In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers.MethodsWe compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death.ResultsA total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes.ConclusionsDespite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.     

Comparison of nationwide trends in 30-day readmission rates after carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy

ObjectiveCarotid revascularization procedures, carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), are among the most common vascular interventions performed in the United States, with significant resource utilization. Whereas multiple studies have reported outcomes after these procedures, data regarding 30-day readmission rates after these interventions remain scant.MethodsThe U.S. Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2014) was queried to identify all patients ≥18 years who were readmitted within 30 days after a hospital discharge for CEA or CAS.ResultsAmong 476,260 patients included, 13.5% underwent CAS and 86.5% underwent CEA. The combined 30-day readmission rate for all carotid revascularization procedures was 9.2% (10.6% after CAS and 9.0% after CEA). After 1:3 propensity matching, CAS was associated with higher risk of readmission compared with CEA (10.4% vs 9.4%). Neurologic complications and cardiac conditions were the two most common causes of readmission after both CAS (29.7% and 23.7%, respectively) and CEA (28.2% and 21.7%, respectively). The 30-day readmission rates were higher in CAS patients across all age groups as well as in those with a low or high baseline burden of comorbidities.ConclusionsIn this large nationwide study, CAS was associated with higher 30-day readmission rates compared with CEA irrespective of age or baseline burden of comorbidities. Neurologic or cardiac adverse events were responsible for >50% of readmissions after CAS and CEA.     

Surgical specialty and outcomes for carotid endarterectomy: evidence from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Background

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been performed since the 1950s and remains one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The procedure is performed by cardiothoracic, general, neurologic, and vascular surgeons. This study uses data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to examine the outcomes after CEA when performed by general or vascular surgeons.

Materials and methods

Data included 34,493 CEAs from years 2005 to 2010 recorded in the NSQIP database. Primary outcomes measured were length of stay, 30-d mortality, surgical site infection, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, and blood transfusion requirement. Secondary outcomes measured were the remaining intraoperative outcomes from the NSQIP database.

Results

After controlling for patient and surgical characteristics, patients treated by general surgeons did not have a significantly different LOS or 30-d mortality than those treated by vascular surgeons. Patients of general surgeons had nearly twice the risk of acquiring a surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94; P = 0.012), >1.5 times the risk of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 1.56; P = 0.008), and >1.8 times the risk of blood transfusion (OR = 1.85; P = 0.017) than those of vascular surgeons. Patients of general surgeons had less than half the risk of having a myocardial infarction (OR = 0.34; P = 0.031) than those of vascular surgeons.

Conclusions

Surgical specialty is associated with a wide range of postoperative outcomes after CEA. Additional research is needed to explore practice and cultural differences across surgical specialty that may lead to outcome differences.     

颈动脉狭窄患者内膜剥脱术与支架植入术1年疗效Meta分析

目的利用Meta分析法探讨颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）与颈动脉支架植入术（CAS）对颈动脉狭窄治疗1年内死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中、重度再狭窄及闭塞事件发生情况并进行评价。方法制定原始文献的纳入标准、排除标准及检索策略,搜索关于CEA及CAS治疗对颈动脉狭窄的对照研究。应用RevMan4.2.2软件对纳入文献进行定量评价。以优势比（OR值）及双侧95%可信区间（CI）作为效应尺度进行分析。结果纳入本研究的文献共6篇,1037例患者接受CAS治疗,1681例接受CEA治疗,将发生死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件统计数据合并;累计1586例接受CAS治疗,2196例接受CEA治疗,进行再狭窄及闭塞的统计数据合并。术后1年内CAS与CEA患者死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生差异无统计学意义,其OR值分别为0.81（95%CI0.56～1.18）、0.75（95%CI0.47～1.19）、0.78（95%CI0.53～1.16）。CAS患者再狭窄率高于CEA患者[OR=1.99（95%CI1.44～2.74）,P〈0.05）。结论对于颈动脉狭窄患者,CEA与CAS的1年死亡和卒中、死亡、卒中事件发生无明显差异,CAS术后重度再狭窄及闭塞率为CEA术的1.99倍。由于在缺乏足够数量的随机对照试验的情况下,纳入部分非随机对照试验的Meta分析,使论证强度受到一定的限制,有待更多大样本高质量随机对照试验对本研究结果进一步验证。     

