Carotid angiographic characteristics in the CREST trial were major contributors to periprocedural stroke and death differences between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Wesley S. Moore ; MD^a ; Jeffrey J. Popma ; MD^b ; Gary S. Roubin ; MD ; PhD^c ; Jenifer H. Voeks ; PhD^d ; Donald E. Cutlip ; MD^b ; Michael Jones ; MD^e ; George Howard ; DrPH^f ; Thomas G. Brott ; MD^g ; ^h ; ^{brott.thomas@mayo.edu" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; on behalf of the CREST Investigators
• 刊名：Journal of Vascular Surgery
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：63
• 期：4
• 页码：851-858.e1
• 全文大小：1074 K

文摘

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated a higher periprocedural stroke and death (S+D) rate among patients randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) than to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Herein, we seek factors that affect the CAS-CEA treatment differences and potentially to identify a subgroup of patients for whom CAS and CEA have equivalent periprocedural S+D risk.

Methods

Patient and arterial characteristics were assessed as effect modifiers of the CAS-CEA treatment difference in 2502 patients by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a logistic regression model.

Results

Lesion length and lesions that were contiguous or were sequential and noncontiguous extending remote from the bulb were identified as influencing the CAS-to-CEA S+D treatment difference. For those with longer lesion length (≥12.85 mm), the risk of CAS was higher than that of CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-9.78). Among patients with sequential or remote lesions extending beyond the bulb, the risk for S+D was higher for CAS relative to CEA (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 1.20-67.8). For the 37% of patients with lesions that were both short and contiguous, the odds of S+D in those treated with CAS was nonsignificantly 28% lower than for CEA (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.21-2.46).

Conclusions

The higher S+D risk for those treated with CAS appears to be largely isolated to those with longer lesion length and/or those with sequential and remote lesions. In the absence of those lesion characteristics, CAS appears to be as safe as CEA with regard to periprocedural risk of S+D.