Gonzales, Nicole R.

Background and Objectives: Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma agonists, such as pioglitazone (PIO) enhanced hematoma resolution and improved functional recovery in our animal model of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We conducted a translational Phase II randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of PIO in patients with spontaneous ICH and to explore the rate of hematoma resolution and clinical outcome. Methods: Patients with spontaneous ICH within 24 hours of symptom onset were randomly allocated 1:1 to placebo or PIO. Patients received escalating doses of PIO daily for three days, followed by a 30mg maintenance dose for the duration of treatment. Duration of treatment was when 75% of the ICH had resolved as determined by serial MRI or 10 weeks of treatment, whichever occurred first. The primary safety outcome was mortality at Day 14. Secondary measures of safety include any mortality, symptomatic cerebral edema, congestive heart failure, edema, hypoglycemia, anemia, and hepatotoxicity. Secondary measures of efficacy include hematoma resolution and clinical outcome. The MTD was determined using the Continual Reassessment Method. Results: From March 2009 to April 2013, 84 patients (42 PIO, 42 control) were enrolled into 11 dose tiers, with a planned range from 0.1-2.0 mg/kg/d. Table 1 demonstrates preliminary baseline and clinical characteristics of patients by treatment group. Overall, 2/84 patients died within 2 weeks after ICH; however mortality rate never exceeded prespecified criteria. The study will be complete in October 2013 and the treatment team remains blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes by treatment group and the MTD of PIO will be reported. Conclusions: We have completed the treatment phase of the SHRINC Trial. Long term follow-up is on-going. These results will provide the foundation for an efficacy trial evaluating PIO as a potential treatment for patients with spontaneous ICH.

Background: Optimum management of carotid stenosis, both symptomatic (sx) and asymptomatic (asx), remains controversial despite clinical trials evaluating Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) and Carotid Stenting (CAS). Objective: We compared attitudes in management of carotid stenosis between experts in Europe (EU), and North America (NA). Methods: From April 2011 to July 2012, a 3-round, email-Delphi survey was sent to members of the European Stroke Organisation (n=390) and to a list of NA stroke neurologists developed at the University of Texas at Houston Stroke Program (n=289). Those completing the survey were shown all responses broken down by EU/NA after each of the first 2 survey rounds. Continent specific consensus was defined a priori to be > 80% agreement. Results: 100 (15%, of which 73% EU) participated in all 3-Delphi rounds, 19% of all EU vs 9% NA (χ2=11.62, p=0.0007): 76% male; 69% treating between 1-8 new cases of carotid stenosis per month. In the final round, EU reached consensus in 7/11 statements (3 reached in phase-I), while NA did in 4/11 (1 reached in phase-I).Ninety-percent of EU vs 70% of NA (χ2=8.09, p=0.017) disagreed that CAS and CEA are equivalent treatments for sx carotid stenosis, and stated that CEA is superior. There remains a significant difference between EU and NA when considering ipsilateral stroke and death < 30 days as primary outcome (χ2=12.18, p=0.007). Sixty-nine-percent of NA agreed that there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients < 65 years for sx carotid stenosis whereas 55% of EU (χ2=11.39, p=0.023) disagreed with the statement. When asked how likely they would recommend CEA for an asx carotid stenosis, 81% of EU and 80% of NA said ‘sometimes’. When asked how likely they would recommend CAS for an asx carotid stenosis, 62% of NA said ‘sometimes’ vs 60% of EU said ‘never’(χ2=3.54, p=0.06). Conclusion: There are several clear differences in attitudes regarding the management of carotid stenosis between EU and NA: EU has a stronger attitude towards superiority of CEA while in NA there is more equipoise between the two treatments. Areas of lack of consensus may provide direction for future clinical trials.

Background There is evidence that center-volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). We sought to evaluate the effect of center-volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods In CREST, the primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. Certification was achieved by 477 surgeons performing more than 12 procedures per year with complication rates less than 3% for asymptomatic patients and less than 5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous training and credentialing process that included a lead-in registry. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 composed of 82 sites each enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 with 24 sites enrolling 25-51 patients and Group 3 with 10 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite endpoint and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results The safety of CAS and CEA did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary endpoint (p=0.54) or by stroke and death (p=0.87). Conclusion Complication rates (as indicated by the primary endpoint and its components) were low in CREST and were not associated with center-volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures; because of ongoing entry of new interventionalists and surgeons into CREST, operator experience independent of center-volume cannot be addressed.