Effect of frailty syndrome on the outcomes of patients with carotid stenosis

BackgroundFrailty syndrome confers a greater risk of morbidity and mortality after operative interventions. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of frailty on the outcomes after carotid interventions, including both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS).MethodsWe performed an 8-year (2005-2012) retrospective analysis of the National Surgery Quality and Improvement Program database, including patients who had undergone CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis. A modified frailty index score was calculated. Frail status was defined as a modified frailty index score of ≥0.27. The outcome measures were inpatient complications, mortality, failure to rescue (FTR), hospital length of stay, and 30-day readmissions. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to study the association between frailty and the perioperative outcomes.ResultsThe data from 37,875 patients were included. Of the 37,875 patients, 95.7% had undergone CEA, and 27.3% of the patients were frail (27% of the CEA and 26% of the CAS groups had qualified as frail). Overall, 11.7% of the patients had experienced complications, 2.2% had died, and 6.7% had been readmitted after discharge. On regression analysis, after controlling for age, gender, albumin level, type of surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class, frail status was an independent predictor of complications (23.5% vs 7.2%; P < .001), mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%; P = .02), FTR (12.1% vs 4.7%; P = .02), and 30-day readmissions (14.9% vs 3.7%; P = .03). On subanalysis of the patients who had undergone CAS, no association was found between frail status and the occurrence of complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-3.2), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.7), FTR (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3), and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-3.1).ConclusionsFrailty syndrome was associated with morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing surgical interventions for carotid stenosis. In the present study, frailty was associated with significant mortality and morbidity for those who had undergone CEA but not for those who had undergone CAS. However, the present study was not designed to determine the optimal treatment of frail patients. Incorporating frailty status into the treatment algorithm (CEA vs CAS) might provide a more accurate risk assessment and improve patient outcomes.     

Past,Present and Future of Surgical Training in Belgium

The objective of the authors is to assess the natural history of carotid artery disease and the role of carotid intervention in preventing ipsilateral stroke. The development of endovascular techniques for correction of carotid artery stenoses made this less invasive technique very popular, with an inherent risk of unregulated overuse by a variety of medical specialists, who are not always well informed on the natural history of carotid artery disease. It re-opened the discussion on the value of carotid endarterectomy for stroke prophylaxis. This ongoing debate offers the opportunity to distil evidence-based guidelines for the management of extracranial carotid artery stenoses.

In recent papers, some authors expressed doubts on the validity and general applicability of the results of the pivotal randomised trials of carotid endarterectomy. The excellent results in terms of operative outcome and long term stroke prevention would, according to certain comments, not be attainable in routine practice.

Another criticism of carotid endarterectomy is its higher operative morbidity in terms of cranial nerve lesions and myocardial infarctions, compared to endovascular procedures. This consideration is, for some authors, the main reason to espouse carotid artery stenting as a better alternative to carotid endarterectomy. Any evidence supporting this point of view is missing. The supposed equivalence or non-inferiority of carotid artery stenting is purely speculative. The aim of this review paper is to summarize the crude data of carotid surgery trials. The authors aim to answer four questions. For which lesions is carotid endarterectomy most beneficial ? Are the results of randomised carotid surgery trials biased by the selection of patients ? Is operative morbidity, other than stroke, under-estimated ? Is carotid artery stenting safe and efficacious ?

An in-depth review with a critical analysis is made of recently published and on-going trials, comparing carotid surgery with percutaneous carotid angioplasty.     

Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative based on patch type

ObjectiveThe Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) is the largest registry of vascular surgical procedures and as such is capable of distinguishing small but important differences in outcomes. The goal of this study was to determine the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on patch type, including bovine pericardium, autogenous vein, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and Dacron.MethodsAll primary CEAs performed with primary repair and patching (n = 70,987) within the VQI were retrospectively analyzed. Reoperative CEA and combined CEA and coronary artery bypass were excluded. Rates of any postoperative neurologic event, return to the operating room (bleeding, neurologic event, or wound complication), and restenosis (>50% and >80%) at 1-year follow-up were primary outcomes. Rates were compared by patch type using χ² and Bonferroni analysis. Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression models were used to predict end points of postoperative neurologic event, return to the operating room, and 1-year restenosis.ResultsDuring the period of study, 2003 to 2017, there were 70,987 CEAs entered into the VQI registry. Bovine pericardium was the patch material with the highest frequency of use (n = 51,480), followed by Dacron (n = 12,356), vein (n = 1460), and PTFE (n = 1638). Bovine pericardium, vein, and Dacron had lower rates of postoperative neurologic events compared with PTFE or primary repair. Bovine pericardium had the lowest rate of restenosis at 1 year. By multivariate analysis, bovine pericardium (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.89) and protamine use (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91) were associated with a lower incidence of return to the operating room. The use of Dacron, vein, and PTFE patches was not significantly different from the reference of primary closure. Multivariate analysis of postoperative neurologic events revealed that bovine pericardium (OR, 0.59; CI, 0.48-0.72) and Dacron (OR, 0.56; CI, 0.43-0.72) were associated with lower incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attack, whereas vein and PTFE were no different from primary closure. Bovine pericardium (OR, 0.57; CI, 0.44-0.75), Dacron (OR, 0.70; CI, 0.50-0.98), vein (OR, 0.72; CI, 0.53-0.98), and never smoking (OR, 0.87; CI, 0.78-0.96) were associated with a lower incidence of restenosis at 1 year by multivariate analysis.ConclusionsBovine pericardium has superior outcomes both postoperatively and at 1 year compared with other patch materials. The large volume of patient data contained in the VQI makes it possible to compare outcomes that have small but meaningful differences.     

Statin therapy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality following carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveStatin therapy is the standard of care for patients with carotid artery stenosis given its proven cardiovascular benefits. However, the impact of statin therapy on outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the association of statin therapy with outcomes following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS), and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR).MethodsWe identified all patients who underwent CEA, tfCAS, or TCAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to September 2021. To compare outcomes, we stratified patients by procedure type and created 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who received no preoperative statin therapy (within 36 hours of procedure) versus those who received preoperative statin therapy. Propensity scores incorporated demographic characteristics, comorbidities, carotid symptom status, preoperative medications, and physician and hospital procedural experience. The primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke and/or death. As a secondary analysis, we performed repeat propensity score-matching by postoperative statin use (prescribed at discharge) and assessed 5-year mortality. Relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using log binomial regression and Cox regression, respectively.ResultsAmong 97,835 CEA, 20,303 tfCAS, and 22,371 TCAR patients, 15%, 17%, and 10% of patients did not receive preoperative statin therapy, respectively. Compared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death among 13,434 matched CEA patients (no statin, 1.7% vs statin, 1.4%; RR, 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.5) and among 2707 matched tfCAS patients (4.8% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3). However, there was no difference for this outcome by statin use among 2089 matched TCAR patients (1.8% vs 1.6%; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). At 5 years, no statin therapy at discharge was associated with higher 5-year mortality after CEA (15% vs 10%; HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2) and tfCAS (18% vs 14%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8), but there was no difference after TCAR (14% vs 11%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8).ConclusionsCompared with statin use, no statin use was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke or death and 5-year mortality among CEA and tfCAS patients. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes among TCAR patients, this may in part be due to lower statistical power in this cohort. Overall, statin therapy is essential in the short- and long-term management of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Our findings not only support current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations for statin therapy in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, but they also highlight an important opportunity for quality improvement.     

