Back

Trends and Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization for ACAS in ESKD Patients on Dialysis from 2010-2019

Ramani, G.; Chan, W.-C.; Ali, Z.; Patel, K. N.; Majmundar, M.; Vasudeva, R.; Gadre, A.; Munguti, C. M.; Munshi, K.; Thors, A.; DeCamp, S.; Gupta, K.; Parmar, G. M.

2025-10-01 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2025.09.28.25336858 medRxiv
Show abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe role of carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS) in dialysis-dependent end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients remains poorly defined, as these patients have high periprocedural risks and limited long-term survival. This study evaluated the trends in carotid revascularization in this group and studied associated short- and long-term outcomes. METHODSWe analyzed the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) to study dialysis-dependent ESKD patients with ACAS who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenosis (CAS) between 2010 and 2019. Primary outcomes included trends in CEA and CAS utilization, 30-day stroke or death rates. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital and one-year stroke or death rates. RESULTSAmong 11,405 ESKD patients on dialysis with ACAS, 4954 underwent carotid revascularization (4098 CEA; 856 CAS). CEA rates reduced by 55% and CAS by 50% between 2010 and 2019. CAS was associated with a higher 30-day composite stroke or death rate (7.13% vs 4.5%; P=0.0014), in-hospital stroke or death rate (3.39% vs 2.22%, P=0.0433), and 1-year stroke or death rate (33.1% vs 25.4%, P<0.001) compared to CEA. No significant improvements in the outcomes over time were observed. CONCLUSIONCarotid revascularization rates for ACAS have declined among dialysis-dependent ESKD patients, yet both CEA and CAS are associated with significant procedure-related stroke and death risk. These support a cautious approach and underscore the need for a more selective and individualized shared decision-making approach in this high-risk population.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.