Why the study?
The introduction of carotid stenting led to numerous comparative trials with carotid endarterectomy, prompting a review of real-world volumes, outcomes, and complications over an extended period to identify durable practice changes.
Does carotid stenting compared to carotid endarterectomy improve outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization?
Does carotid stenting compared to carotid endarterectomy improve outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization?
In real-world practice in the US from 1997-2015, carotid endarterectomy continued to have more favorable outcomes and lower complication rates compared to carotid stenting.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Real-world NIS data favor CEA volumes and outcomes over CAS; leaves open questions on contemporary techniques and selection.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of carotid stenting (CAS) has led to numerous comparative trials with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to review real-world volumes, outcomes, and complications following CEA versus CAS over an extended period to identify durable changes in practice. METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample. Trends were assessed by annual percent change (APC), and adjusted risk ratios were calculated across the last 5 years of the study period. RESULTS: During 1997-2015, 199,330 symptomatic and 1,995,637 asymptomatic patients underwent carotid revascularization. In symptomatic patients, CEA declined (1997-2004; APC = -7.68%, P < 0.001) and CAS rose (1997-2008; APC = 15.48%, P < 0.001) during the first decade, subsequently becoming more muted. In asymptomatic patients, CEA decreased, whereas CAS initially increased (1997-2006; APC = 20.27%, P < 0.001) and then decreased (2007-2015; APC = -4.52%, P < 0.001). Routine discharge after symptomatic revascularization declined in CEA after 2003 and in CAS after 2006 (APC = -1.72% and -3.11%, respectively, P < 0.001 for both), corresponding to increasing patient comorbidity; similar trends were seen in asymptomatic patients. Death decreased after CEA (symptomatic and asymptomatic; APC = -4.85% and -3.53%, respectively, P < 0.001 for both) and CAS (asymptomatic only, APC = -2.53%, P = 0.04). CAS remained associated with a higher adjusted risk ratio for death, venous thromboembolism, and seizures in all patients and stroke and nonroutine discharge in symptomatic patients, during the last 5 years of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality has improved, but routine discharge has decreased following both CEA and CAS, congruent with increasing patient comorbidity. Trends in volumes, outcomes, and complication rates continue to favor CEA in real-world practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Golnari et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: