Back to Search
Start Over
Comparative effectiveness of commonly used devices for carotid artery stenting: an NCDR Analysis (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).
- Source :
-
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions [JACC Cardiovasc Interv] 2014 Feb; Vol. 7 (2), pp. 171-177. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Jan 15. - Publication Year :
- 2014
-
Abstract
- Objectives: This study sought to characterize usage and outcomes of carotid stenting platforms.<br />Background: A variety of stents and embolic protection devices (EPDs) are used for carotid artery stenting. Little is known about current usage patterns and differences in outcomes with these devices.<br />Methods: We analyzed 12,135 consecutive carotid stent procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry performed between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012. We compared baseline characteristics and crude and multivariable-adjusted rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke among patients treated with Acculink/Accunet (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois), Xact/Emboshield (Abbott), and Precise/Angioguard (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, New Jersey) stent/EPD combinations.<br />Results: In 78.2% of cases, stents were used in conjunction with their specific, corresponding U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved EPD. The Acculink/Accunet (n = 2,617, 21.6%), Xact/Emboshield (n = 3,507, 28.9%), and Precise/Angioguard (n = 2,696, 22.2%) stent/EPD combinations were used in 72.7% of all cases. The Protégé/SpiderFx (ev3 Endovascular Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota) (n = 453, 3.7%) and Wallstent/Filterwire (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) (n = 213, 1.8%) devices were used in a minority of cases. In unadjusted analyses, the Precise/Angioguard system was associated with higher rates of the primary outcome than were the Acculink/Accunet (2.5% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.058) and Xact/Emboshield (2.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.14) systems that were not statistically different. In adjusted analyses, differences between Precise/Angioguard and Accunet/Acculink (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 2.47; p = 0.065), Precise/Angioguard and Xact/Emboshield (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.76; p = 0.38), and Xact/Emboshield and Accunet/Acculink (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.97; p = 0.18) remained nonsignificant.<br />Conclusions: In modern U.S. practice, the Acculink/Accunet, Xact/Emboshield, and Precise/Angioguard carotid stenting systems are used in most cases and are associated with similarly low rates of adverse events.<br /> (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Subjects :
- Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Angioplasty, Balloon adverse effects
Angioplasty, Balloon mortality
Carotid Stenosis complications
Carotid Stenosis diagnosis
Carotid Stenosis mortality
Chi-Square Distribution
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Female
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Logistic Models
Male
Multivariate Analysis
Odds Ratio
Prosthesis Design
Registries
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Stroke etiology
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
Angioplasty, Balloon instrumentation
Carotid Stenosis therapy
Stents
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1876-7605
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 24440025
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.10.014