Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 9, 2026

A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
Complication-Specific In-Hospital Costs After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Artery Stenting
Hanaa Dakour-Aridi1, Besma Nejim1, Satinderjit Locham1
11 The Johns Hopkins Bayview Vascular and Endovascular Research Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Insights
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is more cost-effective than carotid artery stenting (CAS) despite higher stroke costs. CEA offers lower complication rates and baseline costs, making it a preferred intervention for stroke prevention.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Health Economics
- Clinical Outcomes Research
Background:
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are procedures to prevent stroke.
- Comparing the economic impact and patient outcomes of CEA versus CAS is crucial for clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantify and compare the incremental costs of in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) following CEA versus CAS.
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these two carotid revascularization strategies.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 100,185 patients undergoing CEA or CAS between 2009-2015 from the Premier Healthcare Database.
- Multivariate logistic and generalized linear models were used to analyze outcomes and hospitalization costs.
- Outcomes were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Main Results:
- CAS showed significantly higher adjusted odds of stroke (aOR 1.55) and death (aOR 2.60) compared to CEA.
- No significant difference in MI risk was observed between CEA and CAS.
- The adjusted incremental cost of stroke was higher with CEA ($2000), particularly in asymptomatic patients.
Conclusions:
- While CEA incurs higher incremental stroke costs, it remains more cost-effective due to lower overall complication rates and baseline expenses.
- Further long-term cost-effectiveness studies are recommended to solidify conclusions on CEA versus CAS.
Purpose:
To quantify and compare the incremental cost associated with in-hospital stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was performed of 100,185 patients (mean age 70.7±9.5 years; 58.3% men) who underwent CEA (n=86,035) or CAS (n=14,150) between 2009 and 2015 and were entered into the Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariate logistic models and generalized linear models were used to analyze binary outcomes and hospitalization costs, respectively. Outcomes are presented as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results:
CAS was associated with 1.6 times higher adjusted odds of stroke [aOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.77), p<0.001] and with 2.6 times higher odds of death [aOR 2.60 (95% CI 2.14 to 3.17), p<0.001] compared with CEA. There was no significant difference in MI risk between the 2 procedures. The adjusted incremental cost of death and MI were similar between the 2 procedures. However, the adjusted incremental cost of stroke was significantly higher in CEA compared with CAS by an estimated $2000. When stratified with respect to symptomatic status, the increased adjusted incremental cost of stroke in CEA was mainly seen in asymptomatic patients ($5284 vs $2932, p<0.01).
Conclusion:
The incremental cost of in-hospital stroke is relatively higher in CEA compared to CAS. However, CEA remains a more cost-effective carotid intervention due to lower complication rates and baseline costs compared with CAS. Long-term cost-effectiveness studies are needed before definite conclusions are made.
Related Concept Videos
Hospitals-II
Nurses that work in...
Hospitals-I
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications
Pneumonia III: Complications and Assessment
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications
Asthma-III: Symptoms and Complications
Classification of Asthma

