Long-Term Follow-Up Study of Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis Trial
Background and Purpose—We aimed at comparing the long-term benefit–risk balance of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.
Methods—Long-term follow-up study of patients included in Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S), a randomized, controlled trial of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in 527 patients with recently symptomatic severe carotid stenosis, conducted in 30 centers in France. The main end point was a composite of any ipsilateral stroke after randomization or any procedural stroke or death.
Results—During a median follow-up of 7.1 years (interquartile range, 5.1–8.8 years; maximum 12.4 years), the primary end point occurred in 30 patients in the stenting group compared with 18 patients in the endarterectomy group. Cumulative probabilities of this outcome were 11.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.9–15.2) versus 6.3% (4.0–9.8) in the endarterectomy group at the 5-year follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.85; 1.00–3.40; P=0.04) and 11.5% (8.2–15.9) versus 7.6% (4.9–11.8; hazard ratio, 1.70; 0.95–3.06; P=0.07) at the 10-year follow-up. No difference was observed between treatment groups in the rates of ipsilateral stroke beyond the procedural period, severe carotid restenosis (≥70%) or occlusion, death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization procedures.
Conclusions—The long-term benefit–risk balance of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis favored endarterectomy, a difference driven by a lower risk of procedural stroke after endarterectomy. Both techniques were associated with low and similar long-term risks of recurrent ipsilateral stroke beyond the procedural period.
- Received April 3, 2014.
- Revision received July 1, 2014.
- Accepted July 11, 2014.
- © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.