Abstract 5: Early Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy Compared to Carotid Artery Stenting for Carotid Stenosis in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

Stroke ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed K Alhaidar ◽  
Richard Amdur ◽  
Rami Algahtani ◽  
Dimitri Sigounas ◽  
Mohanad Algaeed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
Procedure Type

Background: Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) and Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) are both viable treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. Factors including surgical risk, age, and symptomatic status are often used to help guide management decisions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database to compare 30-day post-procedure outcomes including mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction in patient with carotid stenosis undergoing CEA (n=54,640) versus CAS (n=488) from 2005 to 2012. Procedure type was identified by CPT codes. Findings: Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to be older and have symptomatic stenosis, and less likely to be white, have CHF, and have COPD. There was no significant difference between CEA and CAS in 30-day mortality (0.9% vs. 1.2%, p=0.33), stroke (1.6% vs. 1.6% p=0.93), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs. 1.6%, p=0.08), or combined outcome (3.0% vs. 4.9%, p=0.09). The interaction between symptomatic status and procedure type was not significant (p=0.29), indicating the association of symptomatic status with 30-day mortality was similar in cases receiving CEA and CAS. Conclusion: Early outcomes after CEA and CAS for carotid artery stenosis appear to be similar in a ‘real-world’ sample and comparable to clinical trials. Patients undergoing CAS were more likely to be younger and surgically higher risk based on baseline characteristics likely reflecting clinical practice case selection.

Endovascular Advances for Extracranial Carotid Stenosis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S92-S101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge L. Eller ◽  
Travis M. Dumont ◽  
Grant C. Sorkin ◽  
Maxim Mokin ◽  
Elad I. Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Carotid Stenting ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Endovascular Management ◽  
The Past

Abstract Carotid artery stenting has become a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy in the management of carotid stenosis. Over the past 20 years, many trials have attempted to compare both treatment modalities and establish the indications for each one, depending on clinical and anatomic features presented by patients. Concurrently, carotid stenting techniques and devices have evolved and made endovascular management of carotid stenosis safe and effective. Among the most important innovations are devices for distal and proximal embolic protection and new stent designs. This paper reviews these advances in the endovascular management of carotid artery stenosis within the context of the historical background.

scholarly journals Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yavin ◽  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Michael Tso ◽  
Garnette R. Sutherland ◽  
Misha Eliasziw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Cranial Neuropathy ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Lower Odds

Background:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.Methods:A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity.Results:Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21).Conclusions:In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications.

Carotid endarterectomy under local and/or regional anesthesia has less risk of myocardial infarction compared to general anesthesia: An analysis of national surgical quality improvement program database

Vascular ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias Kfoury ◽  
Jonathan Dort ◽  
Amber Trickey ◽  
Moira Crosby ◽  
Jean Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Quality Improvement Program ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
Postoperative Myocardial Infarction

Multiple studies have evaluated the effect of anesthesia type on carotid endarterectomy with inconsistent results. Our study compared 30-day postoperative myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality between carotid endarterectomy under local or regional anesthesia and carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia utilizing National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. All patients listed in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database that underwent carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia and local or regional anesthesia from 2005 to 2011 were included with the exception of patients undergoing simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting. The data revealed substantial differences between the two groups compared, and these were adjusted using multiple logistic regression. Postoperative myocardial infarction, stroke, and death at 30 days were compared between the two groups. A total of 42,265 carotid endarterectomy cases were included. A total of 37,502 (88.7%) were performed under general anesthesia and 4763 (11.3%) under local or regional anesthesia. Carotid endarterectomy under local or regional anesthesia had a significantly decreased risk of 30-day postoperative myocardial infarction when compared to carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia (0.4% vs 0.86%, p = 0.012). No statistically significant differences were found in postoperative stroke or mortality. Carotid endarterectomy under local or regional anesthesia carries a decreased risk of postoperative myocardial infarction when compared to carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia. Therefore, patients at risk of postoperative myocardial infarction undergoing carotid endarterectomy, consideration of local or regional anesthesia may reduce that risk.

Carotid Artery Stenting May Be Losing the Battle against Carotid Endarterectomy for the Management of Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis, But the Jury Is Still Out

Vascular ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosmas I. Paraskevas ◽  
Dimitri P. Mikhailidis ◽  
Frank J. Veith
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation and critical overview of the trials comparing the early and later results of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed/Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 1, 2009, to identify trials comparing the long-term outcomes of CAS with CEA. The MeSH terms used were “carotid artery stenting,” “carotid endarterectomy,” “symptomatic carotid artery stenosis,” “treatment,” “clinical trial,” “randomized,” and “long-term results,” in various combinations. One single-center and three multicenter randomized studies reporting their long-term results from the comparison of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified. All four studies independently reached the conclusion that CAS may not provide results equivalent to those of CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis. A higher incidence of recurrent stenosis and peri- and postprocedural events accounted for the inferior results reported for CAS compared with CEA. Current data from randomized studies indicate that CAS provides inferior long-term results compared with CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, it can be argued that all of these trials were performed when both CAS equipment and CAS operators had not evolved to their current status. Given that current equipment and mature experience are required for CAS before comparing it with the current “gold standard” procedure (CEA), the results of soon-to-be reported trials (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial [CREST], International Carotid Stenting Study [ICSS], or others) may alter the current impression that CAS is inferior to CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Abstract P489: Differences in Characteristics of Octogenarian Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: Insights From a Real World Surgical Quality Registry

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Yagiz Yolcu ◽  
Kenan Rajjoub ◽  
Ozan Dikilitas
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
World Data ◽  
Quality Registry

Introduction: Several clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a carotid revascularization procedure excluded patients above age 80. In the current study, we sought to assess the differences in characteristics of octogenarians undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis using “real-world” data from a national surgical quality registry. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted datasets for CEA and CAS were queried for patients aged ≥80 years between 2012-2018. Results: We identified 5,814 patients undergoing CEA and 189 patients undergoing CAS. Patients in the CAS group were more likely to be ≥90 years (p=0.004), diabetic (p=0.04), had a history of CHF (p=0.012) and a bleeding-disorder (p<0.001). Patients in the CAS group were also more likely to have high risk anatomy (p<0.001), high-risk-physiology (p=0.028). Ninety-nine (52.4%) patients in the CAS group and 2,775 (47.7%) in the CEA group were symptomatic, with most patients in both groups presenting with an ipsilateral stroke. Among asymptomatic patients, 64 (74%) in the CAS group and 2222 (72.7%) in the CEA group had severe/total stenosis (>80%-100%) of the ipsilateral carotid, while 13(14.5%) in the CAS group and 302 (11%) in the CEA group had severe or total stenosis of contralateral carotid. Among symptomatic patients, 58(61.7%) in the CAS group and 1527 (57.5%) in the CEA group were found to have severe/total stenosis of the ipsilateral-carotid, while 12(12.8%) in the CAS group and 208(7.8%) in the CEA group were found to have severe/total occlusion of the contralateral carotid. In the carotid endarterectomy group, 12.2% (n=711) underwent CEA-alone, 44.3% (n=2,575) CEA with angioplasty, 29.9% (n=1,737) CEA with angioplasty and shunt, 2.9% (n=166) CEA with shunt and 10.7%(n=166) eversion CEA. In the CAS group, 52.4%(n=99) underwent CAS with a single tapered stent, 29.1%(n=55) CAS with single tapered stent with CPD, 11.1%(n=21) single straight stent with CPD and 1.6%(n=3) a single straight stent alone. Conclusion: These analyses from real-world data show that there may be some differences in demographic and comorbid characteristics between octogenarians undergoing CAS and CEA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document