Use of Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

Abstract

Antiplatelet therapies with thromboxane inhibitors and adenosine 5'-diphosphate antagonists have been widely used following carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, these therapies may not apply to patients who are intolerant or present acutely. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are a proposed alternative therapy in these patients; however, their use has been limited due to concerns of increased risk for intracranial bleeding. Thus, this study aims to assess the safety profile of GPI in patients undergoing CAS. All patients undergoing CAS in the Society of Vascular Surgery - Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2012 to 2021 was included and grouped into GPI versus non-GPI therapy (control). The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)/seizure. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (Transcarotid artery revascularization using flow reversal (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting), and stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate major primary and secondary outcomes. A total of 50,628 patients underwent carotid revascularization. Of these, 4.4% of the patients received GPI. Mean age was similar between control versus GPI (71.35(9.67) vs. 71.36(10.20) years). Compared to the control group, patients who receive GPI are less likely to be on optimal medical therapy, including aspirin (83.0% vs. 88.1%), P2Y12 inhibitor (73.0% vs. 82.7%), and statin (82.3% vs. 86.0%) (All P<0.05). In addition, patients in the GPI group were more likely to undergo TCAR for carotid revascularization (52.2% vs. 48.4%) for emergent/urgent (29.4% vs. 16.8%) and symptomatic indications (55.5% vs. 49.7%) (All P<0.001). After stratifying by surgical approach, if patients underwent TFCAS and received a GPI, they were at increased odds of developing stroke/death (1.77(1.25-2.51)), death (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.67(1.07-2.61)), stroke/TIA (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 1.65(1.09-2.51)), and ICH/seizure (OR (95% CI): 2.13(1.23-3.68)) (All P<0.05). No difference was seen in outcomes between the 2 groups if undergoing TCAR. Patients who receive GPI were more likely to be symptomatic at presentation and less likely to be medically optimized before their carotid revascularization. Transfemoral access in patients receiving GPI was associated with increased odds of morbidity and mortality. However, this was not observed if undergoing TCAR. TCAR can be considered for its overall favorable results in high-risk patients who are not medically optimized.