Carotid artery stenting has increased rates of postprocedure stroke, death, and resource utilization than does carotid endarterectomy in the United States, 2005
ABSTRACT Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the procedure of choice for treatment of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. The role of carotid artery stenting (CAS) in this patient group is still being defined. Prior single and multicenter studies have demonstrated economic savings associated with CEA compared with CAS. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and resource utilization associated with these two procedures at the national level in 2005, the first year in which a specific ICD-9 procedure code for CAS was available.
All patient discharges for carotid revascularization for the year 2005 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample based on ICD9-CM procedure codes for CEA (38.12) and CAS (00.63). The primary outcome measures of interest were in-hospital mortality and postoperative stroke; secondary outcome measures included total hospital charges and length of stay (LOS). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.1 (Cary, NC), and data are weighted according to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) design to draw national estimates. Univariate analyses of categorical variables were performed using Rao-Scott chi(2), and continuous variables were analyzed by survey weighted analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of postoperative stroke and mortality.
During 2005, an estimated 135,701 patients underwent either CEA or CAS nationally. Overall, 91% of patients underwent CEA. The mean age overall was 71 years. Postoperative stroke rates were increased for CAS compared with CEA (1.8% vs 1.1%, P < .05), odds ratio (OR) 1.7; (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.3). Overall, mortality rates were higher for CAS compared with CEA (1.1% vs 0.57%, P < .05) this difference was substantially increased in regard to patients with symptomatic disease (4.6% vs 1.4%, P < .05). By logistic regression, CAS trended toward increased mortality, OR 1.5; (95% CI .96-2.5). Overall, the median total hospital charges for patients that underwent CAS were significantly greater than those that underwent CEA ($30,396 vs $17,658 P < .05).
Based on a large representative sample during the year 2005, CEA was performed with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke rates, and lower median total hospital charges than CAS in US hospitals. As the role for CAS becomes defined for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis, clinical as well as economic outcomes must be continually evaluated.
SourceAvailable from: Ross Naylor[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite level I evidence supporting a role for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of patients with asymptomatic carotid disease, there is surprisingly little international consensus regarding the optimal way to manage these patients. Review of current strategies for managing asymptomatic carotid disease MAIN FINDINGS: Those favouring a pro-interventional approach argue that: (i) until new randomised trials demonstrate that best medical therapy (BMT) is better than CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in preventing stroke, guidelines of practice should remain unchanged; (ii) strokes secondary to carotid thromboembolism harboured a potentially treatable asymptomatic lesion prior to the event. Because 80% of strokes are not preceded by a TIA/minor stroke, CEA/CAS is the only way of preventing these strokes; (iii) screening for carotid disease could identify patients with significant asymptomatic stenoses who could undergo prophylactic CEA/CAS in order to prevent avoidable stroke; (iv) international guidelines already advise that only 'highly-selected' patients should undergo CEA/CAS; (v) the 30-day risks of death/stroke after CEA/CAS are diminishing and this will increase long-term stroke prevention and (vi) the alleged decline in annualized stroke rates in medically treated patients is based upon flawed data. The inescapable conclusion is that only a relatively small proportion of asymptomatic patients benefit from prophylactic CEA/CAS. The key question, therefore, remains; is society prepared to invest sufficient resources in identifying these 'high risk for stroke' patients so that they can benefit from aggressive BMT and CEA or CAS, leaving the majority of lower risk patients to be treated medically? Copyright © 2014 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The surgeon: journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland 10/2014; 13(1). DOI:10.1016/j.surge.2014.08.004 · 2.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective This study compared in-hospital mortality and resource utilization among vascular surgical patients at safety net public hospitals (SNPHs) with those at nonsafety net public hospitals (nSNPHs). Methods The National Inpatient Sample (2003-2011) was queried to identify surgical patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), carotid stenosis, or nonruptured abdominal aorta aneurysm based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic and procedure codes. The cohort was then divided into SNPH and nSNPH groups according to the definition of SNPH used by the National Association of Public Hospitals. Clinical characteristics, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and hospital charges were compared between groups. Advanced PAD was defined as that associated with rest pain or tissue loss. Statistical methods included bivariate χ2 tests for categoric variables, t-tests for continuous variables, and multivariable linear and logistic regression to adjust for confounding variables (in-hospital mortality). Results We identified 306,438 patients operated on for PAD, carotid stenosis, and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Patients at SNPHs were younger, the percentage of female and minority patients was higher, and patients had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (P < .001). Nonelective admissions were more common among SNPH patients who presented with more advanced PAD (P > .05) and symptomatic carotid stenosis (P < .05). Patients at SNPHs had a significantly longer length of stay, higher hospital charges, and higher in-hospital mortality (P < .05 for all variables). Crude odds of mortality at SNPHs were 1.28 higher than at nSNPHs (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.46; P < .001), but adjusted analyses revealed no statistically significant difference between the odds of in-hospital mortality at both hospital groups. Conclusions Patients undergoing vascular surgery at SNPHs, despite being younger, had higher comorbidities, presented more urgently with more advanced disease, and incurred higher costs than the SNPH cohort despite similar adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality. Delayed presentation and higher comorbidities are most likely related to poor access to routine and preventive health care for the SNPH patients.Journal of Vascular Surgery 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.08.055 · 2.98 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background The factors influencing outcomes after emergent admission for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis treated with revascularization by endarterectomy or stenting are yet to be fully elucidated. Methods We analyzed revascularization of carotid artery stenosis for patients admitted emergently using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-2011). Admission characteristics, economic measures, in-hospital mortality, and iatrogenic stroke were compared between (1) endarterectomy and stenting, (2) patients with and without cerebral infarction, and (3) ultra-early (within 48 hours of admission) and deferred (up to 2 weeks) intervention. Results 72,797 admissions meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Factors associated with ultra-early revascularization were male patients, low comorbidity burden, stenosis without infarction, and stenting. Ultra-early intervention significantly decreased cost and length of stay, and stenting for patients without infarction decreased length of stay but increased cost. Patients without infarction treated within 48 hours had significantly lower mortality and iatrogenic stroke rate. Patients with infarction receiving ultra-early revascularization had increased odds of mortality and iatrogenic stroke in comparison with the deferred group. Patients with infarction receiving stenting experienced increased odds of mortality in comparison with those receiving endarterectomy, but there was no significant difference in iatrogenic stroke rate. Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) administration on the day of revascularization greatly increased the odds of iatrogenic stroke and mortality. Conclusions Larger prospectively randomized trials evaluating the optimum timing of revascularization after emergent admission of carotid artery stenosis seem warranted.Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 09/2014; 23(9). DOI:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.05.003 · 1.99 Impact Factor