Addition of proximal intervention to carotid endarterectomy increases risk of stroke and death

Abstract

ObjectiveAdding ipsilateral, proximal endovascular (IPE) intervention to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of tandem bifurcation and supra-aortic trunk disease is controversial. Some suggest that this combined strategy (CEA + IPE) confers no risk over isolated CEA (ICEA). Others disagree, reserving CEA + IPE for symptomatic patients. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), this study assessed the effect of adding IPE to CEA on stroke and death risk. We further weighed CEA + IPE outcomes in the context of symptomatic status and Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. MethodsAll CEAs in the VQI database from 2003 to 2017 were reviewed. Urgent and redo CEAs were excluded. CEA + IPE procedures were identified. To isolate the effect of IPE, patients undergoing other concurrent procedures were removed, providing an ICEA cohort. Primary end points were perioperative (30-day) stroke and death. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. ResultsAfter exclusion and identification of CEA + IPE, 66,519 procedures were available for analysis. Of these, 66,115 represented ICEA and 404 represented CEA + IPE. Most patients (60%) were male, 93% were white, and 41% were symptomatic. Average age was 70 ± 9 years. Those undergoing CEA + IPE were more likely to be female (50% vs 40%; P < .001) and smokers (87% vs 76%; P < .001), and they were more likely to have coronary artery disease (32% vs 27%; P = .04), congestive heart failure (14% vs 10%; P = .01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (30% vs 22%; P < .001). ICEA patients were more likely to have severe ipsilateral stenosis (86% vs 80%; P = .002) and to undergo intraoperative shunting (53% vs 49%; P = .05). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between cohorts (1% vs 1%; P = .23). However, CEA + IPE had higher rates of perioperative stroke (3.0% vs 1.4%; P = .01) and combined 30-day stroke and death (3.5% vs 1.8%; P = .02). When patients were stratified by symptomatic status, there were no differences in primary end points between cohorts in asymptomatic patients. In symptomatic patients, CEA + IPE carried significantly higher stroke (4.9% vs 1.9%; P = .002) and stroke and death risk (6.0% vs 2.4%; P = .002). After risk adjustment, predictors of stroke and death were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; P = .001), symptomatic status (OR, 1.7; P < .001), and CEA + IPE (OR, 1.9; P = .02). ConclusionsThe addition of IPE to CEA confers increased stroke and death risk over ICEA. Risk is largely in symptomatic patients. Although CEA + IPE increases risk compared with ICEA, overall risk remains low. Based on this VQI analysis, CEA + IPE outcomes for asymptomatic patients fall within Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for ICEA. Those for symptomatic patients do not, and consideration should be given to other surgical bypass, cerebral protection, and staged strategies.