 0·609). Vascular surgeons exhibited a preference towards CEA compared with stroke physicians in both low- and moderate-risk scenarios (P &lt; 0·001 and P = 0·003 respectively).

Conclusion

The addition of a risk score appeared to influence clinicians in their decision-making towards CEA in high-risk patients and towards best medical therapy in low-risk patients.