Predictive Score of Adverse Events After Carotid Endarterectomy: The NSQIP Registry Carotid Endarterectomy Scale

Comparative assessment of racial disparity in 30-day outcomes for Asian Americans undergoing carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective treatment for carotid stenosis. All previous studies on racial disparity of CEA outcomes omitted Asian Americans. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following CEA among Asian Americans.

METHODS

Asian American and Caucasian patients who underwent CEA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2011 to 2021. Patients with age less than 18 years old were excluded. Patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis were examined separately. A 1:5 propensity-score matching was used to address preoperative differences. Thirty perioperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 380 Asian Americans (2.27%) and 13,250 Caucasians (79.18%) with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CEA. Also, 289 Asian Americans (1.40%) and 18,257 Caucasians (88.14%) with asymptomatic carotid stenosis had CEA. Asian Americans undergoing CEA presented with higher comorbid burdens and more severe symptomology. Also, asymptomatic Asian Americans were more likely to undergo surgeries for mild stenosis (<50%), which is not in line with practice guidelines. After 1:5 propensity-matching, all symptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1550 Caucasian patients, and all asymptomatic Asian Americans were matched to 1445 Caucasians; preoperative differences were addressed. Asian Americans exhibited low overall 30-day mortality (symptomatic, 1.61%; asymptomatic, 0.35%) and stroke (symptomatic, 2.26%; asymptomatic, 0.69%). All perioperative outcomes were comparable to Caucasians, with the exception that Asian Americans experienced longer operation times.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggested that Asian Americans with asymptomatic stenosis were underrepresented in CEA. After propensity-score matching, Asian Americans demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes to Caucasians. These suggest that, when afforded equal access to quality health care, CEA serves as an effective treatment for carotid stenosis among Asian Americans. Therefore, efforts may be aimed at addressing health care access, potentially in the screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in Asian Americans. This would ensure they have equitable benefits from CEA. Nevertheless, the exact preoperative differences and long-term CEA outcomes in Asian Americans should warrant further examination in future studies.

Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following Carotid Endarterectomy Using Machine Learning

Background Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a major vascular operation for stroke prevention that carries significant perioperative risks; however, outcome prediction tools remain limited. The authors developed machine learning algorithms to predict outcomes following CEA. Methods and Results The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent CEA between 2011 and 2021. Input features included 36 preoperative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death). The data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 machine learning models were trained using preoperative features. The primary metric for evaluating model performance was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Model robustness was evaluated with calibration plot and Brier score. Overall, 38 853 patients underwent CEA during the study period. Thirty-day major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 1683 (4.3%) patients. The best performing prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92). In comparison, logistic regression had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64), and existing tools in the literature demonstrate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values ranging from 0.58 to 0.74. The calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted and observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.02. The strongest predictive feature in our algorithm was carotid symptom status. Conclusions The machine learning models accurately predicted 30-day outcomes following CEA using preoperative data and performed better than existing tools. They have potential for important utility in guiding risk-mitigation strategies to improve outcomes for patients being considered for CEA.

Diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still uncertainty regarding whether diabetes mellitus (DM) can adversely affect patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. The aim of the study was to assess the adverse impact of DM on patients with carotid stenosis treated by CEA.

