Article

Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Registry evaluation of comparative effectiveness of carotid revascularization procedures stratified by Medicare age

Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo., USA.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter (Impact Factor: 2.98). 03/2012; 55(5):1313-20; discussion 1321. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.11.128
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent randomized controlled trials have shown that age significantly affects the outcome of carotid revascularization procedures. This study used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry (VR) to report the influence of age on the comparative effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).
VR collects provider-reported data on patients using a Web-based database. Patients were stratified by age and symptoms. The primary end point was the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days.
As of December 7, 2010, there were 1347 CEA and 861 CAS patients aged < 65 years and 4169 CEA and 2536 CAS patients aged ≥ 65 years. CAS patients in both age groups were more likely to have a disease etiology of radiation or restenosis, be symptomatic, and have more cardiac comorbidities. In patients aged <65 years, the primary end point (5.23% CAS vs 3.56% CEA; P = .065) did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analyses showed that CAS had a higher combined death/stroke/MI rate (4.44% vs 2.10%; P < .031) in asymptomatic patients but there was no difference in the symptomatic (6.00% vs 5.47%; P = .79) group. In patients aged ≥ 65 years, CEA had lower rates of death (0.91% vs 1.97%; P < .01), stroke (2.52% vs 4.89%; P < .01), and composite death/stroke/MI (4.27% vs 7.14%; P < .01). CEA in patients aged ≥ 65 years was associated with lower rates of the primary end point in symptomatic (5.27% vs 9.52%; P < .01) and asymptomatic (3.31% vs 5.27%; P < .01) subgroups. After risk adjustment, CAS patients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to reach the primary end point.
Compared with CEA, CAS resulted in inferior 30-day outcomes in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients aged ≥ 65 years. These findings do not support the widespread use of CAS in patients aged ≥ 65 years.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. Results There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. Conclusions In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 03/2014; 59(3):742–748. DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.09.036 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We provide an assessment of clinical, angiographic, and procedure related risk factors associated with stroke and/or death in patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement which will assist in patient stratification and identification of high-stent risk patients.
    Journal of vascular and interventional neurology 05/2014; 7(1):11-20.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Data on the influence of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are conflicting and are absent for carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study evaluated the influence of CCO on CEA and CAS. Methods We evaluated patients with and without CCO in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry. Primary outcome was a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and its individual components. Further analysis was done to identify the influence, if any, of symptom status on outcomes. Results There were 1128 CAS and 666 CEA patients with CCO. CAS patients were more often symptomatic with a greater incidence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and New York Heart Association class >III. Absolute risk of periprocedural MACE (2.7% for CAS vs 4.2% for CEA), death (1.1% for CAS vs 0.7% for CEA), stroke (2.1% for CAS vs 3.1% for CEA), and MI (0.3% for CAS vs 0.6% for CEA) was statistically equivalent for both. This equivalence was maintained when patients with CCO were segregated according to symptom status and after adjusting for periprocedural risk. There were 16,646 patients without contralateral occlusion (5698 CAS; 10,948 CEA). Patients without contralateral occlusion with CEA have better outcomes in periprocedural MACE (1.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 4.2% for patients with CCO), and stroke (1.1% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 3.1% for patients with CCO) (P < .0001 for both). In CAS patients, CCO did not significantly affect periprocedural MACE (3.2% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 2.7% for patients with CCO), death (0.8% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 1.0% for patients with CCO), stroke (2.3% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 2.1% for patients with CCO), or MI (0.6% for patients without contralateral occlusion vs 0.3% for patients with CCO). In CEA patients, CCO increased MACE, primarily by increasing stroke rates in asymptomatic (0.7% vs 2.0%; P = .0095) and symptomatic (1.7% vs 4.9%; P = .0012) patients. Conclusions Although CEA is preferred in patients without contralateral occlusion, regardless of symptom status, based on lower rates of periprocedural MACE, death, and stroke, the benefit of CEA is lost in patients with CCO because of increased stroke rates in CCO patients after CEA but not after CAS regardless of symptom status. The results of CAS and CEA in patients with CCO are equivalent and within acceptable American Heart Association guidelines.
    Journal of Vascular Surgery 10/2014; 60(4):958–965.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.036 · 2.98 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
17 Downloads
Available from
Jun 11, 2014