The impact of carotid artery lesion calcification on adverse events following carotid artery stenting is not well studied. There are few reports that associate heavily calcified lesions with high risk of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS). With the advent of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), we thought to compare the outcomes of these two procedures stratified by the degree of lesion calcification. Our cohort was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) daTabase for carotid artery stenting. Patients with missing information on the degree of carotid artery calcification were excluded. Patients were stratified into two groups: >50% circumferential calcium (severe), and ≤50% calcification. The Student t test and the χ2 test were used to compare patients’ baseline characteristics and crude outcomes, as appropriate. Clinically relevant and statistically significantly variables on univariable analysis were added to a logistic regression model clustered by center identifier. The final models were tested for goodness of fit using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. A total of 11,342 patients were included (TFCAS, 4,416; TCAR, 6,926). Patients with more severe calcification were older, had more comorbidities (coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure) and more contralateral occlusion. There were more patients with prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy in the less severe calcification group. In patients who underwent TCAR, there were no significant differences between those who had >50% versus ≤50% carotid calcification in the odds of in-hospital stroke (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.8; P = .41), death (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.36-2.1; P = .75), stroke or death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7; P = .45), MI (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0; P =.78), or stroke, death or MI (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.81.6; P = .31). However, in patients with heavy calcification who underwent TFCAS, there was 50-60% increase in the odds of stroke (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.04-2.5; P = .03), stroke or TIA (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .013) and stroke or death (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.08; P = .039). There was no significant difference in the odds of in-hospital death and stroke, death or myocardial infarction (MI) (Table). In patients with severe calcification and compared with TFCAS, TCAR was associated with 40-70% reduction in the odds of stroke or TIA (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .018), death (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.13-0.72; P = .006), stroke or death (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.8; P = .004) (Fig), stroke, death or MI (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = .008). There were no significant differences between TCAR and TFCAS in the odds of in-hospital stroke and MI (Table). The degree of carotid artery calcification has a negative impact on the outcomes of patients undergoing TFCAS. However, it does not seem to impact the outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR. In patients with heavily calcified lesions, TCAR seems to have favorable outcomes compared with TFCAS. These results confirm the superiority of the flow reversal compared with distal embolic protection devices. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes and confirm the safety of TCAR in heavily calcified lesions.TableMultivariable logistic regression analysis of adverse outcomesIn-hospital outcomesTCARP valueTFCASP valueTCAR vs TFCASP value(>50% calcification vs ≤50% calcification)(>50% calcification vs ≤50% calcification)Patients with severe (>50%) calcificationStroke/death1.2 (0.8-1.7).451.5 (1.02-2.08).0390.51 (0.32-0.8).004Stroke1.2 (0.8-1.8).411.6 (1.04-2.5).030.69 (0.4-1.1).140Death0.87 (0.36-2.1).751.05 (0.6-1.9).8710.3 (0.13-0.72).006Stroke/transient ischemic attack1.12 (0.8-1.6).531.6 (1.1-2.3).0130.6 (0.38-0.91).018Stroke/death/MI1.2 (0.8-1.6).371.4 (0.99-2.06).0600.58 (0.39-0.87).008MI1.1 (0.6-2.0).781.04 (0.5-2.3).9240.79 (0.37-1.7).536MI, Myocardial infarction; TCAR, transcarotid artery revascularization; TFCAS, transfemoral carotid artery stenting.Values are odds ratio (95% confidence interval). Open table in a new tab
Read full abstract