Comparative analysis of carotid artery stenting practice and outcomes across operator specialties: insights from a prespecified subanalysis of a large real-world patient cohort (ROADSAVER Study).

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In contemporary clinical practice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasingly becoming a multispecialty field, joining operators of various training backgrounds, which bring forth their unique expertise, patient management philosophies, and procedural preferences. The best practices and approaches, however, are still debated. Therefore, real-world insights on different operator preferences and related outcomes are of utmost value, yet still rather scarce in the available literature. METHODS: Using the data collected in the ROADSAVER observational, European multicenter CAS study, a prespecified comparative analysis evaluating the impact of the operator's specialization was performed. We used major adverse event (MAE) rate at 30-day follow-up, defined as the cumulative incidence of any death or stroke, and its components as outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1965 procedures were analyzed; almost half 878 (44.7%) were performed by radiologists (interventional/neuro), 717 (36.5%) by cardiologists or angiologists, and 370 (18.8%) by surgeons (vascular/neuro). Patients treated by surgeons were the oldest (72.9±8.5), while radiologists treated most symptomatic patients (58.1%) and more often used radial access (37.2%). The 30-day MAE incidence achieved by cardiologists/angiologists was 2.0%, radiologists 2.5%, and surgeons 1.9%; the observed differences in rates were statistically not-significant (P=0.7027), even when adjusted for baseline patient/lesion and procedural disparities across groups. The corresponding incidence rates for death from any cause were 1.0%, 0.8%, and 0.3%, P=0.4880, and for any stroke 1.4%, 2.3%, and 1.9%, P=0.4477, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disparities in patient selection and procedural preferences, the outcomes achieved by different specialties in real-world, contemporary CAS practice remain similar when using modern devices and techniques.