Matsumura, Jon S.

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.

Introduction: Outcomes from endovascular procedures are highly dependent on the experience and skill of the operating physician. The multi-disciplinary CREST-2 Interventional Management Committee (IMC) was charged with credentialing a cohort of skilled interventionists with adequate contemporary case volumes. Methods: Applicants were required to submit 25 consecutive cases completed within 5 years as primary operator out of a required total experience of ≥ 50 cases (≥ 20 for operators completing training). Interventionists not approved on initial review were asked to submit additional cases (with procedural angiograms), the number depending on quality and recent-quantity of the cases. Results: The IMC has had 102 meetings, and 283 interventionists have been evaluated: 104 (37%) interventionists were cardiologists, 64 (23%) vascular surgeons, 42 (15%) neurosurgeons, 32 (11%) neuroradiologists, 26 (9%) neurologists, 9 (3%) interventional radiologists, and 6 (2%) other. The mean total experience among the 226 interventionists with available information was 220±263 carotid stent cases (median 135; range 10-2500). A total of 7037 cases have been reviewed by the IMC, dating from August 2001 to April 2016, with 3366 symptomatic, 3541 asymptomatic and 130 undetermined. The range of cases reviewed per interventionist was 5 to 50. Of the 251 interventionists with sufficient periprocedural follow-up data, no stroke events were reported by 152 (60.5%), and at least one or more stroke events were reported by 99 (39.5%). The IMC has approved 115 interventionists, 29 at the first review and 86 subsequently, based upon submission and review of 631 additional contemporary cases (mean=7 cases per interventionist); 122 have approval pending submission of additional cases; 33 have been denied; 8 have been deferred; 4 have been approved for the CREST-2 Companion Registry only; and 1 is pending decision. Discussion: Rigorous evaluation and credentialing of carotid stenters in CREST-2 has been demanding, for the candidates and for the evaluators. Yet the cohort of interventionists so selected should be able to provide the high-quality stenting outcomes necessary for acceptance of the trial results.

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.