Higher Rate of Reinterventions after Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic Patients: A Retrospective Stroke Center's Cohort Study Between 2015–2024

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Annals of vascular surgery Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.12.074
Camila Esquetini-Vernon , James F. Meschia , Josephine Huang , Camilo Polania Sandoval , Mohamed Rajab , Kevin M. Barrett , W. Chris Fox , David A. Miller , Rabih G. Tawk , Gabriela C. Pomales Diaz , Eniola Oyefeso , Ranya Benchaaboune , Gabriel Cruz-Gonzalez , Janelle R. Hartwell , Suren Jeevaratnam , Xindi Chen , Shalyn M. Fullerton , Christopher Jacobs , Richard D. Beegle , Sukhwinder J.S. Sandhu , Young Erben
{"title":"Higher Rate of Reinterventions after Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting in Symptomatic Patients: A Retrospective Stroke Center's Cohort Study Between 2015–2024","authors":"Camila Esquetini-Vernon ,&nbsp;James F. Meschia ,&nbsp;Josephine Huang ,&nbsp;Camilo Polania Sandoval ,&nbsp;Mohamed Rajab ,&nbsp;Kevin M. Barrett ,&nbsp;W. Chris Fox ,&nbsp;David A. Miller ,&nbsp;Rabih G. Tawk ,&nbsp;Gabriela C. Pomales Diaz ,&nbsp;Eniola Oyefeso ,&nbsp;Ranya Benchaaboune ,&nbsp;Gabriel Cruz-Gonzalez ,&nbsp;Janelle R. Hartwell ,&nbsp;Suren Jeevaratnam ,&nbsp;Xindi Chen ,&nbsp;Shalyn M. Fullerton ,&nbsp;Christopher Jacobs ,&nbsp;Richard D. Beegle ,&nbsp;Sukhwinder J.S. Sandhu ,&nbsp;Young Erben","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.12.074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Carotid artery stenosis is a significant contributor to ischemic strokes, and its surgical management includes carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). CEA has traditionally been preferred, but TF-CAS and TCAR are also excellent alternative options if the anatomy of the vessels allows them. This study reports our short- and mid-term outcomes after carotid artery revascularization in symptomatic patients at a stroke center.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-institution retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2015 to 2024. All patients with focal neurological symptoms attributable to ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis within 6 months before the intervention were included. Primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included mid-term stroke, MI, death, restenosis, and reinterventions. Statistical analyses were performed using R v 4.4.1, and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for sub-group analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 183 interventions on 178 patients were analyzed (TF-CAS = 118, CEA = 55, and TCAR = 10), with a mean age of 71.5 ± 9.6 years. The cohort included 123 male (69.1%) and 55 female (30.9%) patients. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) prevalence was higher in TCAR patients (30.0%) compared to CEA (5.5%) and TF-CAS (5.3%) (<em>P</em> = 0.04). TF-CAS patients had a higher rate of preoperative stroke (68.6%) compared to CEA (50.9%) (<em>P</em> = 0.02); though there was no difference in stroke severity (NIHSS in TF-CAS: 6.8 ± 7.2 vs. CEA: 5.7 ± 7.1; <em>P</em> = 0.86). CEA patients had a higher rate of TIAs (43.6%) than TF-CAS (25.0%) (<em>P</em> = 0.02); but their ABCD2 score did not differ (CEA 3.6 ± 1.6 vs. TF-CAS 3.4 ± 1.5, <em>P</em> = 0.92). Preoperative amaurosis fugax rates were similar (TF-CAS:16.4% vs. CEA 14.4% <em>P</em> = 0.72) among groups. Carotid artery degree of stenosis measured by computed tomography angiography (CTA) was significantly higher in TF-CAS (75.1 ± 17.2) than in CEA (69.6 ± 18.3) (<em>P</em> = 0.01). A vulnerable plaque was found in 60% of CEA and 50% of TF-CAS patients (<em>P</em> = 0.42). TF-CAS had longer hospitalizations than CEA patients (TF-CAS median of 14.0 (IQR: 2.0–16.0) days versus CEA median of 9.0 (IQR 2.0–15.0) days; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01). Transient cranial nerve injuries occurred in 5.5% of CEA patients but none in TF-CAS patients (<em>P</em> = 0.03). Thirty-day combined ipsilateral stroke, MI and death were 0.0% for CEA and 5.0% for TF-CAS (<em>P</em> = 0.18). Two perioperative deaths occurred among TF-CAS patients, who were older than 70 years of age and with NIHSS of 19 and 8 on presentation. Mid-term follow-up was 1.2 ± 1.4 years. Mid-term combined ipsilateral TIA, stroke, MI, and death were 21.8% for CEA and 22.9% for TF-CAS (<em>P</em> = 0.88). TF-CAS had a higher rate of restenosis (11.0%, <em>P</em> = 0.01) and reintervention (12.7%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) compared to CEA. Reinterventions included cutting-balloon angioplasties, CEA, and TCAR.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>TF-CAS is associated with higher, but no significant perioperative mortality, particularly in patients over 70 years of age. Thirty-day and mid-term composite outcomes including ipsilateral stroke, MI, and death are similar in the CEA and TF-CAS groups. However, restenosis occurred more frequently in the TF-CAS group, leading to a higher rate of reintervention, the earliest occurring 2 months after initial intervention. Careful patient selection may mitigate the need for reinterventions in patients undergoing TF-CAS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":"113 ","pages":"Pages 64-73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890509625000275","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Carotid artery stenosis is a significant contributor to ischemic strokes, and its surgical management includes carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). CEA has traditionally been preferred, but TF-CAS and TCAR are also excellent alternative options if the anatomy of the vessels allows them. This study reports our short- and mid-term outcomes after carotid artery revascularization in symptomatic patients at a stroke center.

