Arhuidese Isibor J, Rizwan Muhammad, Nejim Besma, Malas Mahmoud
From the Division of Vascular Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD (I.J.A., M.R., B.N., M.M.); and Division of Vascular Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa (I.J.A.).
Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3086-3092. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.016963. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
Little is known of the excess risk attributable to secondary carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). This study evaluates outcomes of redo-CAS and CAS after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CASAPICEA) relative to primary-CAS.
We studied all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative, who underwent primary-CAS, CASAPICEA, or redo-CAS (2003-2016). Kaplan-Meier, multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate outcomes within 30 days and up to 1 year and identify their predictors.
There were 11 742 CAS procedures performed: 8519 (72%) primary-, 2645 (23%) CASAPICEA, and 578 (5%) redo-CAS. Comparing primary-CAS versus CASAPICEA versus redo-CAS, 30-day stroke/death was 2.5% versus 2.0% versus 1.3% for asymptomatic patients (=0.23) and 5.2% versus 2.6% versus 5.0% for symptomatic patients (=0.003). CASAPICEA was associated with significantly lower 30-day stroke/death (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.98; =0.04) compared with primary-CAS among symptomatic patients. The odds of bradycardia were lower following CASAPICEA (odds ratio: 0.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.39; <0.001) and redo-CAS (odds ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.78; =0.001) compared with primary-CAS. Similarly, the odds of hypotension were significantly lower in both groups compared with primary-CAS (CASAPICEA: 0.41 [0.35-0.48], <0.001; redo-CAS: 0.66 [0.50-0.86] =0.003). There were no significant differences in the hazards of stroke/death at 1 year for CASAPICEA and redo-CAS compared with primary-CAS.
CASAPICEA is associated with significantly lower odds of periprocedural stroke/death compared with primary-CAS among symptomatic patients. CASAPICEA and redo-CAS are associated with significantly lower odds of periprocedural hypotension and bradycardia but higher odds of hypertension compared with primary-CAS.
关于继发性颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)所致的额外风险,目前所知甚少。本研究评估了再次CAS以及同侧先前已行颈动脉内膜切除术之后的CAS(CASAPICEA)相对于初次CAS的结局。
我们研究了血管质量改进计划中所有接受初次CAS、CASAPICEA或再次CAS(2003 - 2016年)的患者。采用Kaplan - Meier法、多变量逻辑回归和Cox回归分析来评估30天内及长达1年的结局,并确定其预测因素。
共进行了11742例CAS手术:8519例(72%)初次CAS,2645例(23%)CASAPICEA,578例(5%)再次CAS。比较初次CAS、CASAPICEA和再次CAS,无症状患者30天内的卒中/死亡发生率分别为2.5%、2.0%和1.3%( =0.23),有症状患者分别为5.2%、2.6%和5.0%( =0.003)。在有症状患者中,与初次CAS相比,CASAPICEA的30天卒中/死亡发生率显著更低(比值比:0.60;95%置信区间:0.37 - 0.98; =0.04)。与初次CAS相比,CASAPICEA(比值比:0.32;95%置信区间:0.26 - 0.39; <0.001)和再次CAS(比值比:0.55;95%置信区间:0.39 - 0.78; =0.001)后心动过缓的发生率更低。同样,与初次CAS相比,两组中低血压的发生率均显著更低(CASAPICEA:0.41 [0.35 - 0.48], <0.001;再次CAS:0.66 [0.50 - 0.86] =0.003)。与初次CAS相比,CASAPICEA和再次CAS在1年时的卒中/死亡风险无显著差异。
在有症状患者中,与初次CAS相比,CASAPICEA围手术期卒中/死亡的发生率显著更低。与初次CAS相比,CASAPICEA和再次CAS围手术期低血压和心动过缓的发生率显著更低,但高血压的发生率更高。