Procedural Safety Comparison Between Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Carotid Endarterectomy, and Carotid Stenting: Perioperative and 1‐Year Rates of Stroke or Death

Author:

Columbo Jesse A.12ORCID,Martinez‐Camblor Pablo34ORCID,Stone David H.12,Goodney Philip P.12,O'Malley A. James24ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Section of Vascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Center Dartmouth‐Hitchcock Medical Center Lebanon NH

2. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College Hanover NH

3. Department of Anesthesia Dartmouth‐Hitchcock Medical Center Lebanon NH

4. Department of Biomedical Data Science Dartmouth College Hanover NH

Abstract

Background Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, no randomized trial to evaluate TCAR has been performed to date, and previous reports have important limitations. Accordingly, we measured stroke or death after TCAR compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF‐CAS). Methods and Results We used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry to study patients who underwent TCAR, CEA, or TF‐CAS from September 2016 to June 2021. Our primary outcomes were perioperative and 1‐year stroke or death. We used logistic regression for risk adjustment for perioperative outcomes and Cox regression for risk adjustment for 1‐year outcomes. We used a 2‐stage residual inclusion instrumental variable (IV) method to adjust for selection bias and other unmeasured confounding. Our instrument was a center's preference to perform TCAR versus CEA or TF‐CAS. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified by presenting neurologic symptoms. We studied 21 234 patients who underwent TCAR, 82 737 who underwent CEA, and 14 595 who underwent TF‐CAS across 662 centers. The perioperative rate of stroke or death was 2.0% for TCAR, 1.7% for CEA, and 3.7% for TF‐CAS ( P <0.001). Compared with TCAR, the IV‐adjusted odds ratio of perioperative stroke or death for CEA was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55–0.99) and for TF‐CAS was 1.66 (95% CI, 0.99–2.79). Results were similar among both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The 1‐year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% for TCAR, 5.2% for CEA, and 9.7% for TF‐CAS ( P <0.001). Compared with TCAR, the IV‐adjusted hazard ratio of 1 year stroke or death for CEA was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80–1.17), and for TF‐CAS was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.04–2.02). IV analysis further demonstrated that symptomatic patients with carotid stenosis had the lowest 1‐year likelihood of stroke or death with TCAR (compared with TCAR, symptomatic IV‐adjusted hazard ratio for CEA: 1.30 [95% CI, 1.04–1.64], and TF‐CAS: 1.86 [95% CI, 1.27–2.71]). Conclusions Perioperative stroke or death was greater following TCAR when compared with CEA. However, at 1 year there was no statistically significant difference in stroke or death between the 2 procedures. TCAR performed favorably compared with TF‐CAS at both time points. Although CEA remains the gold standard procedure for patients with carotid stenosis, TCAR appears to be a safe alternative to CEA and TF‐CAS when used selectively and may be useful when treating symptomatic patients.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cited by 28 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3