BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for stroke prevention. The value of this therapy relative to CEA remains uncertain. METHODS: In 10 958 Medicare patients aged 66 years or older between 2004 and 2006, we analyzed in-hospital, 1-year stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rate outcomes and the effects of potential confounding variables. RESULTS: CAS patients (87% were asymptomatic) had a higher baseline risk profile, including having a higher percentage of coronary and peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, and renal failure. In-hospital stroke rate (1.9% CAS versus 1.4% CEA; P=0.14) and mortality (CAS 0.9% versus 0.6% CEA; P=0.20) were similar. By 1 year, CAS patients had similar stroke rates (5.3% CAS versus 4.1% CEA; P=0.12) but higher all-cause mortality rates (9.9% CAS versus 6.1% CEA; P<0.001). Using Cox multivariable models, there was a similar stroke risk (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.79) but CAS patients had a significantly higher mortality (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.71). Sensitivity analyses suggested that unmeasured confounders could be responsible for the mortality difference. In multivariable analysis, stroke risk was highest in the patients symptomatic at the time of revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: CAS patients had a similar stroke risk but an increased mortality rate at 1 year compared with CEA patients, possibly related to the higher baseline risk profile in the CAS patient group.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for stroke prevention. The value of this therapy relative to CEA remains uncertain. METHODS: In 10 958 Medicare patients aged 66 years or older between 2004 and 2006, we analyzed in-hospital, 1-year stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rate outcomes and the effects of potential confounding variables. RESULTS:CASpatients (87% were asymptomatic) had a higher baseline risk profile, including having a higher percentage of coronary and peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, and renal failure. In-hospital stroke rate (1.9% CAS versus 1.4% CEA; P=0.14) and mortality (CAS 0.9% versus 0.6% CEA; P=0.20) were similar. By 1 year, CASpatients had similar stroke rates (5.3% CAS versus 4.1% CEA; P=0.12) but higher all-cause mortality rates (9.9% CAS versus 6.1% CEA; P<0.001). Using Cox multivariable models, there was a similar stroke risk (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.79) but CASpatients had a significantly higher mortality (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.71). Sensitivity analyses suggested that unmeasured confounders could be responsible for the mortality difference. In multivariable analysis, stroke risk was highest in the patients symptomatic at the time of revascularization. CONCLUSIONS:CASpatients had a similar stroke risk but an increased mortality rate at 1 year compared with CEA patients, possibly related to the higher baseline risk profile in the CASpatient group.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Isibor J. Arhuidese; Muhammad Faateh; Besma J. Nejim; Satinderjit Locham; Christopher J. Abularrage; Mahmoud B. Malas Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Hans-Henning Eckstein; Pavlos Tsantilas; Andreas Kühnl; Bernhard Haller; Thorben Breitkreuz; Alexander Zimmermann; Michael Kallmayer Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Jesse A Columbo; Pablo Martinez-Camblor; Todd A MacKenzie; Ravinder Kang; Spencer W Trooboff; Philip P Goodney; A James O'Malley Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Jessica P Simons; Philip P Goodney; Donald T Baril; Brian W Nolan; Nathanael D Hevelone; Jack L Cronenwett; Louis M Messina; Andres Schanzer Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 4.268