Methods

This single-institution retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2015 to 2024. All patients with focal neurological symptoms attributable to ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis within 6 months before the intervention were included. Primary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included mid-term stroke, MI, death, restenosis, and reinterventions. Statistical analyses were performed using R v 4.4.1, and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for sub-group analysis.

Results

A total of 183 interventions on 178 patients were analyzed (TF-CAS = 118, CEA = 55, and TCAR = 10), with a mean age of 71.5 ± 9.6 years. The cohort included 123 male (69.1%) and 55 female (30.9%) patients. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) prevalence was higher in TCAR patients (30.0%) compared to CEA (5.5%) and TF-CAS (5.3%) (P = 0.04). TF-CAS patients had a higher rate of preoperative stroke (68.6%) compared to CEA (50.9%) (P = 0.02); though there was no difference in stroke severity (NIHSS in TF-CAS: 6.8 ± 7.2 vs. CEA: 5.7 ± 7.1; P = 0.86). CEA patients had a higher rate of TIAs (43.6%) than TF-CAS (25.0%) (P = 0.02); but their ABCD2 score did not differ (CEA 3.6 ± 1.6 vs. TF-CAS 3.4 ± 1.5, P = 0.92). Preoperative amaurosis fugax rates were similar (TF-CAS:16.4% vs. CEA 14.4% P = 0.72) among groups. Carotid artery degree of stenosis measured by computed tomography angiography (CTA) was significantly higher in TF-CAS (75.1 ± 17.2) than in CEA (69.6 ± 18.3) (P = 0.01). A vulnerable plaque was found in 60% of CEA and 50% of TF-CAS patients (P = 0.42). TF-CAS had longer hospitalizations than CEA patients (TF-CAS median of 14.0 (IQR: 2.0–16.0) days versus CEA median of 9.0 (IQR 2.0–15.0) days; P < 0.01). Transient cranial nerve injuries occurred in 5.5% of CEA patients but none in TF-CAS patients (P = 0.03). Thirty-day combined ipsilateral stroke, MI and death were 0.0% for CEA and 5.0% for TF-CAS (P = 0.18). Two perioperative deaths occurred among TF-CAS patients, who were older than 70 years of age and with NIHSS of 19 and 8 on presentation. Mid-term follow-up was 1.2 ± 1.4 years. Mid-term combined ipsilateral TIA, stroke, MI, and death were 21.8% for CEA and 22.9% for TF-CAS (P = 0.88). TF-CAS had a higher rate of restenosis (11.0%, P = 0.01) and reintervention (12.7%, P < 0.01) compared to CEA. Reinterventions included cutting-balloon angioplasties, CEA, and TCAR.

