Voeks Jenifer H, Hanlon Bret, Brott Thomas G, Matsumura Jon S, Rosenfield Ken, Roubin Gary S, Howard George
Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
J Vasc Surg. 2025 Apr;81(4):938-944. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.12.008. Epub 2024 Dec 16.
We assessed if age was an effect modifier in a pooled analysis of two randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CREST and ACT-1.
We analyzed data from 2544 patients aged <80 yearas with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA (n = 1091; n = 1453) who were recruited between 2000 and 2013. Age was considered in four strata (<65, 65-69, 70-74, and 75-79 years). The primary outcome was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the peri-procedural period, or ipsilateral stroke afterwards. The secondary outcome of any stroke or death during the peri-procedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years was also analyzed.
For the primary outcome, there were no CAS vs CEA treatment differences within any age stratum (P > .05). For the secondary outcome of stroke or death, those randomized to CAS age 75 to 79 yearas were at approximately four times greater risk compared with those randomized to CEA (10% vs 2%; hazard ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-14.83). No treatment differences between CAS and CEA were detected for the three younger age strata, <65, 65 to 69, and 70 to 74 years (P > .05). For patients randomized to CAS, the risk of the primary endpoint for those aged 75 to 79 years was higher than the risk for those age <65 years (11% vs 4%; hazard ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-5.53), without significant differences between other strata (P > .05). For those randomized to CEA, there were no differences between age strata (P > .1).
This pooled analysis of 2544 asymptomatic patients in CREST and ACT-1 shows a higher stroke or death risk for CAS compared with CEA in only the oldest age group, 75 to 79 years. For patients randomized to CAS, there was an increased risk for patients aged 75 to 79 years. No increased risk by age was found for patients randomized to CEA. Hence, the clinical management of asymptomatic patients above age 75 years must be individualized to optimize outcomes in the context of advances in CAS since 2013.
在一项对两项比较无症状患者颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的随机试验(CREST和ACT-1)的汇总分析中,我们评估年龄是否为效应修饰因素。
我们分析了2000年至2013年招募的2544例年龄<80岁、无症状颈动脉狭窄≥70%且被随机分配至CAS或CEA组(n = 1091;n = 1453)患者的数据。年龄分为四个层次(<65岁、65 - 69岁、70 - 74岁和75 - 79岁)。主要结局是围手术期内发生的任何卒中、心肌梗死或死亡,或术后同侧卒中。还分析了围手术期内发生的任何卒中或死亡或4年内同侧卒中的次要结局。
对于主要结局,在任何年龄层次内CAS与CEA治疗之间均无差异(P > 0.05)。对于卒中或死亡的次要结局,随机分配至CAS组的75至79岁患者的风险约为随机分配至CEA组患者的四倍(10% 对2%;风险比,4.41;95%置信区间,1.31 - 14.83)。在<65岁、65至69岁和70至74岁这三个较年轻年龄层次中未检测到CAS与CEA之间的治疗差异(P > 0.05)。对于随机分配至CAS组的患者,75至79岁患者的主要终点风险高于<65岁患者(11% 对4%;风险比,2.90;95%置信区间,1.52 - 5.53),其他层次之间无显著差异(P > 0.05)。对于随机分配至CEA组的患者,各年龄层次之间无差异(P > 0.1)。
对CREST和ACT-1中2544例无症状患者的这项汇总分析表明,仅在75至79岁这一年龄最大的组中,与CEA相比,CAS的卒中或死亡风险更高。对于随机分配至CAS组的患者,75至79岁患者的风险增加。对于随机分配至CEA组的患者,未发现年龄增加带来的风险。因此,自2013年以来,鉴于CAS技术的进步,75岁以上无症状患者的临床管理必须个体化以优化结局。