Results of carotid endarterectomy in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion from the Mid-America Vascular Study Group and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is among the most commonly performed vascular procedures. Some have suggested worse outcomes with contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. We compared patients with and patients without contralateral ICA occlusion using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database.MethodsDeidentified data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients with prior ipsilateral or contralateral CEA, carotid stenting, combined CEA and coronary artery bypass graft, or <1-year follow-up were excluded, yielding 1737 patients with and 45,179 patients without contralateral ICA occlusion. Groups were compared with univariate tests, and differences identified in univariate testing were entered into multivariate models to identify independent predictors of outcomes and in particular whether contralateral ICA occlusion is an independent predictor of outcomes.ResultsPatients with contralateral ICA occlusion were younger and more likely to be smokers; they were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative neurologic symptoms (56% vs 47%), nonelective CEA (16% vs 13%), and shunt placement (75% vs 53%; all P < .001). The 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk was 1.3% with vs 0.7% without contralateral ICA occlusion (P = .004). The 30-day and 1-year survival estimates were 99.0% ± 0.5% and 94.1% ± 1.1% with vs 99.6% ± 0.1% and 96.0% ± 0.2% without contralateral ICA occlusion (log-rank, P < .001). Logistic regression analysis identified prior neurologic event (P = .046), nonelective surgery (P = .047), absence of coronary artery disease (P = .035), and preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use (P = .029) to be associated with 30-day ipsilateral stroke risk, but contralateral ICA occlusion remained an independent predictor in that model (odds ratio, 2.29; P = .026). However, after adjustment for other factors (Cox proportional hazards), risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) during follow-up was not significantly greater with contralateral ICA occlusion (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .32). Results comparing propensity score-matched cohorts mirrored those from the larger data set.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates likely clinically insignificant differences in early stroke or death in comparing CEA patients with and those without contralateral ICA occlusion. After adjustment for other factors, contralateral ICA occlusion was not associated with a greater risk of ipsilateral stroke (including perioperative) in longer follow-up. Mortality was greater with contralateral ICA occlusion, and this difference was more pronounced at 1 year despite younger age of the contralateral ICA occlusion group. CEA risk remains low even in the presence of contralateral ICA occlusion and appears to be explained at least in part by other factors. CEA should still be considered appropriate in the face of contralateral ICA occlusion.     

Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveSeveral prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique.ResultsOf 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results.ConclusionsIn addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.     

Does surgical technique influence the postoperative hemodynamic disturbances and neurological outcomes in carotid endarterectomy?

Introduction: The carotid endarterectomy is already well established in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative blood pressure changes, stroke rate and postoperative complications following eversion carotid endarterectomy (E-CEA) and conventional carotid endarterectomy (C-CEA).

Methods: From 1 January 2010 to 31 March 2017 consecutive patients admitted to our department with symptomatic or asymptomatic ICA stenosis were included in this retrospective study. During the 7-year period, 175 CEAs were performed in 166 consecutive patients (25 females, 141 males; mean age 70.6?±?14.4 years; range 47 to 92 years).

Results: The mean operative and cross-clamping time were shorter for E-CEA (72?±?14.3?minutes vs. 115?±?17.4?minutes, p?<?.001), (22?±?7.7 vs 34?±?6.3, p?<?.001) respectively. No significant difference was noted between the groups for the occurrence of perioperative stroke (p?=?.501). No significant difference was noted for postoperative blood pressure difference on the 6th hour and the 24th hour after surgery between E-CEA and C-CEA (p?=?.130).

Conclusions: E-CEA was associated with significant reduction in operative time and cross-clamping time however, increases postoperative bleeding. No difference was noted for postoperative stroke and blood pressure distortion between E-CEA and C-CEA.     