METHODS

Eligible studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2023 were selected from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials databases. The short-term and long-term outcomes of major adverse events (MAEs), death, stroke, the composite outcomes of death/stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were collected to calculate the pooled effect sizes (ESs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prevalence of adverse outcomes. Subgroup analysis by asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis and insulin/noninsulin-dependent DM was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies (n = 122,003) were included. Regarding the short-term outcomes, DM was associated with increased risks of MAEs (ES = 1.52, 95% CI: [1.15-2.01], prevalence = 5.1%), death/stroke (ES = 1.61, 95% CI: [1.13-2.28], prevalence = 2.3%), stroke (ES = 1.55, 95% CI: [1.16-1.55], prevalence = 3.5%), death (ES = 1.70, 95% CI: [1.25-2.31], prevalence =1.2%), and MI (ES = 1.52, 95% CI: [1.15-2.01], prevalence = 1.4%). DM was associated with increased risks of long-term MAEs (ES = 1.24, 95% CI: [1.04-1.49], prevalence = 12.2%). In the subgroup analysis, DM was associated with an increased risk of short-term MAEs, death/stroke, stroke, and MI in asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA and with only short-term MAEs in the symptomatic patients. Both insulin- and noninsulin-dependent DM patients had an increased risk of short-term and long-term MAEs, and insulin-dependent DM was also associated with the short-term risk of death/stroke, death, and MI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with carotid stenosis treated by CEA, DM is associated with short-term and long-term MAEs. DM may have a greater impact on adverse outcomes in asymptomatic patients after CEA. Insulin-dependent DM may have a more significant impact on post-CEA adverse outcomes than noninsulin-dependent DM. Whether DM management could reduce the risk of adverse outcomes after CEA requires further investigation.

Adaptive Risk Modeling: Improving Risk Assessment of Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients Throughout their Hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was twofold: 1. To assess how adaptive modeling, accounting for development of inpatient complications, affects the predictive capacity of the risk tool to predict inpatient mortality for a cohort of geriatric hip fracture patients. 2. To compare how risk triaging of secondary outcomes is affected by adaptive modeling. We hypothesize that adaptive modeling will improve the predictive capacity of the model and improve the ability to risk triage secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Between October 2014-August 2021, 2421 patients >55 years old treated for hip fracture obtained through low-energy mechanisms were analyzed for demographics, injury details and hospital quality measures. The baseline Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA) tool for hip fractures (STTGMA_HIP) was calculated in the emergency department setting. A new mortality risk score (STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV}) was created including inpatient complications. Each models' predictive ability was compared using DeLong's test. Patients were grouped into quartiles based on their respective STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} and comparative analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

AUROC comparison demonstrated STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} significantly improved the predictive capacity for inpatient mortality compared to STTGMA_HIP (p < 0.01). STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} correctly triaged 80% and 64% of high-risk patients with inpatient and 30-day mortality compared to 64% and 57% for STTGMA_HIP. STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} quartile stratification demonstrated that the highest risk cohort had the worst mortality outcomes and hospital quality measures. Patients whose risk classification changed from minimal risk using STTGMA_HIP to high risk using STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} experienced the highest rate of mortality, readmission, ICU admission, with longer lengths of stay and higher hospital costs.

DISCUSSION

Adaptive modeling accounting for inpatient complications improves the predictive capacity and risk triaging of the STTGMA_HIP tool. Real-time modulation of a patient's mortality risk profile can inform their requisite level of medical management to improve the quality and value of care as patients progress through their index hospitalization. STTGMA_{HIP_ADPTV} can better identify patients at risk for developing complications whose mortality and readmission risk profile increase significantly, allowing their new risk classification to inform higher levels of care. While this may increase length of stay and total costs, it may improve outcomes in both the short and long-term.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

In-hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy for stroke stratified by modified Rankin scale score and time of intervention

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treating symptomatic carotid stenosis are well known, the optimal timing of intervention after acute stroke and whether the optimal timing will vary with preoperative stroke severity has remained unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effect of stroke severity and timing of the intervention on the postoperative outcomes for patients who had undergone CEA for stroke.

METHODS

We identified all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative who had undergone CEA from 2012 to 2020 for prior stroke. The patients were stratified using the preoperative modified Rankin scale score (mRS score, 0-5) and time to CEA after stroke onset (≤2 days, 3-14 days, 15-90 days, 91-180 days). After univariate comparisons, the patients were stratified into the following mRS cohorts for further analysis: 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death.

