Ansel, Gary M.

Background: We have previously reported that carotid artery stenting (CAS) carries a higher stroke risk than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients over the age of 70. The question arises if advanced age is a surrogate for other factors? If so, can those factors be separately identified such that advanced chronological age alone would not be considered a contra-indication for CAS? Here we consider whether the CAS/CEA choice could be guided by other factors known in the clinical center at the time of patient evaluation, independent of age, in order to provide optimal 4-year outcomes. Methods: Demographic factors (age, sex and race), symptomatic status, patient risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking), and arterial characteristics (percent stenosis) were available on 2,502 patients. Additional detailed arterial characteristics (ulcerated plaque, distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, circumferential calcification) were available on 1141 CAS and 438 CEA patients. Potential differential treatment efficacy was assessed by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a proportional hazard model containing established predictors of outcome (treatment, symptomatic status, sex, age and age-by-treatment interaction). Results: No other factor was found to mitigate advanced age with evidence of additional treatment effect modification of 4-year outcome (p > 0.10). Discussion: Beyond the previously described differential treatment efficacy by age, there were no other patient or arterial characteristic detected to identify patient subgroups that would differentially benefit from the choice of CAS versus CEA. Our inability to identify factors to guide treatment choices could be due to the low number of stroke and death events, incomplete information regarding arterial characteristics in the CEA population, or the potential exclusion of “high risk” groups (such as those with severe arterial tortuosity) from the study.

Background: Paclitaxel-containing devices (PTXDs) significantly reduce reintervention in patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. A recent aggregate-data meta-analysis reported increased late mortality in patients with peripheral artery disease treated with PTXDs. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate mortality. Methods: Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration–approved and commercially available devices in the United States provided deidentified individual patient data for independent analysis. Cox proportional hazards 1-stage meta-analysis models using intention-to-treat methods were used for the primary analysis. A secondary analysis of recovered missing vital status data was performed. The impact of control crossover to PTXDs, cause-specific mortality, and drug dose mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 2185 subjects and 386 deaths from 8 PTXD trials with 4-year median follow-up were identified. The primary analysis indicated a 38% (95% CI, 6% to 80%) increased relative mortality risk, corresponding to 4.6% absolute increase, at 5 years associated with PTXD use. Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24% and 23%, respectively. With inclusion of recovered vital status data, the excess relative mortality risk was 27% (95% CI, 3%–58%). This observation was consistent across various scenarios, including as-treated analyses, with no evidence of increased risk over time with PTXDs. Mortality risk tended to be increased for all major causes of death. There were no subgroup differences. No drug dose–mortality association was identified. Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis, based on the most complete available data set of mortality events from PTXD randomized controlled trials, identified an absolute 4.6% increased mortality risk associated with PTXD use.