Early Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Carotid Stenosis in the ACS-NSQIP Database.

Mohammed Alhaidar, Mohanad Algaeed, Richard Amdur, Rami Algahtani, Shahram Majidi, Dimitri Sigounas, Christopher R Leon Guerrero
{"title":"Early Outcomes after Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting for Carotid Stenosis in the ACS-NSQIP Database.","authors":"Mohammed Alhaidar,&nbsp;Mohanad Algaeed,&nbsp;Richard Amdur,&nbsp;Rami Algahtani,&nbsp;Shahram Majidi,&nbsp;Dimitri Sigounas,&nbsp;Christopher R Leon Guerrero","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are both viable treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes after CEA and CAS for the management of carotid stenosis using a \"real-world\" sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective observational study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare 30-day (periprocedural) outcomes in patients with carotid stenosis undergoing CEA versus CAS from 2005 to 2012. Baseline characteristics and periprocedural outcomes including stroke, myocardial infarction, mortality and combined outcome (composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 54,640 patients were identified who underwent CEA and 488 who underwent CAS. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to be older and have symptomatic stenosis, and less likely to be white, have congestive heart failure, and have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There were no significant differences between CEA and CAS in periprocedural mortality (0.9% vs. 1.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.33), stroke (1.6% vs. 1.6 <i>p</i> = 0.93), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs. 1.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.08), or combined outcome (3.0% vs. 4.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.09). The interaction between symptomatic status and procedure type was not significant, indicating the association of symptomatic status with 30-day mortality (<i>p</i> = 0.29) or the combined periprocedural outcome (<i>p</i> = 0.57) were similar in cases receiving CEA and CAS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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 have higher risk based on baseline characteristics likely reflecting clinical practice case selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":88555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","volume":"10 1","pages":"52-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5999309/pdf/jvin-10-1-11.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are both viable treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes after CEA and CAS for the management of carotid stenosis using a "real-world" sample.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare 30-day (periprocedural) outcomes in patients with carotid stenosis undergoing CEA versus CAS from 2005 to 2012. Baseline characteristics and periprocedural outcomes including stroke, myocardial infarction, mortality and combined outcome (composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) were compared.

Results: A total of 54,640 patients were identified who underwent CEA and 488 who underwent CAS. Patients undergoing CEA were more likely to be older and have symptomatic stenosis, and less likely to be white, have congestive heart failure, and have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There were no significant differences between CEA and CAS in periprocedural 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, indicating the association of symptomatic status with 30-day mortality (p = 0.29) or the combined periprocedural outcome (p = 0.57) were 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 have higher risk based on baseline characteristics likely reflecting clinical practice case selection.

Abstract Image

ACS-NSQIP数据库中颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄的早期结果
背景:颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)都是治疗颈动脉狭窄的可行选择。我们试图通过“真实世界”的样本比较CEA和CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的围手术期结果。方法:我们使用国家外科质量改进计划数据库进行了一项回顾性观察研究,比较2005年至2012年颈动脉狭窄患者行CEA和CAS的30天(围手术期)预后。比较基线特征和围手术期结局,包括卒中、心肌梗死、死亡率和综合结局(卒中、心肌梗死或死亡的综合结局)。结果:共有54,640例患者接受了CEA, 488例患者接受了CAS。接受CEA的患者年龄较大,有症状性狭窄的可能性较大,白人、充血性心力衰竭和慢性阻塞性肺疾病的可能性较小。CEA和CAS在围手术期死亡率(0.9% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.33)、卒中(1.6% vs. 1.6 p = 0.93)、心肌梗死(0.9% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.08)或综合转归(3.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.09)方面无显著差异。症状状态与手术类型之间的相互作用不显著,表明在接受CEA和CAS的病例中,症状状态与30天死亡率(p = 0.29)或合并围手术期结局(p = 0.57)的相关性相似。结论:CEA和CAS治疗颈动脉狭窄的早期结果在“现实世界”样本中似乎相似,与临床试验相当。基于可能反映临床实践病例选择的基线特征,接受CAS的患者更可能是年轻人,手术风险更高。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信