Long-term outcomes of stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data.
Journal
The Lancet. Neurology
ISSN: 1474-4465
Titre abrégé: Lancet Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139309
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
05
12
2018
revised:
14
01
2019
accepted:
15
01
2019
pubmed:
11
2
2019
medline:
6
6
2020
entrez:
11
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The risk of periprocedural stroke or death is higher after carotid artery stenting (CAS) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, long-term outcomes have not been sufficiently assessed. We sought to combine individual patient-level data from the four major randomised controlled trials of CAS versus CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis to assess long-term outcomes. We did a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data, acquired from the four largest randomised controlled trials assessing the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy trial, International Carotid Stenting Study, and Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial). The risk of ipsilateral stroke was assessed between 121 days and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was the composite risk of stroke or death within 120 days after randomisation (periprocedural risk) or subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years after randomisation (postprocedural risk). Analyses were intention-to-treat, with the risk of events calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards analysis with adjustment for trial. In the four trials included, 4775 patients were randomly assigned, of whom a total of 4754 (99·6%) patients were followed up for a maximum of 12·4 years. 21 (0·4%) patients immediately withdrew consent after randomisation and were excluded. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2·0 to 6·9 years. 129 periprocedural and 55 postprocedural outcome events occurred in patients allocated CEA, and 206 and 57 for those allocated CAS. After the periprocedural period, the annual rates of ipsilateral stroke per person-year were similar for the two treatments: 0·60% (95% CI 0·46-0·79) for CEA and 0·64% (0·49-0·83) for CAS. Nonetheless, the periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined favoured CEA, with treatment differences at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 years all ranging between 2·8% (1·1-4·4) and 4·1% (2·0-6·3). Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA were similar, suggesting robust clinical durability for both treatments. Although long-term outcomes (periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined) continue to favour CEA, the similarity of the postprocedural rates suggest that improvements in the periprocedural safety of CAS could provide similar outcomes of the two procedures in the future. None.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The risk of periprocedural stroke or death is higher after carotid artery stenting (CAS) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, long-term outcomes have not been sufficiently assessed. We sought to combine individual patient-level data from the four major randomised controlled trials of CAS versus CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis to assess long-term outcomes.
METHODS
We did a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data, acquired from the four largest randomised controlled trials assessing the relative efficacy of CAS and CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy trial, International Carotid Stenting Study, and Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial). The risk of ipsilateral stroke was assessed between 121 days and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was the composite risk of stroke or death within 120 days after randomisation (periprocedural risk) or subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years after randomisation (postprocedural risk). Analyses were intention-to-treat, with the risk of events calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards analysis with adjustment for trial.
FINDINGS
In the four trials included, 4775 patients were randomly assigned, of whom a total of 4754 (99·6%) patients were followed up for a maximum of 12·4 years. 21 (0·4%) patients immediately withdrew consent after randomisation and were excluded. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2·0 to 6·9 years. 129 periprocedural and 55 postprocedural outcome events occurred in patients allocated CEA, and 206 and 57 for those allocated CAS. After the periprocedural period, the annual rates of ipsilateral stroke per person-year were similar for the two treatments: 0·60% (95% CI 0·46-0·79) for CEA and 0·64% (0·49-0·83) for CAS. Nonetheless, the periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined favoured CEA, with treatment differences at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 years all ranging between 2·8% (1·1-4·4) and 4·1% (2·0-6·3).
INTERPRETATION
Outcomes in the postprocedural period after CAS and CEA were similar, suggesting robust clinical durability for both treatments. Although long-term outcomes (periprocedural and postprocedural risks combined) continue to favour CEA, the similarity of the postprocedural rates suggest that improvements in the periprocedural safety of CAS could provide similar outcomes of the two procedures in the future.
FUNDING
None.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30738706
pii: S1474-4422(19)30028-6
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30028-6
pmc: PMC6773606
mid: EMS84449
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
348-356Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0300411
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00017/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1074-84
pubmed: 20870099
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1062-73
pubmed: 20832852
Lancet. 2017 Apr 1;389(10076):1323-1335
pubmed: 28236464
Stroke. 2017 Mar;48(3):544-550
pubmed: 28188260
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003 Aug;26(2):115-29
pubmed: 12917824
Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387(10025):1305-11
pubmed: 26880122
N Engl J Med. 1998 Nov 12;339(20):1415-25
pubmed: 9811916
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 19;355(16):1660-71
pubmed: 17050890
Lancet. 2010 Mar 20;375(9719):985-97
pubmed: 20189239
Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1239-47
pubmed: 17027729
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363(1):11-23
pubmed: 20505173
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):885-92
pubmed: 18774745
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015 Sep;50(3):271-2
pubmed: 25957820