Howard, George

Objectives The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) showed no difference in the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS). We compared restenosis or occlusion, and repeat revascularization, between CAS and CEA over 2 years of follow-up. Methods Restenosis, occlusion, and repeat revascularization were assessed at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months post-randomization. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70% diameter reduction) was defined by a peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥300 cm/second on standardized duplex ultrasonography (DUS), occlusion by an absence of flow within the target artery on DUS, and repeat revascularization by any additional procedure (CEA, angioplasty or CAS) performed on the index artery. Studies were performed in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted in the CREST Ultrasound Core Lab. Patients included in this report were those who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization and had an ultrasound reviewed at the Core Lab (n=2191). Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results In the analytic cohort, 1086 patients received CAS and 1105 received CEA. Over 2 years 113 patients developed restenosis, 56 (rate 5.8%) in the CAS group and 57 (rate 5.8%) in the CEA group; and 8 developed an occlusion, 3 (rate 0.3 %) in the CAS group and 5 (rate 0.5%) in the CEA group. The combined restenosis-occlusion rate was 6.0% (n=58) for CAS and 6.3% (n=62) for CEA (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.63-1.29, p=0.58). Forty-three patients of the 2191 underwent repeat revascularization (20 CAS, 23 CEA, p=0.69) of which 28 had restenosis by our criteria and so were included ( Figure ). Stroke occurred in 13 (4 CAS; 9 CEA) of the 120 patients with restenosis or occlusion; 1 of the 4 CAS strokes occurred after restenosis was detected, and 5 of 9 CEA strokes occurred after restenosis was detected. Conclusions This analysis of carotid restenosis is the largest reported to date from any randomized clinical trial. Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and similar up to 2 years following CAS or CEA among 2191 patients. The rates of revascularization likewise did not differ between CAS and CEA. Follow-up out to 10 years is ongoing. Figure. Kaplan-Meier curves of restenosis and occlusion over 2 years.

Background: Historical data suggest that patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis are at high risk of early recurrent stroke. Guidelines therefore recommend revascularization within 2 weeks of symptoms. We assessed the risk of stroke or death occurring before revascularization in modern trials of symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods: We pooled data of all individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in the EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS and CREST trials. The outcome event (OE) was death or any stroke occurring between randomization and treatment by CAS or CEA, or up to 120 days after randomization among patients not undergoing treatment in this period. Results: 4707 patients were included in the analysis. Median time from qualifying event until randomization was 18 (interquartile range 7-50) days. Median time from randomization until treatment was 6 (2-11) days in the CAS group, and 7 (3-12) days in the CEA group (p<0.001). 31% of patients in the CAS group and 27% in the CEA group underwent revascularization within 14 days of the qualifying event. The OE occurred in 21 patients (CAS: 8, CEA: 13), all within 31 days of randomization (Kaplan Meier estimate: 2.4%, standard error 0.7%; fig.), including 18 non-fatal strokes, 1 fatal stroke, and 2 non-stroke related deaths. In 2 of the patients, the date of the qualifying event was unknown, in 8 patients the OE occurred within 14 days of the qualifying event and in 11 patients >14 days after the qualifying event. All patients with the OE had severe (70-99% degree) stenosis. No other baseline variables predicted the OE. Discussion: Despite the fact that less than a third of patients underwent revascularization within 14 days of the qualifying event, only 2.4% of patients had a recurrent stroke or died before treatment. The risk is lower than expected from historical data, which may reflect advances in medical therapy. Patients at risk are those with severe degree of stenosis.

Purpose: The safety of revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, and the efficacy of medical therapy for stroke prevention have improved. Therefore, results of prior randomized trials may not apply to current treatment decisions. The NINDS-funded CREST-2 will compare carotid endarterectomy and intensive medical therapy (IMT) versus IMT alone (n=1240), and carotid stenting and IMT versus IMT alone (n=1240) in asymptomatic patients with≥70% stenosis. Materials & Methods: CREST-2 consists of two parallel randomized clinical trials to be conducted at a target of ≈120 centers, including within NINDS StrokeNet. The composite primary outcome is stroke or death during the peri-procedural period or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter up to 4 years. Blinded assessment of cognition will be done periodically. Centrally directed IMT includes tight control of blood pressure (systolic target <140 mm Hg) and cholesterol (LDL target <70 mg/dl) as well as lifestyle coaching. Results: As of June 12, 2015, 94 centers have been approved by the Site Selection Committee. Credentialing is ongoing, with 198 approved surgeons and 64 approved interventionists; 124 additional conditionally approved interventionists will be able to submit additional cases for review under the CREST-2 Registry. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid will offer CAS reimbursement for Registry enrollees. As of June 12, 2015, there are 39 actively enrolling centers, and 37 patients have been randomized. Conclusion: CREST-2 is designed to identify the best approach for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The first patient was randomized in December, 2014. An update will be provided regarding the numbers of patients randomized, centers certified, as well as surgeons and interventionists fully approved. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02089217

