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

Full Text via DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002336 PMID: 27116974 Web of Science: 000376750600012
International Collaboration

Cited authors

  • Jalbert, Jessica J.; Nguyen, Louis L.; Gerhard-Herman, Marie D.; Kumamaru, Hiraku; Chen, Chih-Ying; Williams, Lauren A.; Liu, Jun; Rothman, Andrew T.; Jaff, Michael R.; Seeger, John D.; Benenati, James F.; Schneider, Peter A.; Aronow, Herbert D.; Johnston, Joseph A.; Brott, Thomas G.; Tsai, Thomas T.; White, Christopher J.; Setoguchi, Soko


  • 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.; 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.; Conclusions-Outcomes after CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries were comparable after adjusting for both patient-and provider-level factors.

Publication date

  • 2016


International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1941-7705

Start page

  • 275


  • 9


  • 3