Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease

Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-418
Number of pages6
JournalStroke
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Coronary Disease
Safety
Carotid Endarterectomy
Carotid Arteries
Stroke
Carotid Stenosis
Angioplasty
Extravehicular Activity
Endarterectomy
Stents
Therapeutics
Myocardial Infarction
Regression Analysis

Keywords

  • angioplasty
  • carotid stenosis
  • coronary artery disease
  • endarterectomy
  • risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Advanced and Specialized Nursing

Cite this

Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease. / Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration.

In: Stroke, Vol. 50, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 413-418.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration. / Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease. In: Stroke. 2019 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 413-418.
@article{80e92e3693704dfeabbc24e4d713e46b,
title = "Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease",
abstract = "Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28{\%}) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3{\%} versus 4.6{\%}; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95{\%} CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9{\%} versus 3.6{\%}; HR, 1.93; 95{\%} CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95{\%} CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95{\%} CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95{\%} CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95{\%} CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95{\%} CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95{\%} CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.",
keywords = "angioplasty, carotid stenosis, coronary artery disease, endarterectomy, risk",
author = "{Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration} and Volkers, {Eline J.} and Ale Algra and Kappelle, {L. Jaap} and Becquemin, {Jean Pierre} and {de Borst}, {Gert J.} and Brown, {Martin M.} and Richard Bulbulia and David Calvet and Eckstein, {Hans Henning} and Gustav Fraedrich and John Gregson and Alison Halliday and Jeroen Hendrikse and George Howard and Olav Jansen and Roubin, {Gary S.} and Bonati, {Leo H.} and Brott, {Thomas G} and Mas, {Jean Louis} and Ringleb, {Peter A.} and Greving, {Jacoba P.}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023085",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "413--418",
journal = "Stroke",
issn = "0039-2499",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease

AU - Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration

AU - Volkers, Eline J.

AU - Algra, Ale

AU - Kappelle, L. Jaap

AU - Becquemin, Jean Pierre

AU - de Borst, Gert J.

AU - Brown, Martin M.

AU - Bulbulia, Richard

AU - Calvet, David

AU - Eckstein, Hans Henning

AU - Fraedrich, Gustav

AU - Gregson, John

AU - Halliday, Alison

AU - Hendrikse, Jeroen

AU - Howard, George

AU - Jansen, Olav

AU - Roubin, Gary S.

AU - Bonati, Leo H.

AU - Brott, Thomas G

AU - Mas, Jean Louis

AU - Ringleb, Peter A.

AU - Greving, Jacoba P.

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.

AB - Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.

KW - angioplasty

KW - carotid stenosis

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - endarterectomy

KW - risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060653988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060653988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023085

DO - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023085

M3 - Article

C2 - 30621529

AN - SCOPUS:85060653988

VL - 50

SP - 413

EP - 418

JO - Stroke

JF - Stroke

SN - 0039-2499

IS - 2

ER -