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 and Purpose: Management of carotid stenosis remains controversial despite several trials evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). We compared attitudes in the management of carotid stenosis between selected experts within Europe and North America. Methods: A 3-phase Delphi survey was e-mailed to select stroke experts from Europe (n = 390) and North America (n = 289). Those completing the initial survey were shown all responses after each survey round. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Results: For phases 1, 2, and 3, response rates were 32%, 62%, and 73%, respectively. Overall, 100 (15%) of 679 participated in all 3 phases, 19% Europeans versus 9% North Americans ( P = .0007). The European group reached consensus in 6 of 15 statements; The North American group reached consensus in 4 of 15. Ninety percentage of Europeans versus 70% of North Americans ( P = .017) stated CEA is superior to CAS for symptomatic carotid stenosis. This difference was not significant in the final model (adjusted odds ratio: 3.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.95-14.5]). Sixty-nine percentage of North Americans agreed there is a stronger indication for CAS over CEA in patients younger than 65 years for symptomatic carotid stenosis, whereas 55% of Europeans ( P = .023) disagreed. For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, when asked how likely they would recommend CAS, 62% North Americans said “sometimes” versus 60% of Europeans said “never” ( P = .06). Conclusion: The majority of North American and European respondents did not consider the 2 procedures equivalent and seemed to indicate that CEA was preferred for the management of carotid stenosis. These findings need to be further explored to help establish evidence-based guidelines.

Background and Purpose— Prior meta-analysis showed that carotid endarterectomy benefits decline with increasing surgical delay following symptoms. For symptomatic patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), we assessed if differences in time between symptoms and carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting are associated with differences in risk of periprocedural stroke or death. Methods— We analyzed the 1180 symptomatic patients in CREST who received their assigned procedure and had clearly defined timing of symptoms. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on time from symptoms to procedure: <15, 15 to 60, and >60 days. Results— For carotid endarterectomy, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was not significantly different for the 2 later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–2.49 for 15–60 days and hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.25–3.33 for >60 days; P =0.89). For carotid artery stenting, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was also not significantly different for later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.40 for 15–60 days and hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–2.75 for >60 days; P =0.93). Conclusions— Time from symptoms to carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting did not alter periprocedural safety, supporting early revascularization regardless of modality. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background and Purpose— The ABC/2 score estimates intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume, yet validations have been limited by small samples and inappropriate outcome measures. We determined accuracy of the ABC/2 score calculated at a specialized reading center (RC-ABC) or local site (site-ABC) versus the reference-standard computed tomography–based planimetry (CTP). Methods— In Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation-II (MISTIE-II), Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR-IVH) and CLEAR-III trials. ICH volume was prospectively calculated by CTP, RC-ABC, and site-ABC. Agreement between CTP and ABC/2 was defined as an absolute difference up to 5 mL and relative difference within 20%. Determinants of ABC/2 accuracy were assessed by logistic regression. Results— In 4369 scans from 507 patients, CTP was more strongly correlated with RC-ABC ( r 2 =0.93) than with site-ABC ( r 2 =0.87). Although RC-ABC overestimated CTP-based volume on average (RC-ABC, 15.2 cm 3 ; CTP, 12.7 cm3), agreement was reasonable when categorized into mild, moderate, and severe ICH (κ=0.75; P <0.001). This was consistent with overestimation of ICH volume in 6 of 8 previous studies. Agreement with CTP was greater for RC-ABC (84% within 5 mL; 48% of scans within 20%) than for site-ABC (81% within 5 mL; 41% within 20%). RC-ABC had moderate accuracy for detecting ≥5 mL change in CTP volume between consecutive scans (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.86) and was more accurate with smaller ICH, thalamic hemorrhage, and homogeneous clots. Conclusions— ABC/2 scores at local or central sites are sufficiently accurate to categorize ICH volume and assess eligibility for the CLEAR-III and MISTIE III studies and moderately accurate for change in ICH volume. However, accuracy decreases with large, irregular, or lobar clots. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: MISTIE-II NCT00224770; CLEAR-III NCT00784134.

Background and Purpose— Evidence indicates that center volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy and stenting. We evaluated the effect of enrollment volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods— The primary composite end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. The 477 approved surgeons performed >12 procedures per year with complication rates <3% for asymptomatic patients and <5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous 2 step credentialing process. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 sites enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 sites enrolling 25 to 51 patients, and Group 3 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite end point and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results— The safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting and carotid endarterectomy did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary end point ( P =0.54) or by stroke and death ( P =0.87). A trend toward an inverse relationship between center enrollment volume and complications was mitigated by adjustment for known risk factors. Conclusions— Complication rates were low in CREST and were not associated with center enrollment volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.