OBJECTIVE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: As of December 7, 2010, there were 1347 CEA and 861 CASpatients aged < 65 years and 4169 CEA and 2536 CASpatients aged ≥ 65 years. CASpatients 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, CASpatients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to reach the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Robert W Hobson; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Ariane Mackey; Michael D Hill; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Wesley S Moore; Jenifer H Voeks; L Nelson Hopkins; Donald E Cutlip; David J Cohen; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert D Ferguson; Stanley N Cohen; Joseph L Blackshear; Frank L Silver; J P Mohr; Brajesh K Lal; James F Meschia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert W Yeh; Kevin Kennedy; John A Spertus; Sahil A Parikh; Rahul Sakhuja; H Vernon Anderson; Christopher J White; Kenneth Rosenfield Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Ahmadi; A Willfort; W Lang; M Schillinger; E Alt; M E Gschwandtner; M Haumer; T Maca; H Ehringer; E Minar Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Russell C Lam; Stephanie C Lin; Brian DeRubertis; Robert Hynecek; K Craig Kent; Peter L Faries Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Stephen F Stanziale; Luke K Marone; Tamer N Boules; Judith A Brimmeier; Katherine Hill; Michel S Makaroun; Mark H Wholey Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Anton N Sidawy; Robert M Zwolak; Rodney A White; Flora S Siami; Marc L Schermerhorn; Gregorio A Sicard Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-11-22 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
Authors: Jeffrey Jim; Ellen D Dillavou; Gilbert R Upchurch; Nicholas H Osborne; Christopher T Kenwood; Flora S Siami; Rodney A White; Joseph J Ricotta Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.268