Stephanie M Meller1, Mohammed Salim Al-Damluji2, Alejandra Gutierrez3, Erik Stilp3, Carlos Mena-Hurtado3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut. 3. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the complication rates associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND: Carotid stenosis is a well-known cause of stroke and increased mortality. The safety of carotid revascularization may be related to symptom status, medical comorbidities, use of embolic protection devices, as well as operator experience and these factors may vary across patient populations within a single operating center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with carotid artery stenosis admitted to our hospital for carotid revascularization between January 1, 2007 and December 1, 2013. The primary end point was a composite endpoint of periprocedural death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Of the 718 patients admitted for carotid revascularization 525 (73.1%) underwent CEA and 193 (26.9%) underwent CAS. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of the composite endpoint, MI, and death; the stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of stroke (4.2% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.020). Adjusting for baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status mitigated this difference (P = 0.091 and 0.113, respectively). When stratified by department performing CAS, there was a significant difference in the occurrence of stroke (P = 0.033), which likewise disappeared in the multivariate regression analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of the composite endpoint did not differ significantly between those undergoing CAS versus CEA. The stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of periprocedural stroke, which was also apparent when patients were stratified by stenting department. These differences were likely driven by variation in baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the complication rates associated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND:Carotid stenosis is a well-known cause of stroke and increased mortality. The safety of carotid revascularization may be related to symptom status, medical comorbidities, use of embolic protection devices, as well as operator experience and these factors may vary across patient populations within a single operating center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with carotid artery stenosis admitted to our hospital for carotid revascularization between January 1, 2007 and December 1, 2013. The primary end point was a composite endpoint of periprocedural death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Of the 718 patients admitted for carotid revascularization 525 (73.1%) underwent CEA and 193 (26.9%) underwent CAS. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of the composite endpoint, MI, and death; the stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of stroke (4.2% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.020). Adjusting for baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status mitigated this difference (P = 0.091 and 0.113, respectively). When stratified by department performing CAS, there was a significant difference in the occurrence of stroke (P = 0.033), which likewise disappeared in the multivariate regression analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of the composite endpoint did not differ significantly between those undergoing CAS versus CEA. The stenting group demonstrated a higher rate of periprocedural stroke, which was also apparent when patients were stratified by stenting department. These differences were likely driven by variation in baseline medical comorbidities and symptom status.
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.964