Conclusions

TF-CAS is associated with higher, but no significant perioperative mortality, particularly in patients over 70 years of age. Thirty-day and mid-term composite outcomes including ipsilateral stroke, MI, and death are similar in the CEA and TF-CAS groups. However, restenosis occurred more frequently in the TF-CAS group, leading to a higher rate of reintervention, the earliest occurring 2 months after initial intervention. Careful patient selection may mitigate the need for reinterventions in patients undergoing TF-CAS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有症状患者经股颈动脉支架置入术后再干预率较高:2015-2024年卒中中心回顾性队列研究
颈动脉狭窄是缺血性中风的重要诱因,其手术治疗包括颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)、经股动脉支架置入术(TF-CAS)和经颈动脉重建术(TCAR)。传统上首选CEA,但如果血管解剖结构允许,TF-CAS和TCAR也是很好的替代选择。本研究报告了卒中中心有症状患者颈动脉重建术后的短期和中期结果。方法:2015 - 2024年进行单机构回顾性队列研究。所有在干预前6个月内出现局灶性神经症状的患者均可归因于同侧颈动脉狭窄。主要结局为卒中、心肌梗死(MI)和30天内死亡。次要结局包括中期卒中、心肌梗死、死亡、再狭窄和再干预。采用R v 4.4.1进行统计学分析,采用Kaplan-Meier曲线进行亚组分析。结果:共分析178例患者的183项干预措施(TF-CAS = 118, CEA = 55, TCAR = 10),平均年龄71.5±9.6岁。该队列包括123名男性(69.1%)和55名女性(30.9%)患者。外周动脉疾病(PAD)在TCAR患者中的患病率(30.0%)高于CEA(5.5%)和TF-CAS (5.3%) (p = 0.04)。TF-CAS患者术前卒中发生率(68.6%)高于CEA (50.9%) (p = 0.02);但卒中严重程度无差异(TF-CAS组NIHSS: 6.8±7.2 vs CEA: 5.7±7.1;p = 0.86)。CEA患者TIAs发生率(43.6%)高于TF-CAS (25.0%) (p = 0.02);但ABCD2评分差异无统计学意义(CEA 3.6±1.6比TF-CAS 3.4±1.5,p = 0.92)。两组术前隐匿性黑蒙发生率相似(TF-CAS:16.4% vs CEA: 14.4% p = 0.72)。ct血管造影(CTA)测量的颈动脉狭窄度(75.1±17.2)明显高于CEA组(69.6±18.3)(p = 0.01)。在60%的CEA和50%的TF-CAS患者中发现易损斑块(p = 0.42)。TF-CAS患者比CEA患者住院时间更长(TF-CAS中位数为14.0 (IQR: 2.0-16.0)天,CEA中位数为9.0 (IQR: 2.0-15.0)天;结论:TF-CAS与较高的围手术期死亡率相关,但无显著性,特别是在70岁以上的患者中。包括同侧卒中、心肌梗死和死亡在内的30天和中期综合结果在CEA组和TF-CAS组中相似。然而,TF-CAS组再狭窄发生率更高,导致再干预率更高,最早发生在初始干预后2个月。仔细的患者选择可能会减少接受TF-CAS患者再次干预的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
期刊最新文献
Kinesiophobia and its Influencing Factors in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Cross-Sectional Survey Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Explantation for Failed Noninfected Aortic Endografts Artificial Intelligence–Based ABI Dynamic Fluctuation Patterns Predict Adverse Vascular Events in PAD: A Multicenter Prospective Study Composite Outcomes to Improve Patient Selection in Octogenarians Undergoing Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Impact of Conversion from Local/Regional to General Anesthesia on Outcomes in Transcarotid Artery Revascularization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1