Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting When Performed by a Single Vascular Surgeon

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Rizwan ◽  
Hanaa Dakour Aridi ◽  
Tru Dang ◽  
Widian Alshwaily ◽  
Besma Nejim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Vascular Surgeon ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Short And Long Term

Objectives: Carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are 2 effective treatment options for carotid revascularization and stroke prevention. The long-term outcomes of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) reported similar stroke and death rate between the 2 procedures. This study presents the short- and long-term outcomes of CEA and CAS of all risk patients performed by a single vascular surgeon in a real-world setting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent CEA and CAS from September 2005 to June 2017 at our institute. Student t test, χ2, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare patient’s characteristics. Multivariate logistic, cox regression models and survival analysis were used to compare postoperative and long-term outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: Over 2000 patients were evaluated for carotid artery stenosis during the study period, and 313 revascularization procedures were performed (CEA: 47%, CAS: 53%). Patients’ age (Mean [95% confidence interval, CI] 68.8 [67.2-70.4] vs 69.7 [68.2-71.3], P = .40) was similar between CEA and CAS. Patients who underwent CAS had significantly higher comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], chronic heart failure [CHF], hyperlipidemia, and prior ipsilateral intervention, all P < .05). No difference was found in 30-day complications after CEA versus CAS including stroke (2.0% vs 1.2%), myocardial infarction (MI; 0.7% vs 1.2%), death (0% vs 1.2%) as well as combined major adverse events (stroke/death/MI; 2.7% vs 3.0%; all P > .05). Overall 7-year survival, stroke-free survival and restenosis-free survival were similar between the 2 groups ( P > .5). Significant predictors of mortality were diabetes (hazard ratio, HR [95% CI]: 2.41 [1.15-5.08]), chronic kidney disease (HR [95% CI]: 4.89 [1.97-12.13]), and COPD (HR [95% CI]: 3.31 [1.43-7.71]; all P values <.05). Statin use was protective with 71% reduction in risk of mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.12-0.67], P = .004). Conclusion: Our experience showed comparable short- and long-term outcomes of CAS and CEA performed for carotid artery stenosis by vascular surgeon. There was no difference between single institutional long-term outcomes and CREST outcomes following CEA and CAS.

scholarly journals Comparing Perioperative and Long-term Outcomes of Urgent, Early, or Late Carotid Revascularization Among Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. e111-e113
Author(s):  
Christina Cui ◽  
Hanaa Dakour-Aridi ◽  
Jinny J. Lu ◽  
Isaac N. Naazie ◽  
Marc L. Schermerhorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid

Abstract TP141: Can the Human Eye Match a Computer Algorithm in Identifying Hypoperfusion in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis?

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Randolph S Marshall ◽  
Ronald M Lazar ◽  
James F Meschia ◽  
Philip M Meyers ◽  
E Sander Connolly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Computer Algorithm ◽  
Automated System ◽  
Asymptomatic Carotid ◽  
Vascular Surgeon ◽  
Carotid Revascularization ◽  
Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis

Background: Perfusion weighted imaging on MRI (MRP) and computerized tomography perfusion (CTP) are increasingly required to manage large vessel disease. Computerized algorithms can quantify perfusion data, but the programs are expensive and not widely used outside acute stroke evaluation. We aimed to determine how well human observers can identify asymmetries in cerebral perfusion images compared with an automated computer algorithm. Methods: Ten clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease (4 vascular neurologists, 3 neuroradiologists, 1 vascular surgeon, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 interventional radiologist) were given 28 post-processed, color-coded, axial-slice MRP scans from patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endovascular versus Stenting Trial - Hemodynamics (CREST-H) study. All patients had >70%, unilateral, asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and had varying degrees of time-to-peak (TTP) delay on the side of stenosis, ranging from 0 to 2 secs, quantified by a semi-automated system that computes quantitative perfusion maps, using deconvolution of tissue and arterial signals (Olea, Cambridge, MA). A minimum volume of 10cc was required for a given TTP delay. Clinicians were asked to determine asymmetry (y/n) and side of occlusion for each case. Number of correct responses that matched the computer output were tallied. Results: We averaged correct responses by the 10 clinicians for cases at each increment of TTP delay; (Figure). At TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, accuracy was ≥80%. At 1.25 sec accuracy fell to 60%, and at ≤ 1 sec, accuracy was ≤50%. For TTP=0 (no asymmetry), accuracy was 71%. Conclusions: Visual impression of hemodynamic asymmetry among experienced clinicians was reasonably accurate for TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, but declined with more subtle asymmetries. Depending on the clinical impact of TTP delays (for CREST-H: correlation with cognitive decline), experienced clinicians may perform as well as an automated algorithm.

scholarly journals Perioperative and Long-term Outcomes of Carotid Endarterectomy for Japanese Asymptomatic Cervical Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Single Institution Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (11) ◽  
pp. 830-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taichi ISHIGURO ◽  
Taku YONEYAMA ◽  
Tatsuya ISHIKAWA ◽  
Koji YAMAGUCHI ◽  
Akitsugu KAWASHIMA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Single Institution

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.

Effects of carotid artery stenosis treatment on blood pressure

2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joonho Chung ◽  
Byung Moon Kim ◽  
Ho Kyu Paik ◽  
Dong-Keun Hyun ◽  
Hyeonseon Park
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Percentage Change ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Number Of Patients

Object The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term effects of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) on blood pressure (BP). Methods Between January 2003 and December 2009, 134 patients underwent 145 procedures for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Patients with at least 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up after treatment were included in this study. A total of 102 patients met this criterion and were placed in the CEA group (n = 59) or the CAS group (n = 43) according to their treatment. The percentage change in BP decrement and the number of patients with a normotensive BP were evaluated and compared between the groups. Results There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to baseline characteristics. Compared with the pretreatment BP, the follow-up BPs were significantly decreased in both groups. At the 1-year followup, the percentage change in the BP decrement was greater in the CAS group (percentage change: systolic BP 9.6% and diastolic BP 12.8%) than in the CEA group (percentage change: systolic BP 5.9% [p = 0.035] and diastolic BP = 8.1% [p = 0.049]), and there were more patients with a normotensive BP in the CAS group (46.5%) than in the CEA group (22.0%, p = 0.012). Conclusions Both CEA and CAS have BP-lowering effects. Carotid artery stenting seems to have a better effect than CEA on BP at the 1-year follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document