P Nazari1, P Golnari1, M C Hurley1, A Shaibani1, S A Ansari1, M B Potts1, B S Jahromi2. 1. From the Departments of Neurological Surgery and Radiology Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. From the Departments of Neurological Surgery and Radiology Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois babak.jahromi@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Published data regarding embolic protection device efficacy is mixed, and its use during carotid artery stent placement remains variable. We, therefore, examined the frequency of embolic protection device use and its association with outcomes after carotid artery stent placement using a national quality improvement data base. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement with or without embolic protection devices were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data base. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as death, stroke, or myocardial infarction/arrhythmia) within 30 days. Propensity scoring was used to create 2 matching cohorts of patients using demographic and baseline variables. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, among 1200 adult patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement, 23.8% did not have embolic protection devices. There was no trend toward increased embolic protection device use with time. Patients without embolic protection device use received preoperative antiplatelets less frequently (90.6% versus 94.6%, P = .02), underwent more emergent carotid artery stent placement (7.2% versus 3.6%, P = .01), and had a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.94) and stroke (OR = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.71-6.39). After compensating for baseline imbalances using propensity-matched cohorts (n = 261 for both), carotid artery stent placement without an embolic protection device remained associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular events (9.2% versus 4.2%; OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.10-4.80) and stroke (6.5% versus 1.5%; OR = 4.48; 95% CI, 1.49-13.49). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement is associated with a 4-fold increase in the likelihood of perioperative stroke. Nevertheless, nearly one-quarter of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program underwent unprotected carotid artery stent placement. Efforts targeting improved embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement are warranted.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Published data regarding embolic protection device efficacy is mixed, and its use during carotid artery stent placement remains variable. We, therefore, examined the frequency of embolic protection device use and its association with outcomes after carotid artery stent placement using a national quality improvement data base. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement with or without embolic protection devices were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data base. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as death, stroke, or myocardial infarction/arrhythmia) within 30 days. Propensity scoring was used to create 2 matching cohorts of patients using demographic and baseline variables. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, among 1200 adult patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement, 23.8% did not have embolic protection devices. There was no trend toward increased embolic protection device use with time. Patients without embolic protection device use received preoperative antiplatelets less frequently (90.6% versus 94.6%, P = .02), underwent more emergent carotid artery stent placement (7.2% versus 3.6%, P = .01), and had a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.94) and stroke (OR = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.71-6.39). After compensating for baseline imbalances using propensity-matched cohorts (n = 261 for both), carotid artery stent placement without an embolic protection device remained associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular events (9.2% versus 4.2%; OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.10-4.80) and stroke (6.5% versus 1.5%; OR = 4.48; 95% CI, 1.49-13.49). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement is associated with a 4-fold increase in the likelihood of perioperative stroke. Nevertheless, nearly one-quarter of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program underwent unprotected carotid artery stent placement. Efforts targeting improved embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement are warranted.
Authors: Tiziano Tallarita; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Harry Cloft; David Kallmes; Gustavo S Oderich; Robert D Brown; Giuseppe Lanzino Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Leo H Bonati; Lisa M Jongen; Sven Haller; H Zwenneke Flach; Joanna Dobson; Paul J Nederkoorn; Sumaira Macdonald; Peter A Gaines; Annet Waaijer; Annet Waajier; Peter Stierli; H Rolf Jäger; Philippe A Lyrer; L Jaap Kappelle; Stephan G Wetzel; Aad van der Lugt; Willem P Mali; Martin M Brown; H Bart van der Worp; Stefan T Engelter Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Katie E Shean; John C McCallum; Peter A Soden; Sarah E Deery; Joseph R Schneider; Brian W Nolan; Caron B Rockman; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Joel E Barbato; Ellen Dillavou; Michael B Horowitz; Tudor G Jovin; Emanuel Kanal; Suzanne David; Michel S Makaroun Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 4.268
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