Protamine use in transfemoral carotid artery stenting is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events

Patric Liang, Raghu Motaganahalli, Nicholas J. Swerdlow, Kirsten Dansey, Rens R.B. Varkevisser, Chun Li, Jinny Lu, Livia de Guerre, Fahad Shuja, Marc Schermerhorn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Protamine use in carotid endarterectomy has been shown to be associated with fewer perioperative bleeding complications without higher rates of thromboembolic events. However, the effect of protamine use on complications after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear, and concerns remain about thromboembolic events. Methods: A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing transfemoral CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2018. We assessed in-hospital outcomes using propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who did and did not receive protamine. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure exacerbation. Bleeding complications were categorized as bleeding resulting in intervention or blood transfusions. Results: Of the 17,429 patients undergoing transfemoral CAS, 2697 (15%) patients received protamine. We created 2300 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive protamine. There were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death between the two cohorts (protamine, 2.5%; no protamine, 2.9%; relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.21; P =.37). Protamine use was not associated with statistically significant differences in perioperative bleeding complications resulting in interventional treatment (0.9% vs 0.5%; RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.99-4.46; P =.05) or blood transfusion (1.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61; P =.78). There were also no statistically significant differences for the individual outcomes of stroke (1.8% vs 2.3%; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16; P =.22), death (0.9% vs 0.8%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.62-2.19; P =.63), transient ischemic attack (1.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.67-1.82; P =.70), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.52-2.78; P =.67), or heart failure exacerbation (1.0% vs 0.9%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58-1.90; P =.88). Protamine use in patients presenting with symptomatic carotid stenosis was associated with lower risk of stroke or death (3.0% vs 4.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-0.998; P =.048), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death with protamine use in asymptomatic patients (1.6% vs 1.0%; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.67-3.92; P =.28). Conclusions: Heparin reversal with protamine after transfemoral CAS is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, and its use in symptomatic carotid disease is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2020

Keywords

  • Protamine
  • Stroke
  • Transfemoral carotid artery stenting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Protamine use in transfemoral carotid artery stenting is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this