Carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis and type 2 diabetes: a nationwide cohort study from the USA.

IF 1.6 Q2 SURGERY
BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies Pub Date : 2025-10-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjsit-2025-000431
Yuqing Fan, Nan Peng, Linfeng Jiang, Shuo Zhang, Mengyao Xue, Dongning Yao
{"title":"Carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis and type 2 diabetes: a nationwide cohort study from the USA.","authors":"Yuqing Fan, Nan Peng, Linfeng Jiang, Shuo Zhang, Mengyao Xue, Dongning Yao","doi":"10.1136/bmjsit-2025-000431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are associated with a higher risk of carotid artery stenosis and adverse postoperative outcomes compared with individuals without T2DM. The comparative effectiveness after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in this population remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of CEA versus CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis and T2DM.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective cohort study using a doubly robust estimation model which incorporated an inverse probability weighting (IPW) model, followed by logistic regression to balance baseline characteristics.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Nation-wide administrative hospitalizations in the US National Inpatient Sample, 2016-2021.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults (≥18 years) with T2DM who underwent either CEA or CAS for asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>In-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke and myocardial infarction during the same admission.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31,363 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CAS, n=6338; CEA, n=25,025) and 3710 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (CAS, n=1271; CEA, n=2439) were evaluated. Among asymptomatic patients, the CEA group had a lower risk of mortality (108 (0.4%) vs 58 (0.9%); adjusted OR 0.997, 95% CI 0.995 to 0.999) but a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (500 (2.0%) vs 151 (2.4%); adjusted OR (aOR) 1.005, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.008) compared with the CAS group. No significant difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke was observed. Among symptomatic patients, the CEA group was also associated with a lower risk of mortality (29 (1.2%) vs 56 (4.4%); aOR 0.973, 95% CI 0.961 to 0.985), with no significant differences in postoperative stroke or myocardial infarction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CEA was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in type 2 diabetic patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis compared with CAS, but its use in asymptomatic individuals should be carefully considered due to potential cardiovascular risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":33349,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","volume":"7 1","pages":"e000431"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12542706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2025-000431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are associated with a higher risk of carotid artery stenosis and adverse postoperative outcomes compared with individuals without T2DM. The comparative effectiveness after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in this population remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of CEA versus CAS in patients with carotid artery stenosis and T2DM.

Design: A retrospective cohort study using a doubly robust estimation model which incorporated an inverse probability weighting (IPW) model, followed by logistic regression to balance baseline characteristics.

Setting: Nation-wide administrative hospitalizations in the US National Inpatient Sample, 2016-2021.

Participants: Adults (≥18 years) with T2DM who underwent either CEA or CAS for asymptomatic or symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Main outcome measures: In-hospital mortality, postoperative stroke and myocardial infarction during the same admission.

Results: A total of 31,363 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CAS, n=6338; CEA, n=25,025) and 3710 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (CAS, n=1271; CEA, n=2439) were evaluated. Among asymptomatic patients, the CEA group had a lower risk of mortality (108 (0.4%) vs 58 (0.9%); adjusted OR 0.997, 95% CI 0.995 to 0.999) but a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (500 (2.0%) vs 151 (2.4%); adjusted OR (aOR) 1.005, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.008) compared with the CAS group. No significant difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke was observed. Among symptomatic patients, the CEA group was also associated with a lower risk of mortality (29 (1.2%) vs 56 (4.4%); aOR 0.973, 95% CI 0.961 to 0.985), with no significant differences in postoperative stroke or myocardial infarction.

Conclusions: CEA was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in type 2 diabetic patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis compared with CAS, but its use in asymptomatic individuals should be carefully considered due to potential cardiovascular risks.

Abstract Image

颈动脉内膜切除术与支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄合并2型糖尿病患者:一项来自美国的全国性队列研究
目的:与非T2DM患者相比,2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者颈动脉狭窄和不良术后结局的风险更高。在这一人群中,颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)与颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的比较效果尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较颈动脉狭窄合并T2DM患者CEA与CAS的住院结果。设计:一项回顾性队列研究,采用双稳健估计模型,其中包含逆概率加权(IPW)模型,然后采用逻辑回归来平衡基线特征。背景:2016-2021年美国全国住院患者样本的全国行政住院情况。参与者:成人(≥18岁)T2DM患者,因无症状或症状性颈动脉狭窄接受CEA或CAS。主要观察指标:同一住院期间的住院死亡率、术后卒中和心肌梗死。结果:共评估无症状颈动脉狭窄患者31363例(CAS, n=6338; CEA, n=25,025)和有症状颈动脉狭窄患者3710例(CAS, n=1271; CEA, n=2439)。在无症状患者中,CEA组的死亡风险较低(108例(0.4%)vs 58例(0.9%);调整OR 0.997, 95% CI 0.995 ~ 0.999),但心肌梗死发生率较高(500 (2.0%)vs 151 (2.4%);调整OR (aOR) 1.005, 95% CI 1.001 ~ 1.008)与CAS组比较。术后卒中发生率无明显差异。在有症状的患者中,CEA组也与较低的死亡风险相关(29例(1.2%)vs 56例(4.4%);(aOR 0.973, 95% CI 0.961 ~ 0.985),术后卒中或心肌梗死发生率无显著差异。结论:与CAS相比,有症状或无症状颈动脉狭窄的2型糖尿病患者CEA与较低的住院死亡率相关,但由于潜在的心血管风险,在无症状患者中使用CEA应慎重考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书