Brott, Thomas G.

Background— The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) found a higher risk of stroke after carotid artery stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy. Methods and Results— Cardiac biomarkers and ECGs were performed before and 6 to 8 hours after either procedure and if there was clinical evidence of ischemia. In CREST, MI was defined as biomarker elevation plus either chest pain or ECG evidence of ischemia. An additional category of biomarker elevation with neither chest pain nor ECG abnormality was prespecified (biomarker+ only). Crude mortality and risk-adjusted mortality for MI and biomarker+ only were assessed during follow-up. Among 2502 patients, 14 MIs occurred in carotid artery stenting and 28 MIs in carotid endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.94; P =0.032) with a median biomarker ratio of 40 times the upper limit of normal. An additional 8 carotid artery stenting and 12 carotid endarterectomy patients had biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 1.61; P =0.36), and their median biomarker ratio was 14 times the upper limit of normal. Compared with patients without biomarker elevation, mortality was higher over 4 years for those with MI (hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67 to 6.92) or biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 8.68). After adjustment for baseline risk factors, both MI and biomarker+ only remained independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions— In patients randomized to carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting, both MI and biomarker+ only were more common with carotid endarterectomy. Although the levels of biomarker elevation were modest, both events were independently associated with increased future mortality and remain an important consideration in choosing the mode of carotid revascularization or medical therapy. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background and Purpose— Carotid artery stenosis causes up to 10% of all ischemic strokes. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was introduced as a treatment to prevent stroke in the early 1950s. Carotid stenting (CAS) was introduced as a treatment to prevent stroke in 1994. Methods— The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) is a randomized trial with blinded end point adjudication. Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were randomized to CAS or CEA. The primary end point was the composite of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter, up to 4 years. Results— There was no significant difference in the rates of the primary end point between CAS and CEA (7.2% versus 6.8%; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.51; P =0.51). Symptomatic status and sex did not modify the treatment effect, but an interaction with age and treatment was detected ( P =0.02). Outcomes were slightly better after CAS for patients aged <70 years and better after CEA for patients aged >70 years. The periprocedural end point did not differ for CAS and CEA, but there were differences in the components, CAS versus CEA (stroke 4.1% versus 2.3%, P =0.012; and myocardial infarction 1.1% versus 2.3%, P =0.032). Conclusions— In CREST, CAS and CEA had similar short- and longer-term outcomes. During the periprocedural period, there was higher risk of stroke with CAS and higher risk of myocardial infarction with CEA. Clinical Trial Registration— www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Rationale Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and medical therapy were shown superior to medical therapy alone for symptomatic (ge;50%) and asymptomatic (≥60%) stenosis. Carotid angioplasty stenting (CAS) offers a less invasive alternative. Establishing safety, efficacy, and durability of CAS requires rigorous comparison with CEA in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Aims The objective is to compare the efficacy of CAS versus CEA in patients with symptomatic (≥50%) or asymptomatic (≥60%) extracranial carotid stenosis. Design The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST) is a prospective, randomized, parallel, two-arm, multi-center trial with blinded endpoint adjudication. Primary endpoints are analyzed using standard time-to-event statistical modeling with adjustment for major baseline covariates. Primary analysis is on an intent-to-treat basis. Study Outcomes The primary outcome is the occurrence of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during a 30-day peri-procedural period, and ipsilateral stroke during follow-up of up to four years. Secondary outcomes include restenosis and health-related quality of life.

Background and Purpose— Ischemic stroke (IS) is a multifactorial disorder with strong evidence from twin, family, and animal model studies suggesting a genetic influence on risk and prognosis. Several candidate genes for IS have been proposed, but few have been replicated. We investigated the contribution of 67 candidate genes (369 single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) on the risk of IS in a North American population of European descent. Methods— Two independent studies were performed. In the first, 342 SNPs from 52 candidate genes were genotyped in 307 IS cases and 324 control subjects. The SNPs significantly associated with IS were tested for replication in another cohort of 583 IS cases and 270 control subjects. In the second study, 212 SNPs from 62 candidate genes were analyzed in 710 IS cases with subtyping available and 3751 control subjects. Results— None of the candidate genes (SNPs) were significantly associated with IS risk independent of known stroke risk factors after correction for multiple hypotheses testing. Conclusion— These results are consistent with previous meta-analyses that demonstrate an absence of genetic association of variants in plausible candidate genes with IS risk. Our study suggests that the effect of the investigated SNPs may be weak or restricted to specific populations or IS subtypes.

