Back to Search Start Over

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Authors :
Jalbert JJ
Nguyen LL
Gerhard-Herman MD
Kumamaru H
Chen CY
Williams LA
Liu J
Rothman AT
Jaff MR
Seeger JD
Benenati JF
Schneider PA
Aronow HD
Johnston JA
Brott TG
Tsai TT
White CJ
Setoguchi S
Source :
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes [Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes] 2016 May; Vol. 9 (3), pp. 275-85. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Apr 26.
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

Background: Effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) relative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare patients has not been established. We compared effectiveness of CAS versus CEA among Medicare beneficiaries.<br />Methods and Results: We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (2005-2008) and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2006-2008/2009). Medicare patients were followed up from procedure date until death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, periprocedural myocardial infarction, or a composite end point for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient factors and adjusted for provider factors in a Cox regression model comparing CAS with CEA. Among 5254 Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (1999 CAS; 3255 CEA) and 4055 Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2824 CAS; 1231 CEA) Medicare patients, CAS patients had a higher comorbidity burden and were more likely to be at high surgical risk (Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry: 96.7% versus 44.5%; Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry: 71.3% versus 44.7%). Unadjusted outcome risks were higher for CAS. Mortality risks remained elevated for CAS after adjusting for patient-level factors (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.46). After further adjustment for provider factors, differences between CAS and CEA were attenuated or no longer present (hazard ratio for mortality, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.37). Performance was comparable across subgroups defined by sex and degree of carotid stenosis, but there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting a higher risk of adverse outcomes in older (>80) and symptomatic patients undergoing CAS.<br />Conclusions: Outcomes after CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries were comparable after adjusting for both patient- and provider-level factors.<br /> (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1941-7705
Volume :
9
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
27116974
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002336