Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Carotid Artery Stenting Between Institutions With a Treatment Strategy Based on Risk Factors and Those With First-Line Treatment.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recommended based on certain risk factors. The volume of an institution's treatment experience may be associated with good clinical outcomes. There is a dilemma between the treatment strategy based on risk factors and the experience volume. Therefore, we investigated the clinical outcomes of CAS performed at institutions that selected the treatment strategy based on risk factors and those that performed CAS at the first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent CAS at 5 institutions were included in this retrospective case-control study. We defined CEA/CAS institutions as those that selected the treatment option based on risk factors, and CAS-first institutions as those that performed CAS as the first-line treatment. We investigated cases of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and deaths within 30 days of the intervention between the CEA/CAS- and CAS-first institution groups. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare rates of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes within 30 days of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 239 and 302 patients underwent CAS at the CEA/CAS institutions and CAS-first institutions, respectively; ischemic stroke occurred in 12 (5.0%) and 7 patients (2.3%), respectively (p=0.09). No differences in major ischemic strokes (0.8% vs 1.3%; p=0.59), hemorrhagic strokes (0.4% vs 0.3%; p=0.87), or deaths (0.0% vs 0.7%; p=0.21) were observed. Myocardial infarction did not occur in either group. Propensity score analysis showed that ischemic stroke (odds ratio 1.845, 95% confidence interval 0.601-5.668, p=0.28) and hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio 1.000, 95% confidence interval 0.0061-16.418, p=1.00) were not significantly associated with either institution group. CONCLUSIONS: The CAS-specific treatment strategies for CAS can achieve the same level of outcomes as the treatment strategy based on risk factors. The CAS performed based on risk factors in CEA/CAS institutions and the treatment of more than 30 patients/year/institution in CAS-first institutions were associated with good clinical outcomes.