Key result
Carotid endarterectomy was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk, with the absolute risk reduction for stroke, TIA, or death varying from 3.2% in the lowest risk quintile to 10.7% in the highest risk quintile.
Why the study?
Carotid endarterectomy is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis despite its small average net benefit, motivating risk stratification to identify patients who would clearly benefit from treatment.
Does risk modelling improve treatment decisions between carotid endarterectomy and medical management in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
Cohort (n=1,551)
Yes
Does risk modelling improve treatment decisions between carotid endarterectomy and medical management in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
Risk stratification tools using baseline factors can meaningfully influence clinical decision-making for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic carotid disease, identifying patients with the greatest absolute benefit.
May aid identification of higher-benefit patients for CEA; leaves open whether models should guide decisions without prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, yet its average net benefit is small. Risk stratification may identify high risk patients that would clearly benefit from treatment. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Risk factors for poor outcomes were included in backward and forward selection procedures to develop baseline risk models estimating the risk of non-perioperative ipsilateral stroke/TIA. Baseline risk was estimated for all ACAS participants and externally validated using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Baseline risk was then included in a treatment risk model that explored the interaction of baseline risk and treatment status (CEA vs. medical management) on the patient-centered outcome of any stroke or death, including peri-operative events. RESULTS: Three baseline risk factors (BMI, creatinine and degree of contralateral stenosis) were selected into our baseline risk model (c-statistic 0.59 [95% CI 0.54-0.65]). The model stratified absolute risk between the lowest and highest risk quintiles (5.1% vs. 12.5%). External validation in ARIC found similar predictiveness (c-statistic 0.58 [0.49-0.67]), but poor calibration across the risk spectrum. In the treatment risk model, CEA was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk and the magnitude of the treatment effect varied widely between the lowest and highest absolute risk quintiles (3.2% vs. 10.7%). CONCLUSION: Even modestly predictive risk stratification tools have the potential to meaningfully influence clinical decision making in asymptomatic carotid disease. However, our ACAS model requires target population recalibration prior to clinical application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burke et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (n=1,551). Carotid endarterectomy vs. Medical management was evaluated on Any stroke, TIA, or death. Carotid endarterectomy was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk, with the absolute risk reduction for stroke, TIA, or death varying from 3.2% in the lowest risk quintile to 10.7% in the highest risk quintile.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: