Late outcomes after carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: insights from a propensity-matched analysis of the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry.

Abstract

In patients with carotid artery disease, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) are treatment options. Controversy exists as to the relative efficacy of the 2 techniques in preventing late events. The Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry recruited > 68,000 outpatients ≥ 45 years of age with established atherothrombotic disease or ≥ 3 risk factors for atherothrombosis. Patients with CAS or CEA were chosen and followed up prospectively for the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Propensity score matching was performed to assemble a cohort of patients in whom all baseline covariates would be well balanced. Primary outcome was defined as death or stroke at the 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcome was stroke or transient ischemic attack. Tertiary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the individual outcomes. Of the 68 236 patients with atherothrombosis, 3412 patients (5%) had a history of carotid artery revascularization (70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis), 1025 (30%) with CAS and 2387 (70%) with CEA. Propensity score analyses matched 836 CAS patients with 836 CEA patients. At the end of 2 years of follow-up, in the propensity score-matched cohort, CAS was associated with a risk similar to CEA for the primary (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.26), secondary (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.96), and tertiary (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.01) composite outcome, death (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00), and stroke (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.80). In a real-world cohort of patients with a history of carotid artery revascularization, CAS was comparable to CEA for late outcomes.