Stroke/Death Rates Following Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in Contemporary Administrative

K I Paraskevas1, E L Kalmykov2, A R Naylor2

  • 1St. George's Vascular Institute, St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Insights

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) shows higher stroke/death rates than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in recent data. Outcomes often exceed American Heart Association (AHA) thresholds, with no evidence of improved safety over time for CAS.

Area of Science:

  • Vascular Surgery
  • Interventional Cardiology
  • Health Services Research

Background:

  • Randomized trials indicate higher stroke/death rates for carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
  • Despite trial data, 2011 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines expanded CAS indications, influenced by specific trials and industry-sponsored registry outcomes.
  • Contemporary administrative dataset registries provide crucial insights into real-world procedural risks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare stroke/death rates between CAS and CEA in contemporary registries.
  • To evaluate if CAS stroke/death rates align with established AHA risk thresholds.
  • To investigate trends in procedural risk for CAS and CEA over time.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (Jan 2008-Feb 2015).
  • Inclusion of administrative dataset registries reporting outcomes for both CEA and CAS.
  • Adherence to PRISMA statement recommendations for systematic reviews.

Main Results:

  • Analysis of 21 registries with over 1.5 million procedures.
  • Significantly higher stroke/death rates post-CAS compared to CEA in 52% of registries for asymptomatic and 61% for symptomatic patients.
  • CAS outcomes exceeded AHA thresholds in 43% of registries for asymptomatic and 72% for symptomatic patients; procedural risk surpassed 10% in 28% of registries for symptomatic patients.

Conclusions:

  • Contemporary registries indicate persistently higher stroke/death rates with CAS versus CEA.
  • CAS procedural risks frequently exceed recommended AHA thresholds.
  • No evidence supports a sustained decrease in procedural risk for CAS over the study period.
Abstract