Abstract WP160: A Post-Hoc Assessment of Current Hormone Therapy on Revascularization Risk in Women: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

• DOI: 10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.awp160
• Publication Date: 2022-03-20T05:12:15Z
• Authors: Ariane Mackey; Helmi L Lutsep; Genevieve Milot; Jenifer H Voeks; Virginia J Howard; Susan E Hughes; MeeLee Tom; Mary E Longbottom; Alice J Sheffet; Thomas G Brott
• Keywords: 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; 3. Good health

Background: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was among factors considered in a post-hoc assessment of the risk of revascularization by carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in women enrolled in CREST.

Methods: Of the 872 women in CREST, 775 (89%) were post-menopausal and current HRT status was known in 739 (95%). The study composite outcome was defined as any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke over a 4-year follow-up period. Treatment groups were combined and differences in the composite outcome were assessed by current HRT at baseline.

Results: There were 77/739 (10%) current HRT users. HRT users were more likely to be symptomatic at baseline than non-users (65% vs. 52%; p = 0.027), and were less likely to be diabetic (19% vs. 32%; p = 0.024). However, they were similar in most other factors including age, race, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and length of follow-up (p > 0.10). There were no (0) periprocedural events among the 77 HRT users while there were 43 (6.5%) events among the 662 non-users (p = 0.017). Among those event-free at the end of the periprocedural period, there was little evidence of an impact of baseline HRT on the risk of ipsilateral stroke with 2 (2.6%) post-procedural events among 77 HRT users and 12 (1.9%) among 619 non-users.

Conclusion: We found that women on current HRT have lower periprocedural risk associated with CAS or CEA than non-users, but little difference in risk after the procedural period. The mechanism for this unexpected finding is elusive. We urge caution in the interpretation of this post-hoc observation and encourage replication or refutation by other revascularization studies with similar data.