Stenting versus endarterectomy after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, and the management of critical or symptomatic restenotic lesions poses a treatment challenge. The superiority of CEA vs carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) for restenosis remains debatable because existing studies are few and limited by small sample size or the inability to align interventions with ipsilateral events beyond the periprocedural period. We performed a population-based evaluation of CEA vs CAS in a large contemporary cohort of patients with carotid artery restenosis.
METHODS: We studied all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database who underwent CEA or CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA between January 2003 and April 2015. Univariate methods (χ2 and t-test) were used to compare patients' characteristics and outcomes ≤30 days and up to 1 year. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses, adjusting for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, were used to compare the procedures with respect to ipsilateral stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/death, and stroke/death/MI.
RESULTS: This cohort of patients with prior ipsilateral CEA underwent 2863 carotid interventions, 1047 (37%) CEA, and 1816 (63%) CAS. Characteristics were similar in both groups. The 30-day ipsilateral stroke rate comparing CEA vs CAS was 2.2% vs 1.3% (P = .09) for asymptomatic patients and 1.2% vs 1.6% (P = .604) for symptomatic patients. The 30-day mortality was 1.3% vs 0.6% (P = .04), and MI occurred in 1.4% of CEA vs 1.1% of CAS patients (P = .443). Cranial nerve injury occurred in 4.1% of the redo-CEA cases, and access site complications occurred in 5.3% of the CAS cases. CEA was associated with higher mortality at 30 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-7.14; P = .027) and at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.03-4.58; P = .042). However, there were no differences in postoperative stroke (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.20-1.45, P = .22), MI (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.31-3.10; P = .97), stroke/death (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.72-2.67; P = .22), and stroke/death/MI (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.80-2.37; P = .25) between CEA and CAS after adjusting for patient characteristics, and freedom from stroke at 1 year was also similar (CEA: 96.7% vs CAS: 96.4%; P = .78).
CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, we have shown higher mortality but similar stroke and MI associated with redo CEA compared with CAS after prior ipsilateral CEA. We recommend avoidance of redo CEA in very sick patients. Smoking cessation remains a potent target for improvement of outcomes of carotid revascularization in these patients.