Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1242-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.04.489. Epub 2019 Dec 9.
This study evaluates the impact of surgical specialty, specifically vascular surgery (VS) versus non-VS (NVS; namely, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, general surgery, or neurosurgery) on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) outcomes stratified by symptom status on presentation.
The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Vascular Procedure Targeted database was queried for elective asymptomatic or symptomatic CEA (excluding concomitant CEA and cardiac surgery) from 2011 to 2016. Data were stratified by VS versus NVS and symptom presentation. Primary end points were 30-day stroke and stroke/death; secondary end points included perioperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of all assessed primary outcomes and propensity-weight analysis was used to confirm results.
Overall, 21,060 CEA (12,671 [59%] asymptomatic) were identified with 19,687 (93%) done by VS. In the asymptomatic CEA cohort, VS had lower unadjusted stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; P = .021) and stroke/death (1.7% vs 3.2%; P = .006) rates. In addition, VS had fewer deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; P = .033) and pulmonary complications (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .036). After risk adjustment, the NVS asymptomatic cohort predicted stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.1; P = .032), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.2; P = .008). This NVS cohort also predicted stroke/death (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .013), driven by neurosurgery (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.7; P = .035). After propensity weighting, these differences persisted (stroke: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3; P = .030; stroke/death: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .011). Among symptomatic CEA, there was no difference between VS and NVS in unadjusted primary end points of stroke (3.1% vs 4.2%; P = .106) or stroke/death (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .275). However, in this cohort, VS had fewer major complications (12.7% vs 15.5%; P = .029).
This study identifies the VS specialty as having significantly better outcomes after CEA in patients presenting with asymptomatic disease than NVS specialty, as evidenced by lower rates of stroke and stroke death, which persisted after risk adjustment and propensity weighting. This difference in stroke and stroke/death was not apparent in the symptomatic cohort; however, NVS did have increased unadjusted rates of major complications. Although this finding may reflect multiple factors, including higher operative volume, training, or technical approach, these differences in 30-day CEA outcomes may be crucial for the proper interpretation of ongoing national outcome trials such as CREST2.
本研究评估了手术专业(具体为血管外科[VS]与非 VS[即心脏外科、胸外科、普通外科或神经外科])对有症状和无症状颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)患者围手术期结局的影响,分层依据为就诊时的症状状态。
从 2011 年至 2016 年,国家外科质量改进计划血管手术靶向数据库中查询了择期无症状或有症状 CEA(不包括同期 CEA 和心脏手术)的资料。数据按 VS 与非 VS 和症状表现进行分层。主要终点为 30 天内的卒中及卒中和/或死亡;次要终点包括围手术期并发症。多变量逻辑回归确定了所有评估主要结局的预测因素,并采用倾向评分加权分析确认结果。
共确定了 21060 例 CEA(12671 例[59%]为无症状),其中 19687 例(93%)由 VS 完成。在无症状 CEA 队列中,VS 的未校正卒中(1.3% vs 2.4%;P=.021)和卒中和/或死亡(1.7% vs 3.2%;P=.006)发生率较低。此外,VS 的死亡(0.6% vs 1.3%;P=.033)和肺部并发症(1.6% vs 2.7%;P=.036)也较少。经过风险调整后,非 VS 无症状队列预测卒中(比值比[OR],1.8;95%置信区间[CI],1.1-3.1;P=.032),主要由神经外科(OR,3.1;95% CI,1.3-7.2;P=.008)所致。该非 VS 无症状队列还预测卒中和/或死亡(OR,1.8;95% CI,1.1-2.9;P=.013),主要由神经外科(OR,2.5;95% CI,1.1-5.7;P=.035)所致。经过倾向评分加权后,这些差异仍然存在(卒中:OR,1.9;95% CI,1.1-3.3;P=.030;卒中和/或死亡:OR,1.9;95% CI,1.2-3.0;P=.011)。在有症状 CEA 中,VS 和非 VS 之间在未校正的主要结局(卒中:3.1% vs 4.2%;P=.106)或卒中和/或死亡(3.8% vs 4.6%;P=.275)方面无差异。然而,在这一队列中,VS 的主要并发症(12.7% vs 15.5%;P=.029)较少。
本研究发现,在出现无症状疾病的患者中,VS 专业与非 VS 专业相比,CEA 后结局显著更好,表现为卒中发生率和卒中死亡率较低,这些差异在风险调整和倾向评分加权后仍然存在。在有症状的队列中,卒中或卒中和/或死亡的差异并不明显;然而,非 VS 确实有更高的未校正主要并发症发生率。尽管这一发现可能反映了多种因素,包括更高的手术量、培训或技术方法,但这些 30 天 CEA 结局的差异对于正确解释正在进行的国家结局试验(如 CREST2)可能至关重要。