Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Carotid Artery Stenting

C-Reactive Protein to Albumin Ratio as a Predictor of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy After Carotid Angiography

This study evaluated the role of the C-reactive protein (CRP)/albumin ratio (CAR) in estimating the probability of occurring contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after carotid artery angiography (CAAG). Patients (n = 410) who had CAAG for carotid artery stenosis (CAS) were included in this study. A spike in serum creatinine was used to define CIN within 72 h of the procedure (>.5 mg/dL or >25% above baseline). CAR was calculated by dividing the CRP by the albumin level. Patients with CIN had higher numbers of white blood cells (P = .002), numbers of neutrophils (P = .007), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (P = .026), high-sensitivity CRP levels (P < .001), and CAR levels (P < .001) than those without CIN. They were also older (P < .001) and more likely to have diabetes mellitus (P = .006) and hypertension (P = .016). According to receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, the CAR value has a 75% sensitivity and a 68% specificity for identifying CIN at a cutoff of 1.8. Also, NLR and CRP predicted CIN with 71% sensitivity and 67% specificity, 71% sensitivity and 66% specificity at the best cutoff values of 1.96 and 7.91, respectively. According the present study, in patients with CAS, the development of CIN after CAAG is independently correlated with CAR at admission.

Role of carotid duplex in the assessment of carotid artery restenosis after endarterectomy or stenting

Introduction

Redo carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are often performed when there is evidence of post-procedural restenosis. The incidence of restenosis after carotid reconstruction is not negligible, ranging from 5 to 33%. The diagnosis of significant internal carotid artery (ICA) restenosis is usually based on duplex ultrasound (US) criteria, mostly on peak-systolic flow velocity (PSV). However, there have been no generally accepted duplex US criteria for carotid restenosis after CAS or CEA.

Methods

In this systematic review, the PubMed/ Medline and Scopus databases were screened to find trials that reported duplex US criteria for significant restenosis after CEA and/or CAS. Only those reports were analyzed in which the restenoses were also assessed by CT/MR or digital subtraction angiography as comparators for duplex US.

Results

Fourteen studies met the predetermined search criteria and were included in this review. In most studies, PSV thresholds for significant in-stent ICA restenosis after CAS were higher than those for significant stenosis in non-procedurally treated (native) ICA. Many fewer studies investigated the US criteria for ICA restenosis after CEA. Despite the heterogeneous data, there is a consensus to use higher flow velocity thresholds for assessment of stenosis in stented ICA than in native ICA; however, there have been insufficient data about the flow velocity criteria for significant restenosis after CEA. Although the flow velocity thresholds for restenosis after CAS and CEA seem to be different, the large studies used the same duplex criteria to define restenosis after the two procedures. Moreover, different studies used different flow velocity thresholds to define ICA restenosis, leading to variable restenosis rates.

Discussion

We conclude that (1) further examinations are warranted to determine appropriate duplex US criteria for restenosis after CAS and CEA, (2) single duplex US parameter cannot be used to reliably determine the degree of ICA restenosis, (3) inappropriate US criteria used in large studies may have led to false restenosis rates, and (4) studies are required to determine if there is a benefit from redo carotid artery procedure, such as redo-CEA or redo-CAS, starting with prospective risk stratification studies using current best practice non-invasive care alone.

Evaluating postoperative outcomes in patients with hostile neck anatomy undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy is relatively contraindicated in patients with a hostile neck anatomy who were historically revascularized with transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). As transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has progressively replaced TFCAS, evidence pertaining to hostile neck anatomy and TCAR is necessary to establish its safety and feasibility in this subgroup of patients. Therefore, we analyzed the impact of a hostile neck anatomy on outcomes in patients undergoing TCAR and further compared them with those undergoing TFCAS to establish recommendations for standard of care.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TCAR and TFCAS from November 2016 to June 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative database were included. Patients were characterized into two groups based on the neck anatomy. Hostile neck anatomy was defined as a history of neck radiation or prior neck surgery including prior carotid endarterectomy or radical neck dissection. Primary outcomes included technical failure, access site complications (hematoma, stenosis, infection, pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula), and stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and a composite end point of stroke or TIA. Patients with nonatherosclerotic or multiple lesions were excluded from the analysis. Primary analysis was performed with all patients undergoing TCAR and outcomes between patients with hostile and nonhostile neck anatomy were compared. Further analysis included a comparison of patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR and TFCAS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess impact of hostile neck anatomy on postoperative outcomes. Results were adjusted for relevant potential confounders including age, gender, race, degree of stenosis, symptomatic status, comorbidities, preoperative medications, anesthesia type, and protamine use.

