Anatomical and technical predictors of perioperative clinical outcomes after carotid artery stenting

被引:25
|
作者
AbuRahma, Ali F. [1 ]
DerDerian, Trevor [1 ]
Hariri, Nizar [1 ]
Adams, Elliot [1 ]
AbuRahma, Joseph [1 ]
Dean, L. Scott [2 ]
Nanjundappa, Aravinda [1 ]
Stone, Patrick A. [1 ]
机构
[1] West Virginia Univ, Dept Surg, 3110 MacCorkle Ave SE, Charleston, WV 25304 USA
[2] CAMC Hlth Educ & Res Inst, Charleston, WV USA
关键词
PERIPROCEDURAL STROKE; CEREBRAL PROTECTION; VASCULAR-SURGERY; RISK PATIENTS; ENDARTERECTOMY; ANGIOPLASTY; TRIAL; DEATH; CELL; REGISTRY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.057
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: A few other studies have reported the effects of anatomical and technical factors on clinical outcomes of carotid artery stenting (CAS). This study analyzed the effect of these factors on perioperative stroke/myocardial infarction/death after CAS. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 409 of 456 patients who underwent CAS during the study period. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effects of anatomical and technical factors on perioperative stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (major adverse events [MAEs]). Results: The MAE rate for the entire series was 4.7% (19 of 409), and the stroke rate was 2.2% (9 of 409). The stroke rate for asymptomatic patients was 0.46% (1 of 218; P = .01). The MAE rates for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) were 7% (11 of 158) vs 3.2% (8 of 251) for other indications (P = .077). The stroke rates for heavily calcified lesions were 6.3% (3 of 48) vs 1.2% (4 of 332) for mildly calcified/noncalcified lesions (P = .046). Differences in stroke and MAE rates regarding other anatomical features were not significant. The stroke rate for patients with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) before embolic protection device (EPD) insertion was 9.1% (2 of 22) vs 1.8% (7 of 387) for patients without (P = .07) and 2.6% (9 of 341) for patients with poststenting PTA vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without. The MAE rate for patients with poststenting PTA was 5.6% (19 of 341) vs 0% (0 of 68) for patients without (P = .0536). The MAE rate for patients with the ACCUNET (Abbott, Abbott Park, Ill) EPD was 1.9% (3 of 158) vs 6.7% (16 of 240) for others (P = .029). The differences between stroke and MAE rates for other technical features were not significant. A regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for stroke was 0.1 (P = .031) for asymptomatic indications, 13.7 (P = .014) for TIA indications, 6.1 (P = .0303) for PTA performed before EPD insertion, 1.7 for PTA performed before stenting, and 5.4 (P = .0315) for heavily calcified lesions. The MAE odds ratio was 0.46 (P = .0858) for asymptomatic indications, 2.1 for PTAs performed before EPD insertion, 2.2 for poststent PTAs, and 2.2 (P = .1888) for heavily calcified lesions. A multivariate analysis showed that patients with TIA had an odds ratio of stroke of 11.05 (P = .029). Patients with PTAs performed before EPD insertion had an OR of 6.15 (P = .062). Patients with heavily calcified lesions had an odds ratio of stroke of 4.25 (P = .0871). The MAE odds ratio for ACCUNET vs others was 0.27 (P = .0389). Conclusions: Calcific lesions and PTA before EPD insertion or after stenting were associated with higher stroke or MAE rates, or both. The ACCUNET EPD was associated with lower MAE rates. There was no correlation between other anatomical/technical variables and CAS outcome.
引用
收藏
页码:423 / 432
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Anatomic/Technical Predictors of Perioperative Clinical Outcomes after Carotid Artery Stenting
    AbuRahma, Ali F.
    Campbell, John E.
    Nanjundappa, Aravinda
    DerDerian, Trevor
    Hariri, Nizar
    Adams, Elliott
    Dean, L. Scott
    AbuRahma, Joseph
    Byrd, Robert C.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2017, 65 (01) : E12 - E13
  • [2] Carotid endarterectomy against carotid artery stenting: perioperative monitoring and clinical outcomes
    Sagildina, Y.
    Kucherenko, S.
    Vinogradov, O.
    Bolomatov, N.
    Batrashov, V.
    Kuznetsov, A.
    JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2009, 285 : S168 - S169
  • [3] Predictors of Perioperative Stroke/Death after Carotid Artery Stenting: A Review Article
    AbuRahma, Ali F.
    ANNALS OF VASCULAR DISEASES, 2018, 11 (01) : 15 - 24
  • [4] Severity and Outcomes of Perioperative Stroke After Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy: Analysis of a National Database
    Aridi, Hanaa Dakour
    Nejim, Besma
    Abularrage, Christopher J.
    Black, James H., III
    Malas, Mahmoud B.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2018, 67 (06) : E115 - E116
  • [5] Predictors of perioperative outcomes after carotid revascularization
    Nejim, Besma
    Obeid, Tammam
    Arhuidese, Isibor
    Hicks, Caitlin
    Wang, Sophie
    Canner, Joseph
    Malas, Mahmoud
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 204 (02) : 267 - 273
  • [6] In Stent Restenosis Predictors after Carotid Artery Stenting
    Cosottini, Mirco
    Michelassi, Maria Chiara
    Bencivelli, Walter
    Lazzarotti, Guido
    Picchietti, Silvia
    Orlandi, Giovanni
    Parenti, Giuliano
    Puglioli, Michele
    STROKE RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2010, 2010
  • [7] Predictors of restenosis after successful carotid artery stenting
    Khan, MA
    Liu, MW
    Chio, FL
    Roubin, GS
    Iyer, SS
    Vitek, JJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2003, 92 (07): : 895 - 897
  • [8] Outcomes after carotid artery stenting in hemodialysis patients
    Arhuidese, Isibor J.
    Obeid, Tammam
    Hicks, Caitlin W.
    Yin, Kanhua
    Canner, Joseph
    Segev, Dorry
    Malas, Mahmoud B.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2016, 63 (06) : 1511 - 1516
  • [9] The Predictors of Asymptomatic Cerebral Embolism After Carotid Artery Stenting
    Guner, Ahmet
    Celik, Omer
    Uzun, Fatih
    Yalcin, Ahmet Arif
    Erturk, Mehmet
    ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 26 (07): : 593 - 594
  • [10] Predictors and Consequences of Hemodynamic Instability after Carotid Artery Stenting
    Wu, Tiffany Y.
    Ham, Sung W.
    Katz, Steven G.
    ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2015, 29 (06) : 1281 - 1285