BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare perioperative and midterm results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in similar cohorts of patients, a retrospectively matched case-control study was performed. METHODS: Three hundred and one case subjects undergoing CAS with cerebral protection and 301 concurrent matched-controls undergoing CEA were examined. Matching was by sex, age (+/-2 years), symptoms and coronary disease. RESULTS: The 30-day disabling stroke/death rate was 2.6% in the CAS group versus 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR] 2; 95% CI, 0.54 to 9.35; P=0.4). CAS patients had a significantly higher risk of periprocedural stroke (7.9% versus 2.3%; OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 18; P=0.001) than CEA patients. However, there was a decreasing trend in 30-day neurological event rates for the last 201 CAS matched cases: 5.4% versus 1.9% (OR 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.2; P=0.1). Fifty percent of CAS disabling strokes occurred during cannulation of epiaortic vessels before placement of cerebral protection. Conditional multivariate analysis revealed CAS as a predictor of 30-day stroke (hazard ratios [HR] 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 9.4; P=0.002) but not of 30-day disabling stroke/death (HR 3.6; 95% CI, 0.93 to 13.9; P=0.06). Restenosis free intervals at 36 months were 93.6% versus 92.1% for CAS and CEA, respectively, (P=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing CAS with CEA, the risk of any neurological events is still higher, particularly during catheterism and ballooning. The effect of the learning curve related to technical expertise and patient selection may influence the outcome of CAS versus CEA. In the midterm the restenosis rate of CAS compares favorably to CEA.
Outcome of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy: a case-control study
Verzini F;
2006-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare perioperative and midterm results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in similar cohorts of patients, a retrospectively matched case-control study was performed. METHODS: Three hundred and one case subjects undergoing CAS with cerebral protection and 301 concurrent matched-controls undergoing CEA were examined. Matching was by sex, age (+/-2 years), symptoms and coronary disease. RESULTS: The 30-day disabling stroke/death rate was 2.6% in the CAS group versus 1.3% in the CEA group (odds ratio [OR] 2; 95% CI, 0.54 to 9.35; P=0.4). CAS patients had a significantly higher risk of periprocedural stroke (7.9% versus 2.3%; OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 18; P=0.001) than CEA patients. However, there was a decreasing trend in 30-day neurological event rates for the last 201 CAS matched cases: 5.4% versus 1.9% (OR 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.2; P=0.1). Fifty percent of CAS disabling strokes occurred during cannulation of epiaortic vessels before placement of cerebral protection. Conditional multivariate analysis revealed CAS as a predictor of 30-day stroke (hazard ratios [HR] 3.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 9.4; P=0.002) but not of 30-day disabling stroke/death (HR 3.6; 95% CI, 0.93 to 13.9; P=0.06). Restenosis free intervals at 36 months were 93.6% versus 92.1% for CAS and CEA, respectively, (P=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing CAS with CEA, the risk of any neurological events is still higher, particularly during catheterism and ballooning. The effect of the learning curve related to technical expertise and patient selection may influence the outcome of CAS versus CEA. In the midterm the restenosis rate of CAS compares favorably to CEA.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