RESULTS

Among the 19,859 patients who underwent TCAR during the study period, 3636 (18.3%) had a hostile neck anatomy. On univariate analysis, both groups had comparable outcomes except for higher rates of stroke or death in patients with hostile neck anatomy. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no differences in technical failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.21; P = .699), stroke (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28; P = .464), death (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.71; P = .598), and MI (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = .518). However, patients with hostile neck were at a 30% increased risk of access site complications (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .023). Further adjusted analysis comparing the outcomes in TFCAS and TCAR among patients with hostile neck anatomy showed an almost four-fold increase in risk of death (aOR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.49-9.53; P = .005) and technical failure (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.82-7.47; P < .001) among patients undergoing treatment with TFCAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a hostile neck anatomy undergoing TCAR experienced an increased risk of access site complications; however, the risk for technical failure and postoperative stroke/death, stroke, TIA, MI, or death was similar among both groups. TFCAS was associated with significant increase in the risk of death and technical failure compared with TCAR in this group of patients. These results confirm that TCAR should be the preferred minimally invasive revascularization procedure for patients with hostile neck anatomy.

Increased Serum Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index is Independently Associated With Severity of Carotid Artery Stenosis

Stroke is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. The present study investigated how the systemic immune inflammation index (SII) could be used to predict the likelihood of developing carotid artery stenosis (CAS), which can be seen using carotid artery angiography (CAAG). This study comprised 418 individuals who underwent CAAG for CAS. SII was calculated by multiplying the platelet count by the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR). The patients were divided into two groups: non-critical and critical CAS (stenosis below %70 and above ≥70%, respectively). Compared with the non-critical CAS, the critical CAS group had greater high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (4.5 [3.1-5.7] vs 3.9 [2-5] [mg/L], P < .001), NLR (4.1 [2.9-7.5] vs 2.9 [1.8-3.7], P < .001), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (233 [110-297] vs 119 [96-197], P < .001), and SII (860 [608-2455] vs 604 [458-740], P < .001). Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve analysis demonstrated the best cutoff value of 672.3 for SII to predict the critical CAS with 71.2% sensitivity and 60.1% specificity. According to our study, an increase in SII is an independent predictor of the severity of CAS in patients undergoing CAAG.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Stenting in Patients with Isolated Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis or Post-Surgical Restenosis

The aim was to evaluate the outcome of stenting in patients with isolated distal internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis or post-surgical restenosis, as no data are currently available in the literature. Sixty-six patients (men, N = 53; median age: 66 [IQR, 61–73] years) with ≥50% distal ICA (re)stenosis were included in this single-center retrospective study. The narrowest part of the (re)stenosis was at least 20 mm from the bifurcation in all patients. Patients were divided into two etiological groups, atherosclerotic (AS, N = 40) and post-surgical restenotic (RES, N = 26). Postprocedural neurological events were observed in two patients (5%) in the AS group and in two patients (7.7%) in the RES group. The median follow-up time was 40 (IQR, 18–86) months. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group had an in-stent restenosis (ISR) ≥ 50%, but none in the RES group. Three patients (7.5%) in the AS group and seven patients (26.9%) in the RES group died. None of the deaths in the RES group were directly related to stenting itself. The early neurological complication rate of stenting due to distal ICA (re)stenoses is acceptable. However, the mid-term mortality rate of stenting for distal ICA post-surgical restenoses is high, indicating the vulnerability of this subgroup.

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

A Novel Predictor of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients With Carotid Artery Disease; the Systemic Immune Inflammation Index

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The present study investigated the role of systemic immune inflammation index (SII) in predicting the risk of developing CIN after carotid artery angiography (CAAG). This study included 262 patients who underwent CAAG for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS). Simultaneous carotid stenting was applied to 232 of these patients. CIN was defined as an increase in serum creatinine level ≥.5 mg/dL or ≥25% above baseline within 72 hours after the procedure. The SII score was calculated as platelet × neutrophil/lymphocyte counts. Patients who developed CIN, had higher glucose (P = .009), total cholesterol (P < .001), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (<.001), and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (P = .001) levels, as well as greater neutrophil counts (P < .001), platelet counts (P < .001), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (P < .001), and SII score (P < .001) than those who did not develop CIN. The Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis showed that at a cutoff of 519.9, the SII exhibited 80% sensitivity and 64% specificity for detecting CIN. SII levels on admission were independently associated with CIN development after CAAG in patients with CAS.

Repeat Revascularization over 10 Years Following Carotid Endarterectomy or Carotid Stent Placement: An Analysis of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial

OBJECTIVE

To identify rates of and factors associated with repeat revascularization in a large cohort of patients prospectively followed over 10 years in Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial.

METHODS

We compared the effect of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on risk of repeat revascularization after adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status, and initial severity of stenosis (≥70% vs. <70%) using Cox proportional hazards analysis. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess repeat revascularization-free survival for the overall cohort.

