Absence of Consistent Sex Differences in Outcomes From Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting Randomized Trials.
carotid stenosis
endarterectomy
sex characteristics
stents
women
Journal
Stroke
ISSN: 1524-4628
Titre abrégé: Stroke
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0235266
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
entrez:
25
1
2021
pubmed:
26
1
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant ( There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter.
METHODS
Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as
RESULTS
Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant (
CONCLUSIONS
There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33493046
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.030184
pmc: PMC9136999
mid: NIHMS1657186
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN25337470', 'ISRCTN57874028']
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00004732', 'NCT00190398']
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
416-423Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS038384
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS038384
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Jun;10(6):530-7
pubmed: 21550314
Neurology. 2013 Jun 11;80(24):2258-68
pubmed: 23751919
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Mar;51(3):327-34
pubmed: 26602322
Br J Surg. 2018 Sep;105(10):1231-1233
pubmed: 30133763
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Apr;63(4):851-7, 858.e1
pubmed: 26610643
Stroke. 2004 Dec;35(12):2855-61
pubmed: 15514193
Stroke. 2015 Dec;46(12):3540-2
pubmed: 26493675
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015 Dec;50(6):688-94
pubmed: 26460291
Stroke. 2015 Oct;46(10):2868-73
pubmed: 26351359
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 19;355(16):1660-71
pubmed: 17050890
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Mar;7(3):216-22
pubmed: 18242141
Lancet. 2010 Mar 20;375(9719):985-97
pubmed: 20189239
Lancet. 2015 Feb 7;385(9967):529-38
pubmed: 25453443
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1062-73
pubmed: 20832852
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):893-902
pubmed: 18774746