Do Women Have a Higher Risk of Adverse Events after Carotid Revascularization?

Carotid artery stenosis is thought to cause up to 10% of ischemic strokes. Till now, the optimal treatment between carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains debated, in particular for specific subgroups of patients. Available data suggest that female have higher risk of perioperative adverse events, but conflicting results comparing CEA and CAS regarding the benefit for male or female are present in the literature. A systematic review of recent publications on gender-related differences in operative risks is reported. Moreover, a consecutive cohort of 912 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (407, 44.6%) or CAS (505, 55.4%) in a single institution has been evaluated to determine the influence of gender (59.7% male vs. 40.3% female) on the outcomes after both revascularization procedures at 30 days and during 3 years of follow-up. Our experience seems to confirm literature data as regarding female higher risk of restenosis. Female patients had higher periprocedural (2.7% female vs. 0.9% male; p < 0.05) and long-term (11.4% female vs. 4.6% male; p < 0.05) restenosis rate. In conclusion, female anatomic and pathologic parameters should be taken into account for an accurate diagnosis of carotid stenosis and guidelines should be adjusted consequently

Is diabetes a marker of higher risk after carotid revascularization? Experience from a single centre

Purpose: This single centre study investigates the influence of diabetes mellitus on outcomes following carotid artery endarterectomy or stenting. Methods: In total, 752 carotid revascularizations (58.2% carotid artery stenting and 41.8% carotid endarterectomy) were performed in 221 (29.4%) patients with diabetes and 532 (70.6%) patients without diabetes. The study outcomes were death, disabling and non-disabling stroke, transient ischaemic attack and restenosis within 36 months after the procedure. Results: Patients with diabetes had higher periprocedural risk of any stroke or death (3.6% diabetes vs 0.6% no diabetes; p 0.05) and restenosis (2.7% diabetes vs 0.6% no diabetes; p < 0.05). During long-term follow-up, there were no significant differences in Kaplan–Meier estimates of freedom from death, any stroke and transient ischaemic attack, between people with and without diabetes for each carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy subgroup. Patients with diabetes showed higher rates of restenosis during follow-up than patients without diabetes (36-months estimate risk of restenosis: 21.2% diabetes vs 12.5% no diabetes; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The presence of diabetes was associated with increased periprocedural risk, but no further additional risk emerged during longer term follow-up. Restenosis rates were higher among patients with diabetes

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable