Impact of Time Interval between Index Event and Stenting on Periprocedural Risk in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis
- Author:
Wonsuck HAN
1
;
Gyojun HWANG
;
Sung Han OH
;
Jong Joo LEE
;
Mi Kyung KIM
;
Bong Sub CHUNG
;
Jong Kook RHIM
;
Seung Hun SHEEN
;
Taehyung KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Clinical Article
- From:Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2020;63(5):598-606
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of time interval between index event and stenting on the periprocedural risk of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis and to determine the optimal timing of stenting.
Methods:: This retrospective study included 491 (322 symptomatic [65.6%] and 169 asymptomatic [34.4%]) patients undergoing carotid stenting. The symptomatic patients were categorized into Day 0–3, 4–7, 8–10, 11–14, 15–21, and >21 groups according to the time interval between index event and stenting. Periprocedural (≤30 days) risk for clinical (any neurological deterioration) and radiological (new infarction on postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging) events of stenting in each time interval versus asymptomatic stenosis was calculated with logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounders, and provided as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results:: Overall clinical event rate (4.3%) of stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis was higher than that for asymptomatic stenosis (1.2%; OR, 3.979 [95% CI, 1.093–14.489]; p=0.036). Stenting in Day 0–3 (13.2%; OR, 10.997 [95% CI, 2.333–51.826]; p=0.002) and Day 4–7 (8.3%; OR, 6.775 [95% CI, 1.382–33.227]; p=0.018) was associated with high risk for clinical events. However, the clinical event rates in stenting after 7 days from index event (Day 8–10, 1.8%; Day 11–14, 2.5%; Day 15–21, 0%; Day >21, 2.9%) were not different from that in stenting for asymptomatic stenosis. Overall radiological event rate (55.6%) in symptomatic stenosis was also higher than that in asymptomatic stenosis (35.5%; OR, 2.274 [95% CI, 1.553–3.352]; p<0.001). The high risk for radiological events was maintained in all time intervals (Day 0–3 : 55.3%; OR, 2.224 [95% CI, 1.103–4.627]; p=0.026; Day 4–7 : 58.3%; OR, 2.543 [95% CI, 1.329–4.949]; p=0.005; Day 8–10 : 53.6%; OR, 2.096 [95% CI, 1.138–3.889]; p=0.018; Day 11–14 : 57.5%; OR, 2.458 [95% CI, 1.225–5.021];p=0.012; Day 15–21 : 55.6%; OR, 2.271 [95% CI, 1.099–4.764]; p=0.028; Day >21 : 54.8%; OR, 2.203 [95% CI, 1.342–3.641]; p=0.002).
Conclusion:: This study showed that as stenting was delayed, the periprocedural risk for clinical events decreased. The clinical event risk was high only in stenting within 7 days and comparable with that for asymptomatic stenosis in stenting after 7 days from index event, although the radiological event risk was not affected by stenting timing. Therefore, our results suggest that delayed stenting after 7 days from symptom onset is a safe strategy for symptomatic stenosis.
