Margriet Fokkema1, Gert Jan de Borst2, Brian W Nolan3, Ruby C Lo1, Robert A Cambria4, Richard J Powell3, Frans L Moll2, Marc L Schermerhorn5. 1. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass. 2. Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, Me. 5. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: mscherme@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the era of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) are unclear. We compared perioperative results and durability of CAS vs CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic restenosis after prior CEA and investigated the risk of reintervention compared with primary procedures. METHODS: Patients undergoing CAS and CEA for restenosis between January 2003 and March 2012 were identified within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database. End points included any stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days, cranial nerve injury at discharge, and restenosis ≥ 70% at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify whether prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for adverse outcome. RESULTS: Out of 9305 CEA procedures, 212 patients (2.3%) underwent redo CEA (36% symptomatic). Of 663 CAS procedures, 220 patients (33%) underwent CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA (31% symptomatic). Demographics of patients undergoing redo CEA were comparable to patients undergoing CAS after prior CEA. Stroke/death/MI rates were statistically similar between redo CEA vs CAS after prior CEA in both asymptomatic (4.4% vs 3.3%; P = .8) and symptomatic patients (6.6% vs 5.8%; P = 1.0). No significant difference in restenosis ≥ 70% was identified between redo CEA and CAS after prior CEA (5.2% vs 3.0%; P = .5). Redo CEA vs primary CEA had increased stroke/death/MI rate in both symptomatic (6.6% vs 2.3%; P = .05) and asymptomatic patients 4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .03). Prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for stroke/death/MI among all patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5). No difference in cranial nerve injury was identified between redo CEA and primary CEA (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: In the VSGNE, CEA and CAS showed statistically equivalent outcomes in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients treated for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA. However, regardless of symptom status, the risk of reintervention was increased compared with patients undergoing primary CEA.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the era of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) are unclear. We compared perioperative results and durability of CAS vs CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic restenosis after prior CEA and investigated the risk of reintervention compared with primary procedures. METHODS:Patients undergoing CAS and CEA for restenosis between January 2003 and March 2012 were identified within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) database. End points included any stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days, cranial nerve injury at discharge, and restenosis ≥ 70% at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify whether prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for adverse outcome. RESULTS: Out of 9305 CEA procedures, 212 patients (2.3%) underwent redo CEA (36% symptomatic). Of 663 CAS procedures, 220 patients (33%) underwent CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA (31% symptomatic). Demographics of patients undergoing redo CEA were comparable to patients undergoing CAS after prior CEA. Stroke/death/MI rates were statistically similar between redo CEA vs CAS after prior CEA in both asymptomatic (4.4% vs 3.3%; P = .8) and symptomatic patients (6.6% vs 5.8%; P = 1.0). No significant difference in restenosis ≥ 70% was identified between redo CEA and CAS after prior CEA (5.2% vs 3.0%; P = .5). Redo CEA vs primary CEA had increased stroke/death/MI rate in both symptomatic (6.6% vs 2.3%; P = .05) and asymptomatic patients 4.4% vs 1.7%; P = .03). Prior ipsilateral CEA was an independent predictor for stroke/death/MI among all patients undergoing CEA (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.5). No difference in cranial nerve injury was identified between redo CEA and primary CEA (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: In the VSGNE, CEA and CAS showed statistically equivalent outcomes in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients treated for restenosis after prior ipsilateral CEA. However, regardless of symptom status, the risk of reintervention was increased compared with patients undergoing primary CEA.
Authors: Geza Mozes; Timothy M Sullivan; Diego R Torres-Russotto; Thomas C Bower; Tanya L Hoskin; Sergio M Sampaio; Peter Gloviczki; Jean M Panneton; Audra A Noel; Kenneth J Cherry Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Christoph Domenig; Allen D Hamdan; Alana K Belfield; David R Campbell; John J Skillman; Frank W LoGerfo; Frank B Pomposelli Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2003-10-23 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Robert W Hobson; Brajesh K Lal; Elie Chakhtoura; Jonathan Goldstein; Paul B Haser; Richard Kubicka; Joaquim Cerveira; Peter J Pappas; Frank T Padberg; Zafar Jamil; Ellie Chaktoura Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Marc L Schermerhorn; Margriet Fokkema; Philip Goodney; Ellen D Dillavou; Jeffrey Jim; Christopher T Kenwood; Flora S Siami; Rodney A White Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Antonios P Gasparis; Lise Ricotta; Salvador A Cuadra; Daniel J Char; William A Purtill; Paul S Van Bemmelen; George L Hines; Fabio Giron; John J Ricotta Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Jae-Sung Cho; Keshav Pandurangi; Mark F Conrad; Alexander S Shepard; John A Carr; Timothy J Nypaver; Daniel J Reddy Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Albeir Y Mousa; Ali F AbuRahma; Joseph Bozzay; Mike Broce; Maher Kali; Michael Yacoub; Patrick Stone; Mark C Bates Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.487
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: M Fokkema; G J de Borst; B W Nolan; J Indes; D B Buck; R C Lo; F L Moll; M L Schermerhorn Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Runqi Wangqin; Paul R Krafft; Keaton Piper; Jay Kumar; Kaya Xu; Maxim Mokin; Zeguang Ren Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Luke M Stewart; Emily L Spangler; Danielle C Sutzko; Benjamin J Pearce; Graeme E McFarland; Marc A Passman; Mark A Patterson; Zdenek Novak; Adam W Beck Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Dat Tin Nguyen; Ákos Bérczi; Balázs Bence Nyárády; Ádám Szőnyi; Márton Philippovich; Edit Dósa Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Francesco Stilo; Nunzio Montelione; Rosalinda Calandrelli; Marisa Distefano; Francesco Spinelli; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Fabio Pilato Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-10