Comparative Effectiveness of Commonly Used Devices for Carotid Artery Stenting An NCDR Analysis (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) Article

Full Text via DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.10.014 PMID: 24440025 Web of Science: 000331719900014

Cited authors

  • Giri, Jay; Kennedy, Kevin F.; Weinberg, Ido; Hawkins, Beau M.; Press, Marcella Calfon; Drachman, Douglas; McCormick, Daniel J.; Aronow, Herbert D.; White, Christopher J.; Rosenfield, Kenneth; Yeh, Robert W.


  • Objectives This study sought to characterize usage and outcomes of carotid stenting platforms.; 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.; 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.; 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 Protege/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.; 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. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Publication date

  • 2014

Published in

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1936-8798

Start page

  • 171

End page

  • 177


  • 7


  • 2