Abstract
Objectives Perioperative outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) have been well studied. Less is known about the durability and reintervention rates of each, particularly in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We sought to compare real-world rates of ipsilateral reintervention, stroke, and death in patients undergoing CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR.
Methods The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) was matched to Medicare claims via the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Implantation Network (VISION) database to identify patients who had primary carotid revascularization from December 2016 to December 2019 in a n observational cohort study. The primary outcome was ipsilateral reintervention; secondary outcomes included stroke and mortality. After 1:1 greedy matching using propensity scores, patients who underwent CEA and carotid artery stenting (CAS) via either transcarotid or transfemoral approach were compared using time-dependent Cox regression models. A separate propensity matched analysis was then performed to compare TFCAS and TCAR. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared using log rank tests.
Results After propensity matching (N=27,944 patients), we compared 4705 patients in each group. Risk of re-intervention was increased within 6 months for CAS (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.11-3.50; p<0.05), but not beyond 6 months (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.62-1.89; p=0.79). The incidence of stroke prior to discharge was increased in patients undergoing CAS (5.4% v. 1.0%; p<0.0001) and mortality hazard with CAS was increased both within 6 months (HR:1.69; 95% CI: 1.38- 2.07; p<0.0001) and beyond 6 months (HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.27-1.81; p<0.0001). When comparing TFCAS and TCAR (n=2115 per group), there was a significantly increased risk of re- intervention for TFCAS beyond 6 months (HR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.05-5.11, p <0.05).
Conclusions CEA portends a lower risk of reintervention than CAS, particularly within the first 6 months after revascularization. On subgroup analysis of stenting modalities, TCAR had a lower hazard of longer-term reintervention compared to TFCAS.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Stanford University IRB-57282
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The Vascular Quality Initiative datasets are national procedural datasets and the data within are available to institutions who participate in the Society for Vascular Surgery Quality Improvement Program after review board approval.
