Dataset Information

Society of vascular surgery vascular registry comparison of carotid artery stenting outcomes for atherosclerotic vs nonatherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

ABSTRACT: The Vascular Registry (VR) on carotid procedures collects long-term outcomes on carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) patients. The purpose of this report is to describe in-hospital and 30-day CAS outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery disease (CAD; atherosclerosis [ATH]) compared to recurrent carotid stenosis (RES) and radiation-induced stenosis (RAD).The VR collects provider-reported data on CAS using a Web-based data management system. For this report, data were analyzed at the preprocedure, procedure, predischarge, and 30-day intervals.As of November 20, 2008, there were 4017 patients with CAS with discharge data, of which 72% were due to ATH. A total of 2321 patients were available for 30-day outcomes analysis (1623 ATH, 529 restenosis, 119 radiation, 17 dissection, 3 trauma, and 30 other). Baseline demographics showed that ATH occurred in older patients (72-years-old), had the greatest history of coronary artery disease (CAD; 62%), myocardial infarction (MI; 24%), valvular heart disease (8%), arrhythmia (16%), congestive heart failure (CHF; 16%), diabetes mellitus (DM; 35%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 20%). RES had a higher degree of baseline stenosis (87.0 vs 85.8 ATH; P = .010), were less likely to be symptomatic (35.5% vs 46.3% ATH; P < .001), but had a greater history of hypertension, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and smoking. RAD was seen in younger patients (66.6 vs 71.7 ATH; P < .001), were more likely to be male (78.2% vs 60.9% ATH; P < .001), and had less comorbidities overall, with the exception of amaurosis fugax, smoking, and cancer. The only statistically significant difference in perioperative rates was in transient ischemic attack (TIA; 2.7% ATH vs 0.9% RES; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital death/stroke/MI (ATH 5.4%, RES 3.8%, RAD 4.2%) or at 30 days (ATH 7.1%, RES 5.1%, RAD 5.0%). Even after adjusting for age, gender, symptomatology, CHF, and renal failure, the only statistically significant difference at 30 days was amaurosis fugax between ATH and RAD (odds ratio [OR] 0.13; P = .01).Although patients with ATH have statistically significant comorbidities, they did not have statistically significant increased rates of death/stroke/MI during hospitalization or within 30 days after discharge when compared to RES or RAD. The CAS event rates for ATH vs RES and RAD are similar, despite prior published reports. Symptomatic ATH have statistically significant higher rates of death/stroke/MI compared to asymptomatic cohort. Finally, consistent and accurate entry of long-term data beyond initial hospitalization is essential to fully assess CAS outcomes since a significant number of adverse events occur in the interval from hospital discharge to 30 days.

SUBMITTER: White RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5557649 | biostudies-other | 2010 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are alternative strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atherosclerotic carotid disease. CEA has been considered the first-line treatment for carotid stenosis worldwide, and the safety and efficacy of CAS compared to CEA remains in question. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to compare the practice and outcomes of CAS and CEA in a real-world setting within public university hospitals in Brazil. METHODS:This study will be a prospective 5-year analysis of treatment for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis with CEA and CAS performed at 5 centers affiliated with the Vascular Study Group at public university hospitals in Brazil. The indications for the procedures will be determined by each surgeon's individual discretion, in accordance with preoperative risk evaluation. The primary outcome measures will be (1) any in-hospital stroke or death, and (2) any per-procedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients undergoing CEA in conjunction with cardiac surgery will be excluded from the study. Multivariate logistic regression will be performed to identify predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing CEA and CAS. All tests of significance will be performed at the .05 level. This study was approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research at the University Hospital of Ribeirao Preto Medical School, and in all other participating institutions linked to National Research System and National Board of Health in Brazil (Process 15695/2011). RESULTS:This study is currently in the recruitment phase, and the final patient is expected to be enrolled by the end of 2018. We hope to recruit approximately 800 patients to the study. Analyses will focus on primary end points for patients that are allocated to each treatment group. During the per-procedural period, the occurrence of the primary end point components (stroke, MI, or death) for CAS and CEA will be analyzed for symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects. CONCLUSIONS:The analyses of the primary endpoints (and all others variables of the study) are expected to be published in 2019 in a peer reviewed journal, and results will be presented at scientific meetings, with summary results published online. This study will obtain new data related to the quality of treatment for carotid disease in Brazil at the primary training centers of future vascular surgeons, but the initial data that will be obtained and published (with the outcomes and complications) are restricted to the first 30 days postprocedure. This time restriction limits the comparison of the results that relate to the main goal of treatment, which is to decrease the risk of stroke over 5 years. The purpose of the study group is to continue the monitoring of patient records, and evaluate the follow-up data in the 5 years following the initial evaluation. This study protocol will contribute very significantly to improving the care of patients with carotid disease, in addition to qualifying the level of assistance provided in public university hospitals in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02538276; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02538276 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m7APnFLD).

Project description:BackgroundAmong asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.MethodsACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.FindingsBetween Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21).InterpretationSerious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:ObjectiveTo decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Materials and methodsPatients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.ResultsProcedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.ConclusionAlthough the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.

Dataset Information

Society of vascular surgery vascular registry comparison of carotid artery stenting outcomes for atherosclerotic vs nonatherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets