Literature DB >> 20805431

Late outcomes after carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: insights from a propensity-matched analysis of the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry.

Sripal Bangalore1, Deepak L Bhatt, Joachim Röther, Mark J Alberts, Julie Thornton, Kathy Wolski, Shinya Goto, Alan T Hirsch, Sidney C Smith, Franz T Aichner, Raffi Topakian, Christopher P Cannon, P Gabriel Steg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients with carotid artery disease, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are treatment options. Controversy exists as to the relative efficacy of the 2 techniques in preventing late events. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry recruited > 68,000 outpatients ≥ 45 years of age with established atherothrombotic disease or ≥ 3 risk factors for atherothrombosis. Patients with CAS or CEA were chosen and followed up prospectively for the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Propensity score matching was performed to assemble a cohort of patients in whom all baseline covariates would be well balanced. Primary outcome was defined as death or stroke at the 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcome was stroke or transient ischemic attack. Tertiary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the individual outcomes. Of the 68 236 patients with atherothrombosis, 3412 patients (5%) had a history of carotid artery revascularization (70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis), 1025 (30%) with CAS and 2387 (70%) with CEA. Propensity score analyses matched 836 CAS patients with 836 CEA patients. At the end of 2 years of follow-up, in the propensity score-matched cohort, CAS was associated with a risk similar to CEA for the primary (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.26), secondary (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.96), and tertiary (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.01) composite outcome, death (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00), and stroke (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.80).
CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with a history of carotid artery revascularization, CAS was comparable to CEA for late outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20805431     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.933341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  5 in total

1.  Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Post CREST.

Authors:  Michael Buschur; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Pregnancy outcomes in women with an early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Maisa N Feghali; Kaleab Z Abebe; Diane M Comer; Steve Caritis; Janet M Catov; Christina M Scifres
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 5.602

3.  Current use of routinely collected health data to complement randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological survey.

Authors:  Lars G Hemkens; Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-04-06

Review 4.  Carotid Artery Stenting 2013: Thumbs up.

Authors:  Philipp Wagdi
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2013-03-08

5.  The Efficacy of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Monitoring in Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective, Single-Center, Observational Study.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Li Li; Tianlong Wang; Lei Zhao; Hua Feng; Qian Wang; Long Fan; Xuexin Feng; Wei Xiao; Kunpeng Feng
Journal:  Cell Transplant       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 4.064

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.