Background: Perfusion weighted imaging on MRI (MRP) and computerized tomography perfusion (CTP) are increasingly required to manage large vessel disease. Computerized algorithms can quantify perfusion data, but the programs are expensive and not widely used outside acute stroke evaluation. We aimed to determine how well human observers can identify asymmetries in cerebral perfusion images compared with an automated computer algorithm. Methods: Ten clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease (4 vascular neurologists, 3 neuroradiologists, 1 vascular surgeon, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 interventional radiologist) were given 28 post-processed, color-coded, axial-slice MRP scans from patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endovascular versus Stenting Trial - Hemodynamics (CREST-H) study. All patients had >70%, unilateral, asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and had varying degrees of time-to-peak (TTP) delay on the side of stenosis, ranging from 0 to 2 secs, quantified by a semi-automated system that computes quantitative perfusion maps, using deconvolution of tissue and arterial signals (Olea, Cambridge, MA). A minimum volume of 10cc was required for a given TTP delay. Clinicians were asked to determine asymmetry (y/n) and side of occlusion for each case. Number of correct responses that matched the computer output were tallied. Results: We averaged correct responses by the 10 clinicians for cases at each increment of TTP delay; (Figure). At TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, accuracy was ≥80%. At 1.25 sec accuracy fell to 60%, and at ≤ 1 sec, accuracy was ≤50%. For TTP=0 (no asymmetry), accuracy was 71%. Conclusions: Visual impression of hemodynamic asymmetry among experienced clinicians was reasonably accurate for TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, but declined with more subtle asymmetries. Depending on the clinical impact of TTP delays (for CREST-H: correlation with cognitive decline), experienced clinicians may perform as well as an automated algorithm.

Background: Presence of atherosclerotic disease in more than one vascular bed (polyvascular disease) is associated with an increased risk of long-term vascular events. In the setting of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the predictors of disease in other vascular beds is not well delineated. Objective: To identify the frequency and predictors of disease in other vascular beds the CREST 2 randomized trial population with hemodynamically significant stenosis. Methods: Recorded baseline characteristics among CREST 2 participants included: demographics, past medical history, lifestyle factors, and laboratory studies. Each variable was tested against three potential definitions of disease in other beds (cardiac, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or disease in cardiac + PAD). Statistical analysis was done with Chi square and t tests as appropriate. Results: Data from 1447 patients were available for analysis. In these subjects with carotid disease, 51% also had cardiac disease, 24% also had PAD, and 16% had disease in in both cardiac and PAD. There was no relationship between age or race and presence of disease in other beds. Those with cardiac disease were more likely to be male. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and former history of smoking were all more common in those with either cardiac and PAD (TABLE). Elevated triglyceride and low HDL levels were also associated with all three definitions of disease in other beds. Those with either PAD or cardiac + PAD were more likely to be current smokers. Conclusions: Among CREST 2 participants, several medical conditions and lifestyle factors were associated with an increased frequency of disease in other vascular beds. Smoking, in particular, appears to be more common in those with PAD. Future analyses will address whether those with disease in other beds have higher rates of stroke or death.

Baseline Differences in Risk Factor Control and Medication Use Between 2 Trials Employing Intensive Medical Management (SAMMPRIS & CREST2) Background: The CREST2 trial Intensive Medical Management (IMM) protocol was adapted from the SAMMPRIS trial. However, since the 2011 publication of initial results of SAMMPRIS, there has been a greater appreciation for the importance of risk factor control in patients at risk of stroke associated with atherosclerosis. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in baseline risk factor control and medication use between SAMMPRIS and CREST2. Methods: Baseline risk factor and medication use data from 451 patients enrolled in SAMMPRIS (2008-2011) with severe symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis and 1473 patients enrolled in CREST2 (2014-2019) with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis were compared using the Chi-square test and t-test. Results: The Table shows baseline risk factor values and medications. SAMMPRIS patients were younger but had significantly worse risk factor control than CREST2 patients for all measures. There was no significant difference in statin use at baseline, but the mean SAMMPRIS subjects’ LDL was 16.1 mg/dL higher than in CREST2. CREST2 patients had higher rates of use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and thiazides, but lower rates of use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Conclusions: Despite being older, CREST2 patients have significantly better baseline risk factor profiles than SAMMPRIS patients. This could be due to greater appreciation of the importance of risk factor control and healthy lifestyle habits for stroke prevention or more aggressive treatment targets in guideline recommendations. Although risk factor control appears to be improving since SAMMPRIS, many CREST2 patients are still not meeting recommended risk factor goals at baseline and may benefit from IMM protocols.

