+ All Categories
Home > Documents > CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Date post: 26-May-2015
Category:
Upload: cardiacinfo
View: 989 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
23
Amit Gossain
Transcript
Page 1: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Amit Gossain

Page 2: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

72 yo male presenting for follow up physical exam

PMHx:- CAD- HL- DM

Medications:- Vytorin- HCTZ- Amlodipine- Metformin

Page 3: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Physical ExamGeneral: NADHEENT: PERRL, NCAT, CV: +S1, +S2 RRR no m/g/r or JVD +carotid

bruitsLungs: CTA no r/r/wAbd: soft, NTND, no organomegalyExtremities: no c/c/e

Page 4: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

What’s the next step?Cerebral angiography Carotid duplex ultrasound Magnetic resonance angiography Computed tomographic angiography

Page 5: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Clinical Question

In what cases is a carotid angioplasty and stent better than carotid endartectomy (CEA)

Page 6: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

IndicationsCEA- Symptomatic disease

- TIA, Amaurosis fugax

- Asymptomatic disease- For stenosis of 60-99%

Page 7: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Decisions72 yo male with PMHx of HL, HTN, DM.

asymptomatic 80% stenosis on ultrasound

54 yo male with PMHx of CAD with recent history of TIAs and 60% stenosis on ultrasound

84 yo male with PMHx of COPD, CAD, DM with bilateral carotid stenosis of 70%.

Page 8: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

EVA-3SHypothesis: CAS not inferior to CEA for treatment of

severe symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Exclusion Criteria: - high-risk patients with unstable angina, uncontrolled DM, uncontrolled HTN, previous carotid revascularization

Mas JL et al, “Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial: results up to 4 years from a randomised, multicentre trial” Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):885-92. Epub 2008 Sep 5.

Page 9: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 10: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 11: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Criticism:- lack of experience by the interventionalists

- prerequisite was two stent procedures with any new device

- embolic protection for patients was optional early in trial

- those treated with embolic protection were significantly lower (7.9 vs. 25%!)

Page 12: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

SPACE: The Final FrontierHypothesis:

CAS not inferior to CEA for treatment of severe symptomatic carotid stenosis

Eckstein HH, et al. “Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial.” Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):893-902. Epub 2008 Sep 5.

Page 13: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 14: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 15: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 16: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Criticism:- embolic protection devices with stenting was optional (although no significant difference in primary outcomes)

Page 17: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

SAPPHIRE trialHypothesis: CAS is not

inferior to CEA in patients with either symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis who are considered high risk for surgery

Yadav JS, et al. “Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients.” NEJM 2004 Oct 7; 351(15):1493-501

Page 18: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 19: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 20: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)
Page 21: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Criticism:- bias towards CAS due to high number of patients with recurrent CAS- complication rates higher with repeat/redo

CEA due to higher rates of embolization

- high incidence of MI in perioperative period in CEA

Page 22: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

Cases Revisited72 yo male with PMHx of HL, HTN, DM.

asymptomatic 80% stenosis on ultrasound

54 yo male with PMHx of CAD with recent history of TIAs and 60% stenosis on ultrasound

84 yo male with PMHx of COPD, CAD, DM with bilateral carotid stenosis of 70%.

Page 23: CEA vs. CAS (CQC)

ConclusionsNo study has appropriately defined roles of

CAS vs CEAAmerican Heart Association AND American

Stroke Association made statements saying more definitive evidence needed for CAS.

Gold Standard still CEA, BUT CAS has a roleCAS not inferior in patients that are “high

risk” (SAPPHIRE trial)CAS appears to be beneficial in younger

populations (68yrs and younger)


Recommended