OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of carotid stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on physician-guided indications. BACKGROUND: The issue regarding long-term outcome of CAS versus CEA in patients with carotid stenosis is clinically relevant but remains unsettled. METHODS: Consecutive patients (71% men, mean age 71.3 years) treated by CEA (n = 1,118) or CAS (n = 1,084) after a training phase were reviewed. Selection of treatment was based on better-suitability characteristics (morphology and clinical). Data were adjusted with propensity score analysis and stratified by symptoms, age, and sex. RESULTS: Thirty-day stroke/death rates were similar: 2.8% in CAS and 2.0% in CEA (p = 0.27). The risk was higher in symptomatic (3.5%) versus asymptomatic (2.0%) patients (p = 0.04) but without significant difference between CAS and CEA groups. Five-year survival rates were 82.0% in CAS and 87.7% in CEA (p = 0.05). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the composite of any periprocedural stroke/death and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years after the procedure were similar in all patients (4.7% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.4) and the subgroups of symptomatic (8.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.7) and asymptomatic (2.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.2) patients in CEA versus CAS, respectively. Cox analysis, adjusted by propensity score, identified statin treatment (p = 0.016) and symptomatic disease (p = 0.003) associated with the composite end point. There were no sex- or age-related significant outcome differences. CONCLUSIONS: When physicians use their clinical judgment to select the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization CAS can offer efficacy and durability comparable to CEA with benefits persisting at 5 years.
Long-term prevention of stroke: a modern comparison of current carotid stenting and carotid endarterectomy
DE RANGO, PAOLA;VERZINI, Fabio;CAO, Piergiorgio
2011
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of carotid stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on physician-guided indications. BACKGROUND: The issue regarding long-term outcome of CAS versus CEA in patients with carotid stenosis is clinically relevant but remains unsettled. METHODS: Consecutive patients (71% men, mean age 71.3 years) treated by CEA (n = 1,118) or CAS (n = 1,084) after a training phase were reviewed. Selection of treatment was based on better-suitability characteristics (morphology and clinical). Data were adjusted with propensity score analysis and stratified by symptoms, age, and sex. RESULTS: Thirty-day stroke/death rates were similar: 2.8% in CAS and 2.0% in CEA (p = 0.27). The risk was higher in symptomatic (3.5%) versus asymptomatic (2.0%) patients (p = 0.04) but without significant difference between CAS and CEA groups. Five-year survival rates were 82.0% in CAS and 87.7% in CEA (p = 0.05). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the composite of any periprocedural stroke/death and ipsilateral stroke at 5 years after the procedure were similar in all patients (4.7% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.4) and the subgroups of symptomatic (8.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.7) and asymptomatic (2.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.2) patients in CEA versus CAS, respectively. Cox analysis, adjusted by propensity score, identified statin treatment (p = 0.016) and symptomatic disease (p = 0.003) associated with the composite end point. There were no sex- or age-related significant outcome differences. CONCLUSIONS: When physicians use their clinical judgment to select the appropriate technique for carotid revascularization CAS can offer efficacy and durability comparable to CEA with benefits persisting at 5 years.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