RESULTS

We identified 15,601 patients, of whom 30% had had an mRS score of 0, 34% an mRS score of 1, 17% an mRS score of 2, 11% an mRS score of 3, 8% an mRS score of 4, and 1% an mRS score of 5. Overall, 9.3% of the patients had undergone CEA within ≤2 days, 46% within 3 to 14 days, 36% in 15 to 90 days, and 8.4% within 90 to 180 days. A decreasing mRS score and an increasing time to CEA were associated with lower rates of perioperative stroke/death (P_trend < .01). After risk adjustment, with CEA at 3 to 14 days as the comparator group, the mRS score 0 to 1 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (3.6% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7). The mRS score 2 group had had a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (4.4% vs 3.9%; OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.3) but a lower incidence after CEA at 15 to 90 days (2.1% vs 3.9%; OR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.96). The mRS score 3 to 4 group had had a higher incidence of stroke/death after CEA within ≤2 days (8.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9) but a similar incidence of stroke/death after CEA at 15 to 90 days (3.0% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For the mRS score 5 group, the stroke/death rates were ≥6.5% across all the time to CEA groups. However, the low sample size limited meaningful comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with minimal disability after stroke (mRS score, 0-1) seemed to benefit from CEA within 3 to 14 days. However, those with severe disability (mRS score 5) have a very high risk from CEA at any time point given the poor outcomes. In contrast to the current guidelines, patients with mild disability (mRS score 2) could benefit from delaying CEA to 15 to 90 days, and those with moderate disability (mRS score 3-4) might benefit from CEA within 3 to 90 days given the acceptable in-hospital outcomes. These data should be considered within the context of the clinical situation in the weeks after index event to determine the net benefit of delayed CEA.

In-hospital outcomes after upper extremity versus transfemoral and transcarotid access for carotid stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently used for patients at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. However, there are limited data comparing transradial or transbrachial (tr/tbCAS) access with more established CAS approaches. Therefore, we examined the effect of a tr/tbCAS approach versus a transfemoral (tfCAS) or transcarotid (TCAR) approach on outcomes after CAS.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from January 2016 to December 2021. We compared outcomes across 1:3 propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS or tr/tbCAS versus TCAR. As a secondary analysis, we assessed outcomes stratified by carotid symptom status. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of in-hospital stroke/death.

RESULTS

Among 40,835 CAS patients, 962 (2.4%) underwent tr/tbCAS, 18,840 (46%) underwent tfCAS, and 21,033 (52%) underwent TCAR. Among matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus tfCAS, there was no significant difference in the risk of stroke/death (4.1% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-2.1), but tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of death (2.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.1% vs 3.9%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and death (3.6% vs 1.7%; RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for mRS in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.9) or death (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.81-3.3) between groups. In matched patients who underwent tr/tbCAS versus TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (4.2% vs 2.3%; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7) and death (2.4% vs 0.5%; RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5). In the symptomatic subgroup, tr/tbCAS remained associated with a higher risk of stroke/death (6.2% vs 2.4%; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2) and death (3.7% vs 0.7%; RR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.6-12), but there were no differences in asymptomatic patients. After adjustment for Modified Rankin Scale in patients with preoperative stroke, there were no significant differences in stroke/death (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.79-2.6) or death (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.95-5.7) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with tfCAS or TCAR, tr/tbCAS was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death in symptomatic patients, which was driven primarily by a higher risk of death. These inferior outcomes were partly attributable to more severe preoperative neurologic disability in tr/tbCAS patients. In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes in asymptomatic patients. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of guideline-directed patient selection in tr/tbCAS.

The Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarct or Cardiac Arrest (MICA) Calculator as an Intraoperative Neurologic Deficit Predictor in Carotid Endarterectomy

Background: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) may experiment intraoperative neurologic deficits (IND) during carotid cross-clamping. This work aimed to assess the impact of the Gupta Perioperative Myocardial Infarct or Cardiac Arrest (MICA) risk calculator in the IND. Methods: From January 2012 to April 2021, patients undergoing CEA with regional anaesthesia for carotid stenosis with IND and consecutively control operated patients without IND were selected. A regressive predictive model was created, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied for comparison. A multivariable dependence analysis was conducted using a classification and regression tree (CRT) algorithm. Results: A total of 97 out of 194 included patients developed IND. Obesity showed aOR = 4.01 (95% CI: 1.66–9.67) and MICA score aOR = 1.21 (1.03–1.43). Higher contralateral stenosis showed aOR = 1.29 (1.08–1.53). The AUROC curve was 0.656. The CRT algorithm differentiated obese patients with a MICA score ≥ 8. Regarding non-obese patients, the model identified the presence of contralateral stenosis ≥ 55% with a MICA ≥ 10. Conclusion: MICA score might play an additional role in stratifying patients for IND in CEA. Obesity was determined as the best discrimination factor, followed by a score ≥ 8. A higher ipsilateral stenosis degree is suggested to have a part in avoiding procedure-related IND. Larger studies might validate the benefit of MICA score regarding the risk of IND.

External Validation of Risk Prediction Models to Improve Selection of Patients for Carotid Endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The net benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is determined partly by the risk of procedural stroke or death. Current guidelines recommend CEA if 30-day risks are <6% for symptomatic stenosis and <3% for asymptomatic stenosis. We aimed to identify prediction models for procedural stroke or death after CEA and to externally validate these models in a large registry of patients from the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for prediction models of procedural outcomes after CEA. We validated these models with data from patients who underwent CEA in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017). We assessed discrimination using C statistics and calibration graphically. We determined the number of patients with predicted risks that exceeded recommended thresholds of procedural risks to perform CEA.

RESULTS

After screening 788 reports, 15 studies describing 17 prediction models were included. Nine were developed in populations including both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, 2 in symptomatic and 5 in asymptomatic populations. In the external validation cohort of 26 293 patients who underwent CEA, 702 (2.7%) developed a stroke or died within 30-days. C statistics varied between 0.52 and 0.64 using all patients, between 0.51 and 0.59 using symptomatic patients, and between 0.49 to 0.58 using asymptomatic patients. The Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry model that included symptomatic status, diabetes, heart failure, and contralateral occlusion as predictors, had C statistic of 0.64 and the best concordance between predicted and observed risks. This model identified 4.5% of symptomatic and 2.1% of asymptomatic patients with procedural risks that exceeded recommended thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 17 externally validated prediction models, the Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry risk model had most reliable predictions of procedural stroke or death after CEA and can inform patients about procedural hazards and help focus CEA toward patients who would benefit most from it.

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Contralateral Stenosis and Echolucent Plaque Morphology are Associated with Elevated Stroke Risk in Patients Treated with Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis within a Controlled Clinical Trial (SPACE-2)

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACS) has a low risk of stroke. To achieve an advantage over noninterventional best medical treatment (BMT), carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) must be performed with the lowest possible risk of stroke. Therefore, an analysis of risk-elevating factors is essential. Grade of ipsilateral and contralateral stenosis as well as plaque morphology are known risk factors in ACS.

METHODS

The randomized, controlled, multicenter SPACE-2 trial had to be stopped prematurely after recruiting 513 patients. 203 patients were randomized to CEA, 197 to CAS, and 113 to BMT. Within one year, risk factors such as grade of stenosis and plaque morphology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Grade of contralateral stenosis (GCS) was higher in patients with any stroke (50%^ECST vs. 20%^ECST; p=0.012). Echolucent plaque morphology was associated with any stroke on the day of intervention (OR 5.23; p=0.041). In the periprocedural period, any stroke was correlated with GCS in the CEA group (70%^ECST vs. 20%^ECST; p=0.026) and with echolucent plaque morphology in the CAS group (6% vs. 1%; p=0.048). In multivariate analysis, occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery (CCO) was associated with risk of any stroke (OR 7.00; p=0.006), without heterogeneity between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSION

In patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, GCS, CCO, as well as echolucent plaque morphology were associated with a higher risk of cerebrovascular events. The risk of stroke in the periprocedural period was increased by GCS in CEA and by echolucent plaque in CAS. Due to small sample size, results must be interpreted carefully.

Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Aortic Valve Sclerosis as an Important Predictor of Long-Term Mortality in Patients With Carotid Atheromatous Plaque Requiring Carotid Endarterectomy

Background: A strong association between aortic valve sclerosis (AVSc), the earliest manifestation of calcific aortic valve disease, and atherosclerosis exists. The aim of the study was to evaluate the predictive capabilities of AVSc on long-term all-cause mortality, in patients requiring carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

Methods and Results: 806 consecutive CEA patients were enrolled. Preoperative echocardiography was used to assess AVSc. Computed tomography angiography was applied for plaque characterization. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox linear regression, and area under the receiving operator characteristic (AUC) curve analyses were used to evaluate the predictive capability of AVSc. Overall, 348 of 541 patients had AVSc (64%). Age, diabetes, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were associated with AVSc. In the 5-year follow-up, AVSc group had a mortality rate of 16.7% while in no-AVSc group was 7.8%. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality were age, sex, eGFR, left ventricular ejection fraction, and AVSc. After adjustments, AVSc was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality risk (hazard ratio, HR = 1.9; 95%CI: 1.04–3.54; p = 0.038). We stratify our cohort based on carotid atheromatous plaque-type: soft, calcified, and mixed-fibrotic. In patients with mixed-fibrotic plaques, the mortality rate of AVSc patients was 15.5% compared to 2.4% in no-AVSc patients. In this group, AVSc was associated with an increased long-term all-cause mortality risk with an adjusted HR of 12.8 (95%CI: 1.71–96.35; p = 0.013), and the AUC, combing eGFR and AVSc was 0.77 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that AVSc together with eGFR may be used to improve long-term risk stratification of patients undergoing CEA surgery.

Diabetes and carotid artery disease: a narrative review

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been linked to an increased prevalence and severity of carotid artery disease, as well as polyvascular disease. Carotid disease is also associated with obesity and abnormal peri-organ and intra-organ fat (APIFat) deposition (i.e., excess fat accumulation in several organs such as the liver, heart and vessels). In turn, DM is associated with APIFat. The coexistence of these comorbidities confers a greater risk of vascular events. Clinicians should also consider that carotid bruits may predict cardiovascular risk. DM has been related to a greater risk of adverse outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or stenting. Whether modifying risk factors (e.g., glycaemia and dyslipidaemia) in DM patients can improve the outcomes of these procedures needs to be established. Furthermore, DM is a risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI). The latter should be recorded in DM patients undergoing carotid stenting since it can influence both short- and long-term outcomes. From a pathophysiological perspective, functional changes in the carotid artery may precede morphological ones. Furthermore, carotid plaque characteristics are increasingly being studied in terms of vascular risk stratification and monitoring short-term changes attributed to treatment. The present narrative review discusses the recent (2019) literature on the associations between DM and carotid artery disease. Physicians and vascular surgeons looking after patients with carotid disease and DM should consider these links that may influence outcomes. Further research in this field is also needed to optimise the treatment of such patients.

Predictive Score of Adverse Events After Carotid Endarterectomy: The NSQIP Registry Carotid Endarterectomy Scale

Background

The goal of this study was to create a comprehensive, integer‐weighted predictive scale of adverse events after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), which may augment risk stratification and patient counseling.

Methods and Results

The targeted carotid files from the prospective NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) registry (2011–2013) comprised the derivation population. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated predictors of a 30‐day adverse event (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death), the effect estimates of which were used to build a weighted predictive scale that was validated using the 2014 to 2015 NSQIP registry release. A total of 10 766 and 8002 patients were included in the derivation and the validation populations, in whom 4.0% and 3.7% developed an adverse event, respectively. The NSQIP registry CEA scale included 14 variables; the highest points were allocated for insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus, high‐risk cardiac physiological characteristics, admission source other than home, an emergent operation, American Society of Anesthesiologists’ classification IV to V, modified Rankin Scale score ≥2, and presentation with a stroke. NSQIP registry CEA score was predictive of an adverse event (concordance=0.67), stroke or death (concordance=0.69), mortality (concordance=0.76), an extended hospitalization (concordance=0.73), and a nonroutine discharge (concordance=0.83) in the validation population, as well as among symptomatic and asymptomatic subgroups (P<0.001). In the validation population, patients with an NSQIP registry CEA scale score >8 and 17 had 30‐day stroke or death rates >3% and 6%, the recommended thresholds for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively.

Conclusions

The NSQIP registry CEA scale predicts adverse outcomes after CEA and can risk stratify patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis using different thresholds for each population.