Jesse A Columbo1, Pablo Martinez-Camblor2, Todd A MacKenzie3, Ravinder Kang2, Spencer W Trooboff2, Philip P Goodney4, A James O'Malley3. 1. Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. Electronic address: jesse.a.columbo@hitchcock.org. 2. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 3. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 4. Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of "real-world" outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort. METHODS: We studied all patients who underwent CEA or CAS within the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2013 (CEA, n = 29,235; CAS, n = 4415). Long-term mortality information was obtained by linking patients in the registry to their respective Medicare claims file. We assessed the long-term rate of mortality for CEA and CAS using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We assessed the crude, adjusted, and propensity-matched (total matched pairs, n = 4261) hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for CEA vs CAS using Cox regression. RESULTS: The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year mortality was 14.0% for CEA and 18.3% for CAS. The crude HR of all-cause mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.81), indicating that patients who underwent CEA were 25% less likely to die before those who underwent CAS. This survival advantage persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). This effect was confirmed on a propensity-matched analysis, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Finally, these findings were robust to subanalyses that stratified patients by presenting symptoms and were more pronounced in symptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) than in asymptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: During the last 15 years, patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative have a long-term survival advantage over those who underwent CAS in real-world practice. Despite no difference in long-term survival in randomized trials, our observational study demonstrated a survival benefit for CEA that did not diminish with risk adjustment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of "real-world" outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort. METHODS: We studied all patients who underwent CEA or CAS within the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2013 (CEA, n = 29,235; CAS, n = 4415). Long-term mortality information was obtained by linking patients in the registry to their respective Medicare claims file. We assessed the long-term rate of mortality for CEA and CAS using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We assessed the crude, adjusted, and propensity-matched (total matched pairs, n = 4261) hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for CEA vs CAS using Cox regression. RESULTS: The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year mortality was 14.0% for CEA and 18.3% for CAS. The crude HR of all-cause mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.81), indicating that patients who underwent CEA were 25% less likely to die before those who underwent CAS. This survival advantage persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). This effect was confirmed on a propensity-matched analysis, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Finally, these findings were robust to subanalyses that stratified patients by presenting symptoms and were more pronounced in symptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) than in asymptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: During the last 15 years, patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative have a long-term survival advantage over those who underwent CAS in real-world practice. Despite no difference in long-term survival in randomized trials, our observational study demonstrated a survival benefit for CEA that did not diminish with risk adjustment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Hitinder S Gurm; Henry H Ting; Philip P Goodney; Mary A M Rogers; Jeptha P Curtis; Justin B Dimick; Eric R Bates; Harlan M Krumholz; John D Birkmeyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Jonathan L Halperin; Suhny Abbara; J Michael Bacharach; John D Barr; Ruth L Bush; Christopher U Cates; Mark A Creager; Susan B Fowler; Gary Friday; Vicki S Hertzberg; E Bruce McIff; Wesley S Moore; Peter D Panagos; Thomas S Riles; Robert H Rosenwasser; Allen J Taylor Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kristina A Giles; Allen D Hamdan; Frank B Pomposelli; Mark C Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Brian W Nolan; Randall R De Martino; Philip P Goodney; Andres Schanzer; David H Stone; David Butzel; Christopher J Kwolek; Jack L Cronenwett Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Stephen van Gaal; Arshia Alimohammadi; Amy Y X Yu; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Wei Zhang; Jason M Sutherland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Josef Veselka; Petr Hajek; Cyril Štěchovský; Martin Horváth; Radka Adlová; Robert Roland; Ingrid Homolová; Eva Hansvenclová; Petra Zimolová Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 3.318