scholarly journals Response to Letter by Antonopoulos et al Regarding Article, “Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes”

Stroke ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos P. Economopoulos ◽  
Theodoros N. Sergentanis ◽  
Georgios Tsivgoulis
Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kohkichi Hosoda ◽  
Taichiro Imahori ◽  
Atsushi Fujita ◽  
Yusuke Yamamoto ◽  
Hidehito Kimura ◽  
...  

Introduction: We investigated long-term outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in our hospital to assess the outcomes of real-world practice in single institute of Japan. Methods: Between August 2006 and July 2014, 236 consecutive carotid revascularizations with either CEA or CAS were performed in our institute. The initial treatment was regarded as the starting point in the cases of the patients who received treatment by bilateral carotid artery stenosis or retreatment. We assessed the long-term outcomes with survival analyses. Results: A total of 210 patients (CEA 128, CAS 82), including 94 symptomatic patients, were enrolled in the current study with mean follow-up period of 45.8 months. The periprocedural stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI) rate was 3.1% for CEA and 4.9% for CAS groups (p=0.71). Estimates of the 4-year event-free rate from the primary end point (the composite of any stroke, death, or MI within 30 days and any ipsilateral stroke thereafter) using competing risk analysis were 3.1% for CEA and 8.6% for CAS (P=0.041). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 4-year event-free rate from the secondary end point (the composite of any stroke, death, or MI within 30 days and any stroke or death thereafter) were 12.8% for CEA and 20.1% for CAS (P=0.051). Age (Hazard ratio [HR], 1.14/year [95%CI, 1.03-1.26]; p = 0.012) and CAS (HR, 3.5 [95%CI, 1.05-11.5]; p = 0.04 ) were significant predictors for the primary end point in multivariate analysis. For the secondary end point, age (HR, 2.1/10year [95%CI, 1.27-3.47]; p = 0.004) and CAS (HR, 2.0 [95%CI, 1.04-3.83], p = 0.037) were significant predictors. The inclusion of higher risk patients in the CAS group may have been the reason for CAS being a risk factor. Conclusion: The current study on real-world practices demonstrated perioperative and long-term outcomes that were comparable to previous major studies of large numbers of patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. e23
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Yei ◽  
Nadin Elsayed ◽  
Asma Mathlouthi ◽  
Isaac Naazie ◽  
Philip Goodney ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1934-1935
Author(s):  
K. Lokuge ◽  
D.D. de Waard ◽  
A. Halliday ◽  
A. Gray ◽  
R. Bulbulia ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahab Hajibandeh ◽  
Shahin Hajibandeh

Abstract Aims to evaluate prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularisation. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in compliance with PRISMA standards to evaluate prognostic significance of MetS in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting. Short-term (<30 days) postoperative outcomes (all-cause mortality, stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, major adverse events) and long-term outcomes (restenosis, all-cause mortality, stroke or TIA, myocardial infarction, major adverse events) were considered as outcomes of interest. Random effects modelling was applied for the analyses. Results Analysis of 3721 patients from five cohort studies showed no difference between the MetS and no MetS groups in terms of the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (OR: 1.67,P=0.32), stroke or TIA (OR: 2.44,P=0.06), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.01,P=0.96), major adverse events (OR: 1.23, P = 0.66). In terms of long-term outcomes, MetS was associated with higher risk of restenosis (OR: 1.75,P=0.02), myocardial infarction (OR: 2.12,P=0.04), and major adverse events (OR: 1.30, P = 0.009) but there was no difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality (OR: 1.11, P = 0.25), and stroke or TIA (OR: 1.24, P = 0.33). The quality and certainty of the available evidence were judged to be moderate. Conclusions The best available evidence suggest that although MetS may not affect the short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularisation, it may result in higher risks of restenosis, myocardial infarction and major adverse events in the long-term. Evidence from large prospective cohort studies are required for more robust conclusions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document