Key result
Tailored CAS vs. CEA based on plaque vulnerability shows no difference in 30-day stroke rates.
Why the study?
Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting are not appropriate for some patients with internal carotid artery stenosis, and the role of plaque vulnerability and treatment risk evaluation in treatment selection was analyzed.
Does a treatment selection strategy based on plaque vulnerability and risk evaluation provide good perioperative outcomes in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis?
Cohort (n=121)
No
Does a treatment selection strategy based on plaque vulnerability and risk evaluation provide good perioperative outcomes in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis?
A tailored treatment strategy for internal carotid artery stenosis based on plaque vulnerability and surgical risk yields comparable and favorable perioperative outcomes across different patient risk profiles.
Supports individualized carotid stenosis selection; leaves open randomized confirmation of outcome benefit.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are not appropriate treatment procedure for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS) in some patients. The importance of plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation has been reported. We analyzed whether treatment selection contributes to the outcome. We retrospectively examined 121 patients who underwent CEA or CAS. Treatment was selected based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation. We selected CAS for patients with stable plaques and CEA for patients with unstable plaques, and considered the other treatment for high-risk patients. The patients were classified as the stable plaque (Stable: n = 42), the unstable plaque and CEA low risk (Unstable/Low: n = 30), and the CEA high-risk (Unstable/High: n = 49). Frequency of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and systemic complications was examined. CEA and CAS were performed in 35 and 86 patients, respectively. One patient (2.9%) had a stroke in CEA and five patients (5.8%) in CAS (P = 0.50). Systemic complications were observed in two patients (5.7%) in CEA and six (7.1%) in CAS (P = 0.80). There were no differences in stroke (Stable; 2.4%, Unstable/Low; 3.2%, and Unstable/High; 8.2%) and systemic complications (Stable; 9.5%, Unstable/Low; 3.3%, and Unstable/High; 6.1%) among three groups (P = 0.44 and P = 0.59, respectively). The treatment selection based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation could provide good treatment outcome for high-risk patients. It is ideal to select an appropriate treatment for ICAS by one neurovascular team.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ito et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis (n=121). Carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was evaluated on Stroke within 30 days (p=0.50). Treatment selection for internal carotid artery stenosis based on plaque vulnerability and risk evaluation resulted in no significant difference in 30-day stroke rates between carotid artery stenting (5.8%) and endarterectomy (2.9%, P=0.50).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: