Citations

The recently published SPACE-2 trial (Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery Versus Endarterectomy-2) compared 3 treatments to prevent stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis ≥70%: (1) carotid endarterectomy plus best medical treatment (BMT), (2) transfemoral carotid artery stenting plus BMT, or (3) BMT alone. Because of low enrollment, the findings of similar safety and efficacy for carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone were inconclusive. Publication of the CREST (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial)-2 results should provide level A evidence that has been lacking for 2 to 3 decades, to guide treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis. For symptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis, no trials are underway to update the degree of benefit reported for carotid endarterectomy by NASCET (North American Carotid Endarterectomy Trial) and ECST (European Carotid Surgery Trial), published in 1991. Subsequently, the use of cigarettes has plummeted, and major improvements in medical treatments and in carotid revascularization have emerged. These advances have coincided with abrupt decline in the clinical end points necessary for treatment comparisons in procedural trials. One of the advances in the invasive management of carotid disease has been transcarotid artery revascularization, already with limited approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Establishing safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone may be challenging because of enrollment, regulatory, and funding barriers to design and complete an adequately powered randomized trial.

Background: Over 9 million dual-eligible beneficiaries rely on both Medicare and Medicaid to obtain critical medical services. Medicaid serves as a safety net for low-income Medicare beneficiaries with limited assets; however, it is unknown whether dual-eligible patients have comparable outcomes for procedures to non-dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries. We compared outcomes by dual-eligible status for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods: We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65y who underwent CEA (ICD-9 38.12) from 2003-2010. Beneficiaries with ≥1m of Medicaid coverage were considered dual eligible. We fit mixed models with a random intercept for state and adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and symptomatic status to assess the relationship between dual-eligible status and outcomes. Results: A total of 35,832 dual-eligible and 470,134 non-dual-eligible beneficiaries were hospitalized for CEA during the study period. The percentage of dual-eligible CEA patients decreased from 7.9% in 2003 to 6.7% in 2010. Dual eligibles were more likely to be younger, female, of nonwhite race, and living with comorbid conditions (e.g., heart failure, renal failure, diabetes) and symptomatic carotid disease. Dual eligibles had higher 30d composite outcomes including stroke (Table), but the associations with 1y stroke became nonsignificant from 2003-2010. Dual-eligible status was associated with higher 30d and 1y mortality after CEA throughout the study period. Conclusions: Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries had worse short-term stroke and mortality outcomes than other beneficiaries, even after adjustment for comorbidities. Our results indicate a need to understand factors contributing to poorer outcomes. Challenges include the split accountability between the two programs and the diverse sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and generally poorer health of the patients.

Background: Administrative data such as Medicare data are commonly used for health services research and comparative effectiveness studies. These databases are readily available and a good source of long-term data on healthcare utilization and health outcomes in real-world settings. Outcomes are captured using diagnostic codes, but the evidence on the validity of these codes is scarce in contemporary Medicare data. Methods: We linked the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study data using SSN, date of birth and sex to 2003-2009 Medicare claims. In addition to the events captured by REGARDS phone interviews, medical charts were pursued for Medicare-identified strokes not previously identified in REGRADS. Events were adjudicated by stroke specialists using the retrieved medical charts. Using all the adjudicated strokes as gold standard, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of inpatient stroke algorithms with ICD-9-CM codes [430, 431, 433.x1, 434.x1, 436] in the primary discharge diagnosis. Results: We successfully linked 15,089 REGARDS participants with mean age of 69.3, 52% female and 37% Black. We adjudicated 457 strokes, of which 48 were identified by claims only and not by interviews. The tested algorithms had high specificity (99.8-100%), PPV (88.6-90.5%) and NPV (98.9-99.9%), but low sensitivity (58.6-67.4%) (Table). Conclusions: High specificity and PPV of our algorithms to identify strokes in contemporary Medicare populations support their use in etiological and comparative effectiveness studies. While our inpatient Medicare algorithms identified 12% extra cases of strokes, their usefulness for estimating stroke incidence or related healthcare utilizations is limited by their low sensitivity. Linking cohorts to Medicare data is feasible and should be considered to increase the completeness of follow-up. Further studies are needed to evaluate more sensitive Medicare algorithms.

Background An increased risk of periprocedural stroke and death has been reported for older patients treated with carotid stenting (CAS). Selection of patients for CAS could be improved if patient or artery characteristics responsible for this higher risk could be identified. Methods The 1123 CREST patients randomized to CAS who received CAS within 30-days were analyzed. From the CREST sites, risk factors for atherosclerosis (hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia) and arterial characteristics by angiography (lesion length, eccentric lesions, ulcerated lesions, and percent stenosis) were assessed. From the CREST core labs, potential mediators of the age effect included peak systolic velocity (ultrasound core, available on 853 patients) and arterial characteristics (angiographic core, available on 1042 patients, narrow/no ulcer or wide mouth, lesion location, and distal tortuosity). Mediation analysis assessed impact of adjustment for these factors on the magnitude of the estimated increased risk for CAS at older ages. Results After adjustment for sex and symptomatic status, there was a 1.72-times (95% CI: 1.26 - 2.37) increased risk of periprocedural stroke and death associated with each decade of patient age. Adjustment for lesion length as assessed in the clinical center significantly attenuated this increased risk at older ages to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.20 - 2.29, p = 0.039), an 8.3% attenuation. No other factor showed evidence as a contributor to the periprocedural increased risk of stroke and death in older patients (p > 0.10). Conclusion These data suggest that a longer carotid artery lesion length is a significant contributor to the increased risk of CAS in the elderly. However, attenuation of the age effect was modest, less than a 10% change in the hazard ratios. Other potential mediators such as tortuosity and atherosclerosis of the aortic arch and great vessels were not assessed. Non-anatomic factors that are more common with advancing age such as cerebral white matter disease and subclinical dementia were also not assessed and may play a role in how elderly patients respond to ischemic insults.

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 The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) enrolled 2502 patients between December of 2000 and mid-July of 2008. We analyzed temporal changes in outcomes for both CEA and CAS over the course of this study. Methods Enrollment was divided into 3 consecutive epochs (5 years, 14 months, and 16 months), each with approximately 834 patients ( Table ). Rates for the primary outcome of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (DSMI) and for death and stroke (DS) during the periprocedural period were calculated. Poisson regression was used to adjust rates for age, sex, dyslipidemia, and symptomatic status, all of which were found to influence outcomes. Results For CAS, there was a 26% decline in DSMI (6.2% → 4.6%) and a 35% decline in DS (5.5% → 3.6%). For both composite endpoints in CEA there was no consistent pattern ( Table ). As CREST progressed, it enrolled younger patients, more men, patients more likely to be dyslipidemic and enrolled more asymptomatic patients (all p < 0.05). Adjustment for these changes mediated the improvement in event rates for the CAS patients, and had no consistent effect on CEA event rates ( Table ). Conclusion Periprocedural safety for CAS improved over time in CREST. Changes were inconsistent for CEA. Improvements for CAS in part appear to reflect changes in patient selection related to age, sex, and risk factors, as adjustment for those variables attenuated the decline in rates. Linking rates to operator experience was not feasible because of the large number of new interventionalists and surgeons entering CREST over time.