, Volume 50, Issue 12, pp 1049–1053 | Cite as

Differences in complication rates among the centres in the SPACE study

  • Jens FiehlerEmail author
  • Olav Jansen
  • Jürgen Berger
  • Hans-Henning Eckstein
  • Peter A. Ringleb
  • Robert Stingele
Interventional Neuroradiology



Despite the high grade of standardisation of study protocols, there is still room for variability among the centres in specific treatment aspects. We evaluated the treatment risk in stent-protected angioplasty of the carotid versus endarterectomy (SPACE) associated with the specific patient enrolment rates of the centres.

Materials and methods

The analysed endpoints were ipsilateral stroke or death [primary outcome event (pOE)] and any stroke or death [secondary outcome event (sOE)] until 30 days after treatment. A binary logistic regression analysis with random effects was performed separately for each treatment arm. The centres were secondarily categorised in three classes: I) ≥25 patients enrolled, II) ten to 24 patients and III) <10 patients and a hierarchic log linear model was fitted to test the three-way interaction of treatment, number of patients per class and outcome.


The random effects logistic regression analysis in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) arm proved a significant increase in pOE with decreasing number of patients enrolled (−0.0190 ± 0.0085, p = 0.025, deviance 35.7 with 32 df), whereas no such effect was found in the carotid endartectomy (CEA) arm (−0.010 ± 0.008, p = 0.24, deviance 39.78 with 32 df). In the log linear model, there was a significant interaction between treatment, number of patients per centre and sOE (p = 0.023). The odds ratios for sOE in the enrolment classes (CAS vs. CEA) were 0.98 (95% CI 0.50–1.94, p = 0.95) for class I, 1.13 (95% CI 0.47–2.77, p = 0.77) for class II and 11.56 (95% CI 1.40–253.45, p = 0.01) for class III centres.


Despite rigorous standardisation and quality requirements for operator qualification, there seemed to be a decrease in complication rate with increasing patient enrolment numbers in the CAS arm while this signal could not be detected in the CEA arm of SPACE.


Carotid stenosis Carotid stenting Carotid endarterectomy Postoperative complications Learning curve 



We thank the patients who agreed to participate in SPACE. Funding was provided from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01GI9918), German Research Foundation (DFG: HA 1394/4-2 and HA 1397/4-3), German Society of Neurology, German Society of Neuroradiology, German Radiological Society, Boston Scientific, Guidant, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Bruckmann H et al (2006) 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 368:1239–1247 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69122-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stingele R, Berger J, Alfke K et al (2008) Clinical and angiographic risk factors for stroke and death within 30 days after carotid endarterectomy and stent-protected angioplasty: a subanalysis of the SPACE study. Lancet Neurol 7:216–222 doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70024-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B et al (2006) Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 355:1660–1671 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061752 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Archie JP Jr (1988) Learning curve for carotid endarterectomy. South Med J 81:707–710 doi: 10.1097/00007611-198806000-00006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holt P, Poloniecki J, Loftus I, Thompson M (2007) Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome following carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 33:645–651 doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2007.01.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR (2002) Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137:511–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray WA, Yadav JS, Verta P et al (2007) The CAPTURE registry: predictors of outcomes in carotid artery stenting with embolic protection for high surgical risk patients in the early post-approval setting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 70:1025–1033 doi: 10.1002/ccd.21359 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kadkhodayan Y, Cross DT 3rd, Derdeyn CP, Moran CJ (2007) Carotid angioplasty and stenting in the elderly. Neuroradiology 49:933–938 doi: 10.1007/s00234-007-0278-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verzini F, Cao P, De Rango P et al (2006) Appropriateness of learning curve for carotid artery stenting: an analysis of periprocedural complications. J Vasc Surg 44:1205–1211 discussion 1211–1202 doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.08.027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jansen O, Fiehler J, Hartmann M, Brückmann H (2008) protection or non-protection in carotid stent angioplasty—the influence of interventional techniques on outcome data from the SPACE trial. Stroke (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hobson RW 2nd, Howard VJ, Roubin GS et al (2004) Credentialing of surgeons as interventionalists for carotid artery stenting: experience from the lead-in phase of CREST. J Vasc Surg 40:952–957 doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2004.08.039 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Fiehler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olav Jansen
    • 2
  • Jürgen Berger
    • 3
  • Hans-Henning Eckstein
    • 4
  • Peter A. Ringleb
    • 5
  • Robert Stingele
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of Medical Biometry and EpidemiologyUniversity Medical CenterHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Vascular Surgery, Rechts der Isar Medical Center MunichTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  5. 5.Department of NeurologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  6. 6.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany

Personalised recommendations