Introduction: Using pooled data from randomized trials of symptomatic patients assigned to carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA), we have previously shown age to be an effect modifier, with increasing risk at older ages for CAS but not for CEA. To extend assessment of age as an effect modifier to the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with >= 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. Age was considered in three strata (< 65, 65 to 74, and 75+). The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, risk differed between the age strata (p <0.0001) where relative to those under age 65, there was no difference in risk for those aged 65 to 74 (HR = 1.3 ; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.3, p=0.38), but those aged 75+ were at substantially higher risk (HR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.5, 5.5, p=0.001). In contrast, risk did not differ by age strata (p = 0.80) for those assigned to CEA. Conclusions: Age-related risk factors, e.g. carotid anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology, should be considered before selecting patients aged 75+ for CAS.

Background and Purpose: Despite a higher incidence of stroke and a more adverse cardiovascular risk factor profile in Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites, carotid artery revascularization is performed less frequently among these subpopulations. We assessed racial differences in high-grade (≥70% diameter-reducing) carotid stenosis. Methods: Consecutive clients in a Nationwide Life Line for-Profit Service to screen for vascular disease, 2005 to 2019 were evaluated in a cross-sectional study. The prevalence of high-grade stenosis, defined by a carotid ultrasound peak systolic velocity of ≥230 cm/s, was assessed. Participants self-identified as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or other. Race/ethnic differences were assessed using Poisson regression. The number of individuals in the United States with high-grade stenosis was estimated by applying prevalence estimates to 2015 US Census population estimates. Results: The prevalence of high-grade carotid stenosis was estimated in 6 130 481 individuals. The prevalence of high-grade stenosis was higher with increasing age in all race-sex strata. Generally, Blacks and Hispanics had a lower prevalence of high-grade stenosis compared with Whites, while Native Americans had a higher prevalence. For example, for men aged 55 to 65, the relative risk of stenosis compared with Whites was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29–0.55) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46–0.81) for Blacks and Hispanics, respectively; and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10) for Native Americans. When these prevalence estimates were applied to the Census estimates of the US population, an estimated 327 721 individuals have high-grade stenosis, of whom 7% are Black, 7% Hispanic, and 43% women. Conclusions: Despite their having a more adverse cardiovascular risk profile, there was a lower prevalence of high-grade carotid artery stenosis for both the Black and Hispanic relative to the White clients. This lower prevalence of high-grade stenosis is a potential contributor to the lower use of carotid revascularization procedures in these minority populations.

Background: Data from the CDC show that approximately one-quarter of adults have elevated triglyceride (TG) levels. Recent trials have demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment of high TG levels, in patients already on statin therapy, reduces the rate of major vascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke (REDUCE-IT trial). We sought to assess how often patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS) have elevated TG levels and factors associated with high TG values. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST 2) were analyzed. Baseline lipid profiles were evaluated to determine high TG treatment eligibility as per the REDUCE-IT trial. We also evaluated baseline use of pharmacologic treatment for high TG levels. Demographic factors and baseline medical conditions were studied in relation to high (>150 mg/dl) TG values. Chi square and t tests were used to assess baseline factors and abnormal TG values. Results: As of August 10, 2020, 1655 of 1689 randomized patients (mean age 69.7 years, 61% men) had baseline lipid profiles suitable for analysis. Treatment eligibility according to REDUCE-IT (LDL 41-100 mg/dl, TG>150 mg/dl) was present in 21% (345) of subjects. In these patients, the median TG value was 205 (IQR 93) mg/dl. Fibrate medications were used at baseline in 4.5% of patients. Analysis of demographic and medical history factors and TG values greater than 150 mg/dl is found in the Table. There was significant positive correlation between baseline hemoglobin A1C and triglyceride values (p<0.0001) Conclusions: One in five patients in CREST 2 has TG values that potentially justify pharmacologic treatment. Elevated TG levels are most correlated with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, decreased physical activity, and heart disease. Clinicians should investigate treatment of elevated TG levels as a component of intensive medical therapy for stroke prevention.

Introduction: Previous analyses of randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have revealed varying sex-associated risk. To better understand sex as an effect modifier in the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the asymptomatic patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with ≥ 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of sex on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period (within 30 days of randomization) or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, there was no difference in risk between the sexes (female-to-male HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.65 -- 1.66, P = 0.87). For patients assigned to CEA, the difference in risk detected was not significant (female-to-male HR = 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 - 2.67, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Sex-differences in risk were not significant for those assigned CAS nor those assigned CEA in this largest pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients comparing CAS to CEA.