A meta-analysis of the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of carotid artery stenting

ObjectiveProcedural characteristics, including stent design, may influence the outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). A thorough comparison of the effect of stent design on outcome of CAS is thus warranted to allow for optimal evidence-based clinical decision making. This study sought to evaluate the effect of stent design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of CAS.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2018. Included were articles reporting on the occurrence of clinical short- and intermediate-term major adverse events (MAEs; any stroke or death) or radiologic adverse events (new ischemic lesions on postprocedural magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging [MR-DWI], restenosis, or stent fracture) in different stent designs used to treat carotid artery stenosis. Random effects models were used to calculate combined overall effect sizes. Metaregression was performed to identify the effect of specific stents on MAE rates.ResultsFrom 2654 unique identified articles, two randomized, controlled trials and 66 cohort studies were eligible for analysis (including 46,728 procedures). Short-term clinical MAE rates were similar for patients treated with open cell vs closed cell or hybrid stents. Use of an Acculink stent was associated with a higher risk of short-term MAE compared with a Wallstent (risk ratio [RR], 1.51; P = .03), as was true for use of Precise stent vs Xact stent (RR, 1.55; P < .001). Intermediate-term clinical MAE rates were similar for open vs closed cell stents. Use of open cell stents predisposed to a 25% higher chance (RR, 1.25; P = .03) of developing postprocedural new ischemic lesions on MR-DWI. No differences were observed in the incidence of restenosis, stent fracture, or intraprocedural hemodynamic depression with respect to different stent design.ConclusionsStent design is not associated with short- or intermediate-term clinical MAE rates in patients undergoing CAS. Furthermore, the division in open and closed cell stent design might conceal true differences in single stent efficacy. Nevertheless, open cell stenting resulted in a significantly higher number of subclinical postprocedural new ischemic lesions detected on MR-DWI compared with closed cell stenting. An individualized patient data meta-analysis, including future studies with prospective homogenous study design, is required to adequately correct for known risk factors and to provide definite conclusions with respect to carotid stent design for specific subgroups.     

Not an equal opportunity disease – a sex and gender-based review of colorectal cancer in men and women: Part II

This paper reviews the literature on colorectal cancer from a sex and gender-based perspective. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in the developed world, with rates increasing in developing countries. Although described by some writers as an ‘equal opportunity’ disease, it presents more risk to men than women. Both biological, or sex-linked factors, and gender-linked factors play a part in the aetiology of the disease, while gender differences in the use of screening and treatment also help shape the mortality gap between women and men for this condition. Without an appreciation of the part played by sex and gender in the risk of colorectal cancer, and without a gender-sensitive approach to screening in particular, it is possible that the mortality gap between men and women for this condition will widen in the future.     

Duration of asymptomatic status and outcomes following carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial

BackgroundMost carotid revascularization studies define asymptomatic as symptom-free for more than 180 days; however, it is unknown if intervention carries similar risk among those currently asymptomatic but with previous symptoms (PS) vs those who were always asymptomatic (AA).MethodsWe compared the periprocedural and 4-year risks of PS vs AA patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS)/angioplasty. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and treatment were used to assess the risk of periprocedural stroke and/or death (S+D; any S+D during periprocedural period), stroke and death at 4 years (any S+D within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years) and the primary end point at 4 years (any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years). Analysis was performed pooling the CEA-treated and CAS-treated patients, and separately for each treatment.ResultsOf 1181 asymptomatic patients randomized in CREST, 1104 (93%) were AA and 77 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in risk when comparing the AA and PS cohorts in the pooled CAS+CEA population for periprocedural S+D (2.0% vs 1.3%), S+D at 4 years (3.6% vs 3.2%), or the primary end point (5.2% vs 5.8%). There were also no differences among those assigned to CEA (periprocedural S+D, 1.5% vs 0%; S+D at 4 years, 2.7% vs 0%; or primary end point, 5.1% vs 2.4%) or CAS (periprocedural S+D, 2.5% vs 2.8%; S+D at 4 years, 4.4% vs 6.9%; or primary end point, 5.3% vs 9.8%) when analyzed separately.ConclusionsIn CREST, only a small minority of asymptomatic patients had previous ipsilateral symptoms. The outcomes of periprocedural S+D, periprocedural S+D, and ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years, and the primary end point did not differ for AA patients compared with PS patients.