Luke K Kim1, David C Yang2, Rajesh V Swaminathan2, Robert M Minutello2, Peter M Okin2, Min Kyeong Lee2, Xuming Sun2, S Chiu Wong2, Daniel J McCormick2, Geoffrey Bergman2, Veerasathpurush Allareddy2, Harsimran Singh2, Dmitriy N Feldman2. 1. From the Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital (L.K.K., D.C.Y., R.V.S., R.M.M., P.M.O., S.C.W., G.B., H.S., D.N.F.); Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA (M.K.L.); Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY (X.S.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Pennsylvania Hospital-University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia (D.J.M.); and Department of Orthodontics College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City (V.A.). luk9003@med.cornell.edu. 2. From the Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital (L.K.K., D.C.Y., R.V.S., R.M.M., P.M.O., S.C.W., G.B., H.S., D.N.F.); Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA (M.K.L.); Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY (X.S.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Pennsylvania Hospital-University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia (D.J.M.); and Department of Orthodontics College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City (V.A.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the controversy regarding whether carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be superior for stroke prevention, it is uncertain how recent clinical evidence, guidelines, and reimbursement policies have influenced the volume and outcomes after these procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a serial, cross-sectional study with time trends of patients undergoing CAS (n=124 265) and CEA (n=1 260 647) between 2001 and 2010 from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. During the 10-year period, the frequency of CEA declined, whereas CAS use slowly increased. After multivariate propensity score-matched analysis, CAS was associated with an increased risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-2.04), stroke (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.66), and major adverse events including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.39). In asymptomatic patients, there was no significant difference in major adverse events (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.20; P=0.16 [P <0.001 for interaction between procedure type and symptom status]) between CAS and CEA. Importantly, there was a significant improvement in CAS outcomes during the course of 10 years (reduction in death [OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67; P for trend=0.03] and major adverse events [OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84; P for trend=0.05] comparing years 2010 versus 2001). CONCLUSIONS: In US hospitals between 2001 and 2010, CAS was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, partly attributable to selection and ascertainment bias. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS versus CEA had similar adjusted rates of major adverse events. CAS outcomes improved significantly during the course of the decade likely attributable to improvements in patient selection, operator skills, and technological advancements.
BACKGROUND: Given the controversy regarding whether carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be superior for stroke prevention, it is uncertain how recent clinical evidence, guidelines, and reimbursement policies have influenced the volume and outcomes after these procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a serial, cross-sectional study with time trends of patients undergoing CAS (n=124 265) and CEA (n=1 260 647) between 2001 and 2010 from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. During the 10-year period, the frequency of CEA declined, whereas CAS use slowly increased. After multivariate propensity score-matched analysis, CAS was associated with an increased risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-2.04), stroke (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.66), and major adverse events including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.39). In asymptomatic patients, there was no significant difference in major adverse events (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.20; P=0.16 [P <0.001 for interaction between procedure type and symptom status]) between CAS and CEA. Importantly, there was a significant improvement in CAS outcomes during the course of 10 years (reduction in death [OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67; P for trend=0.03] and major adverse events [OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84; P for trend=0.05] comparing years 2010 versus 2001). CONCLUSIONS: In US hospitals between 2001 and 2010, CAS was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, partly attributable to selection and ascertainment bias. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS versus CEA had similar adjusted rates of major adverse events. CAS outcomes improved significantly during the course of the decade likely attributable to improvements in patient selection, operator skills, and technological advancements.
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: Ali F AbuRahma; John E Campbell; Nizar Hariri; Joseph AbuRahma; L Scott Dean; Mark C Bates; Aravinda Nanjundappa; Patrick A Stone; Ace O'vil Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Judith H Lichtman; Michael R Jones; Erica C Leifheit; Alice J Sheffet; George Howard; Brajesh K Lal; Virginia J Howard; Yun Wang; Jeptha Curtis; Thomas G Brott Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Parveen K Garg; Willam J H Koh; Joseph A Delaney; Ethan A Halm; Calvin H Hirsch; William T Longstreth; Kenneth J Mukamal; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Joseph F Polak; Lesley Curtis Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2016-11-16
Authors: Luke K Kim; Patrick Looser; Rajesh V Swaminathan; James Horowitz; Oren Friedman; Ji Hae Shin; Robert M Minutello; Geoffrey Bergman; Harsimran Singh; S Chiu Wong; Dmitriy N Feldman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.501