RESULTS

Repeat revascularization was performed in 90 (3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1%-4.8%) of 2318 patients; 6 (6.7%, 95% CI 2.5%-14.0%) patients experienced the composite end point of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days after repeat revascularization. There was no difference in risk of repeat revascularization in patients who underwent CAS (compared with CEA) as the index procedure (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.23, P = 0.5765). Patient's age (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, P < 0.0001) was associated with performance of repeat revascularization. Mean ± SD repeat revascularization-free survival was 8.2 ± 0.1 years and 8.0 ± 0.1 years for CAS and CEA, respectively (log-rank test P = 0.0823).

CONCLUSIONS

A low rate of repeat revascularization was seen without any significant difference among patients who underwent CEA or CAS over 10 years. The 6.7% rate of composite end point within 30 days after procedure highlights the need for standardizing the indications for repeat revascularization.

Carotid Artery Angioplasty and Stenting for Carotid Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia

Purpose

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the extracranial carotid artery accounts for approximately 20% of all strokes. Both carotid artery endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty with stenting (CAAS) are recommended for symptomatic patients with 50% or more stenosis or asymptomatic patients with 70% or more stenosis. CAAS is under-reported in Saudi Arabia, as evidenced by a thorough literature search. In this article, we aim to share our experience of CAAS to call for the necessity of conducting more research on stroke and emphasize the local need of utilizing more endovascular treatments like CAAS.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective single-center observational study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The inclusion criteria consisted of all adult patients (18 years and above) with carotid stenosis who were treated with CAAS.

Results

A total of 16 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 66.9±13.5 years (range 30–87 years). All patients were symptomatic (had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack). The procedure was successful in 14 patients (87.5%), while it failed in 2 patients (12.5%) due to technical reasons. All patients had no stroke or myocardial infarction within 30 days of the procedure.

Conclusion

Despite the advancement in medicine with free healthcare services in Saudi Arabia, the interventional procedures for secondary prevention of strokes are underutilized. Collaboration between different hospitals will be extremely helpful since few centers in each city are providing such treatments by an expert neurointerventionist and/or strokologist. The good selection of candidates, optimal management of comorbid conditions, and multidisciplinary care may improve outcomes and reduce mortality.

Propensity-Matched Comparison for Carotid Artery Stenting in Primary Stenosis Versus after Carotid Endarterectomy Restenosis

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been proposed as the treatment of choice in case of restenosis (RES) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The aim of this study was to analyze periprocedural results of CAS for the treatment of post-CEA RES compared with those of CAS performed for primary carotid stenosis (PRS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients submitted to CAS at our institution from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with in-stent RES were excluded. Initially, preoperative risk factors, demographics, intraoperative variables, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to the indication groups (PRS and RES). Then, propensity score matching was performed obtaining 2 homogeneous groups of patients. Covariates included were age, gender, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease, symptomatic carotid plaque, and positive ipsilateral brain computed tomography scan. Intraoperative data and perioperative outcomes were then compared between the 2 matched groups.

RESULTS

Of 480 included patients, 300 (62.5%) underwent CAS for PRS, and 180 (37.5%) for RES. After propensity score analysis (158 patients/group), no significant difference was observed in terms of technical success, number, and type of stent used, except for need of intraoperative atropine administration that was higher in the PRS group (38.6% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). In the perioperative period, composite neurologic event was significantly higher in the PRS group (7.6% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.017). Moreover, need of ionotropic support was higher in the PRS group (8.9% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.0069). Myocardial infarction rate and 30-day mortality were similar in both groups (P = 0.317; P = 1, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large single-center experience, CAS for post-CEA RES was associated with a significantly lower risk of any neurologic event and hemodynamic instability in the perioperative period compared with CAS performed for primary carotid lesions. Our results confirm that post-CEA RES may represent an elective indication for CAS.

Sex does not have an impact on perioperative transfemoral carotid artery stenting outcomes among octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been validated as an acceptable alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients at high risk for open surgery. There are variable sex- and age-based differences in transfemoral CAS outcomes of published randomized controlled trials. The aim of our study was to evaluate sex-based differences in perioperative outcomes after transfemoral CAS performed in octogenarians.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular module was queried for all patients ≥80 years of age who underwent transfemoral CAS between 2011 and 2017. Symptomatic status was defined as a history of prior ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of perioperative (30-day) stroke or death. Outcomes were compared for male vs female patients and stratified by symptomatic status using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for emergent status, symptomatic status, comorbidities, and use of an embolic protection device.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 143 patients ≥80 years of age who underwent transfemoral CAS during the study period, including 95 men (66.4%) and 48 women (33.6%). Race (white, 88.0% vs 85.4%), symptomatic status (30.9% vs 29.2%), and degree of stenosis (severe, 71.6% vs 62.5%) were not significantly different for men vs women (P ≥ .27). Periprocedural stroke/death occurred in six men (6.4%) vs two women (4.2%; P = .59) and did not significantly differ when stratified according to symptomatic (6.9% vs 7.1%; P = .98) and asymptomatic (6.2% vs 2.9%; P = .49) status. Based on multivariable analysis, independent factors associated with the composite end point included emergent vs elective status (adjusted odds ratio OR [aOR], 20.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-183) and failure to use an embolic protection device (aOR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.59-50.0). Sex was not significantly associated with the primary outcome after risk adjustment (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-3.28).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no sex-based differences in risk of perioperative stroke/death among patients ≥80 years of age undergoing transfemoral CAS. Our study validates previous studies showing a high rate of perioperative complications after transfemoral CAS in octogenarians and suggests that the decision to use this technology in older patients should be determined by patients' anatomic and medical risk factors irrespective of sex.

