Jeffrey Jim1, Ellen D Dillavou2, Gilbert R Upchurch3, Nicholas H Osborne4, Christopher T Kenwood5, Flora S Siami6, Rodney A White7, Joseph J Ricotta8. 1. Section of Vascular Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 4. Section of Vascular Surgery, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich. 5. New England Research Institutes Inc, Watertown, Mass. 6. New England Research Institutes Inc, Watertown, Mass. Electronic address: ssiami@neriscience.com. 7. Division of Vascular Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif. 8. Northside Heart and Vascular Institute, Atlanta, Ga.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.
OBJECTIVE: Although the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis remains unclear, available data suggest that women have higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization. We used data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry to determine the effect of gender on outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: There were 9865 patients (40.6% women) who underwent CEA (n = 6492) and CAS (n = 3373). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no difference in age and ethnicity between genders, but men were more likely to be symptomatic (41.6% vs 38.6%; P < .003). There was a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in women, whereas men had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, and smoking history. For disease etiology in CAS, restenosis was more common in women (28.7% vs 19.7%; P < .0001), and radiation was higher in men (6.2% vs 2.6%; P < .0001). Comparing by gender, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point for CEA (women, 4.07%; men, 4.06%) or CAS (women, 6.69%; men, 6.80%). There remains no difference after stratification by symptomatology and multivariate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, real-world analysis, women and men demonstrated similar results after CEA or CAS. These data suggest that, contrary to previous reports, women do not have a higher risk of adverse events after carotid revascularization.
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: Virginia J Howard; Helmi L Lutsep; Ariane Mackey; Bart M Demaerschalk; Albert D Sam; Nicole R Gonzales; Alice J Sheffet; Jenifer H Voeks; James F Meschia; Thomas G Brott Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jeffrey Jim; Brian G Rubin; Joseph J Ricotta; Christopher T Kenwood; Flora S Siami; Gregorio A Sicard Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Hitinder S Gurm; Jay S Yadav; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Gary Ansel; Neil E Strickman; Hong Wang; Sidney A Cohen; Joseph M Massaro; Donald E Cutlip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Caitlin W Hicks; Natalie R Daya; James H Black; Kunihiro Matsushita; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: D Doig; E L Turner; J Dobson; R L Featherstone; G J de Borst; G Stansby; J D Beard; S T Engelter; T Richards; M M Brown Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 7.069