Long-Term Prevention of Stroke

Unit of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Perugia, Hospital S. M. Misericordia, Italy.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 16.5). 02/2011; 57(6):664-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.041
Source: PubMed


This study sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of carotid stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on physician-guided indications.
The issue regarding long-term outcome of CAS versus CEA in patients with carotid stenosis is clinically relevant but remains unsettled.
Consecutive patients (71% men, mean age 71.3 years) treated by CEA (n = 1,118) or CAS (n = 1,084) after a training phase were reviewed. Selection of treatment was based on better-suitability characteristics (morphology and clinical). Data were adjusted with propensity score analysis and stratified by symptoms, age, and sex.
Thirty-day stroke/death rates were similar: 2.8% in CAS and 2.0% in CEA (p = 0.27). The risk was higher in symptomatic (3.5%) versus asymptomatic (2.0%) patients (p = 0.04) but without significant difference between CAS and CEA groups. Five-year survival rates were 82.0% in CAS and 87.7% in CEA (p = 0.05). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the composite of any periprocedural stroke/death and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years after the procedure were similar in all patients (4.7% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.4) and the subgroups of symptomatic (8.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.7) and asymptomatic (2.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.2) patients in CEA versus CAS, respectively. Cox analysis, adjusted by propensity score, identified statin treatment (p = 0.016) and symptomatic disease (p = 0.003) associated with the composite end point. There were no sex- or age-related significant outcome differences.
When physicians use their clinical judgment to select the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization CAS can offer efficacy and durability comparable to CEA with benefits persisting at 5 years.

Download full-text


Available from: Fabio Verzini, Dec 23, 2013
31 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetes is prevalent in most patients undergoing carotid revascularization and is suggested as a marker of poor outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Data on outcome of diabetic patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate early and 6-year outcomes of diabetic patients undergoing carotid revascularization with CAS and CEA. The database of patients undergoing carotid revascularization for primary carotid stenosis was queried from 2001 to 2009. Diabetic patients were defined as those with established diagnosis and/or receiving oral hypoglycemic or insulin therapy. Multivariate and Kaplan- Meier analyses, stratified by type of treatment, were performed on perioperative (30 days) and late outcomes. A total of 2196 procedures, 1116 by CEA and 1080 by CAS (29% female, mean age 71.3 years), were reviewed. Diabetes was prevalent in 630 (28.7%). Diabetic patients were younger (P < .0001) and frequently had hypertension (P = .018) or coronary disease (P = .019). Perioperative stroke/death rate was 2.7% (17/630) in diabetic patients vs 2.3% (36/1566) in nondiabetic, (P = .64); the rate was 3.4% in diabetic CEA group and 2.1% in diabetic CAS group (P = .46). At multivariate analyses, diabetes was a predictor of perioperative stroke/death in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-7.61; P = .04) but not in the CAS group (P = .72). Six-year survival was 76.0% in diabetics and 80.8% in nondiabetics (P = .15). Six-year late stroke estimates were 3.2% in diabetic and 4.6% in nondiabetic patients (P = .90). The 6-year risk of restenosis was similar (4.6% % vs 4.2%) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P = .56). Survival, late stroke, and restenosis rates between diabetics and nondiabetics were similar in CAS and CEA groups. Diabetic patients are not at greater risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality or late stroke after CAS, however, the perioperative risk can be higher after CEA. This may help in selecting the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization in patients best suited for the type of procedure.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 11/2011; 55(1):79-89; discussion 88-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2011.07.080 · 3.02 Impact Factor
  • Annals of Vascular Surgery 04/2013; 27(3):391-2. DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2012.07.010 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Annals of Vascular Surgery 04/2013; 27(3):392-5. DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2012.07.009 · 1.17 Impact Factor
Show more