Predictors of midterm high-grade restenosis after carotid revascularization in a multicenter national database

BACKGROUND

Restenosis after carotid revascularization is clinically challenging. Several studies have looked into the management of recurrent restenosis; however, studies looking into factors associated with restenosis are limited. This study evaluated the predictors of restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using a large national database.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CEA or CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative data set (2003-2016) were analyzed. Patients with no follow-up (33%) and those who had prior ipsilateral CEA or CAS were excluded. Significant restenosis was defined as ≥70% diameter-reducing stenosis, target artery occlusion or peak systolic velocity ≥300 cm/s, or repeated revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and bootstrapped Cox regression models with stepwise forward and backward selection were used.

RESULTS

A total of 35,720 procedures were included (CEA, 31,329; CAS, 4391). No significant difference in restenosis rates was seen between CEA and CAS at 2 years (7.7% vs 9.4% [P = .09]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.25; P = .97). However, after adjustment for age, sex, and symptomatic status at the time of the index operation, CAS patients who had postoperative restenosis were more likely to have a symptomatic presentation (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .01) and to undergo repeated revascularization at 2 years (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4; P < .001) compared with patients who had restenosis after CEA. Predictors of restenosis after CAS included a common carotid artery lesion (HR, 1.65; 95% CI,1.06-2.57; P = .03), whereas age (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P = .03) and dilation after stent placement (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) were associated with decreased restenosis at 2 years. Predictors of restenosis after CEA included female sex (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.74; P < .001), prior neck irradiation (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.30; P < .001), and prior bypass surgery (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P = .04). On the other hand, factors associated with decreased restenosis after CEA included age (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001), black race (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89; P = .01), patching (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < .001), and completion imaging (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show no significant difference in restenosis rates at 2 years between CEA and CAS. Restenosis after CAS is more likely to be manifested with symptoms and to undergo repeated revascularization compared with that after CEA. Poststent ballooning after CAS and completion imaging and patching after CEA are associated with decreased hazard of restenosis; however, further research is needed to assess longer term outcomes and to balance the risks vs benefits of certain practices, such as poststent ballooning.

In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting

OBJECTIVE

Outcome studies using databases collecting only hospital discharge data underestimate morbidity and mortality because of failure to capture postdischarge events. The proportion of postdischarge major adverse events is well characterized in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) but has yet to be characterized after carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing CAS from 2011 to 2017 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted database to evaluate rates of 30-day major adverse events, stratified by in-hospital and postdischarge occurrences. The primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death. Multivariable analysis using purposeful selection was used to identify independent factors associated with in-hospital, postdischarge, and 30-day stroke/death events.

RESULTS

Of the 899 patients undergoing CAS, reporting of in-hospital outcomes alone would yield a stroke/death rate of 2.7%, substantially underestimating the 30-day stroke/death rate of 4.0%. In fact, 35% of stroke/deaths, 27% of strokes, 73% of deaths, 35% of cardiac events, and 35% of stroke/death/cardiac events occurred after discharge. More postdischarge stroke/death events occurred after treatment of symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients (47% vs 27%; P < .001). During this same study period, the 30-day stroke/death rate after CEA was 2.6%, with similar proportions of postdischarge strokes (28% vs 27%; P = .51) compared with CAS but lower proportions of postdischarge deaths (55% vs 73%; P < .001). After CAS, patients experiencing postdischarge stroke/death events had a shorter postoperative length of stay compared with patients with in-hospital stroke/death (1 [1-2] vs 5 [3-10] days; P < .001). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was independently associated with postdischarge stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-16; P = .02) after CAS. Nonwhite ethnicity was independently associated with overall 30-day stroke/death (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.4-7.9; P < .01), whereas statin use was associated with not having stroke/death within 30 days (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-quarter of perioperative strokes occur following discharge after both CAS and CEA. A higher proportion of postdischarge deaths occur after CAS in symptomatic patients, which may reflect treatment of a population of higher risk patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of postdischarge stroke to develop methods to reduce these complications.

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.