Long-term Comparative Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting Following Previous Carotid Endarterectomy vs De Novo Lesions.

purposeTo report the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS) for de novo carotid stenosis vs patients treated for restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

methodsA retrospective review was conducted of all 385 patients (mean age 68.6±9.6 years; 231 men) who underwent 435 CAS procedures at a large tertiary care center between January 1999 and December 2013. For analysis, patients were stratified based on their lesion type [de novo (dn) vs post-CEA restenosis (res)] and subclassified by symptoms status [symptomatic (Sx) or asymptomatic (Asx)], creating 4 groups: (1) CAS-dn Asx, (2) CAS-dn Sx, (3) CAS-res Asx, and (4) CAS-res Sx. For the CAS-res group, the mean elapsed time from CEA to CAS was 72.4±63.6 months. Outcomes included target vessel reintervention (TVR) and in-stent restenosis (ISR), the latter defined by a carotid duplex ultrasound velocity >275 cm/s.

resultsThe main indication for initial carotid angiography with possible revascularization was severe carotid stenosis (≥70%-99% on duplex) in both CAS-dn and CAS-res groups (83.6% vs 83.7%, p=0.999). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients with postintervention residual stenosis (<30%; 100% each arm) or complications between CAS-res vs CAS-dn: in-hospital stroke (1.4% vs 1.8%, respectively), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0%), or death (0.9% vs 0%). Mean follow-up was 62.4±45.6 months (median 53.5, range 1-180). Average clinical/TVR follow-up was greater for the CAS-res group (71.9±48.6 months) compared with 53.3±40.5 months for the CAS-dn group (p<0.001). Across the 4 study groups, there were no differences in freedom from ISR (p=0.174) or TVR (p=0.856). Multivariate analysis found peripheral vascular disease (PVD) as the sole ISR independent predictor [hazard ratio (HR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.62, p=0.041], while significant predictors for TVR were age <65 years at the time of the procedure (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.18, p=0.039) and PVD (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.87, p=0.043).

conclusionThe current study suggests that CAS is a feasible and durable therapeutic option for recurrent restenosis after CEA. Long-term outcomes were similar for patients treated for de novo lesions or post-CEA restenosis. Age and PVD appear to influence long-term CAS durability.