Background and Purpose— Multiple approaches are being studied to enhance the rate of thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Treatment of myocardial infarction with a combination of a reduced-dose fibrinolytic agent and a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist has been shown to improve the rate of recanalization versus fibrinolysis alone. The c ombined approach to l ysis utilizing e ptifibatide a nd r ecombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) (CLEAR) stroke trial assessed the safety of treating acute ischemic stroke patients within 3 hours of symptom onset with this combination. Methods— The CLEAR trial was a National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–funded multicenter, double-blind, randomized, dose-escalation and safety study. Patients were randomized 3:1 to either low-dose rt-PA (tier 1=0.3 mg/kg, tier 2=0.45 mg/kg) plus eptifibatide (75 μg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 μg/kg per min infusion for 2 hours) or standard-dose rt-PA (0.9 mg/kg). The primary safety end point was the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 36 hours. Secondary analyses were performed regarding clinical efficacy. Results— Ninety-four patients (40 in tier 1 and 54 in tier 2) were enrolled. The combination group of the 2 dose tiers (n=69) had a median age of 71 years and a median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 14, and the standard-dose rt-PA group (n=25) had a median age of 61 years and a median baseline NIHSS score of 10 ( P =0.01 for NIHSS score). Fifty-two (75%) of the combination treatment group and 24 (96%) of the standard treatment group had a baseline modified Rankin scale score of 0 ( P =0.04). There was 1 (1.4%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.3%) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the combination group and 2 (8.0%; 95% CI, 0% to 19.2%) in the rt-PA–only arm ( P =0.17). During randomization in tier 2, a review by the independent data safety monitoring board demonstrated that the safety profile of combination therapy at the tier 2 doses was such that further enrollment was statistically unlikely to indicate inadequate safety for the combination treatment group, the ultimate outcome of the study. Thus, the study was halted. There was a trend toward increased clinical efficacy of standard-dose rt-PA compared with the combination treatment group. Conclusions— The safety of the combination of reduced-dose rt-PA plus eptifibatide justifies further dose-ranging trials in acute ischemic stroke.

Background and Purpose— In stroke and other brain disorders, severely affected phenotypes often impair decision-making capacity. Severity is in part under genomic control. Therefore, scientifically valid research into genetic risk may require inclusion of such impaired individuals. U.S. Federal regulations do not detail rules governing enrollment of adults with impaired decision-making capacity into genetic research. Rather, policy and practice are locally determined. This study was conducted to obtain data on how investigators and IRBs handle surrogate authorization to enroll probands into a genetic study where some may lack capacity because of ischemic stroke. Methods— Sequential surveys of sites from an ongoing North American study investigating genetic risks for ischemic stroke (2003: 49 sites, response rate=100%; 2007: 53 sites; response rate=91%) assessed whether and how investigators enroll adults with impaired decision-making capacity and determined frequency of IRB approval for enrollment by surrogate authorization. Results— Approximately 40% of sites report that their IRBs do not approve surrogate authorization to enroll stroke patients—43% (21/49) in 2003 and 35% (17/48) in 2007. Thirty-three percent of sites report evaluating eligible adults who lacked capacity to provide their own informed consent; 18% (9/49) in 2003 and 15% (7/48) in 2007 have enrolled these individuals. Surrogate enrollment is the most common method used. Most sites have not enrolled any individual lacking capacity to give his or her own consent. Conclusions— Our study suggests that enrollment by surrogate authorization into stroke genetic research is often not approved by IRBs, and even when allowed is frequently not used. For disorders like stroke, this situation has significant implications for scientific validity.

Background and Purpose— The extent of potential consent bias in observational studies elucidating genetic and environmental contributions to ischemic stroke is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in stroke cohort characteristics between those who provided informed consent and those whose enrollment was authorized by surrogate decision makers. Methods— The Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study (ISGS) is a prospective, 5-center, case-control study of first-ever ischemic stroke. Demographic, clinical, and stroke characteristics were compared between cases enrolled by self versus by surrogate. Data from one site that limits enrollment only to those able to self-consent were also analyzed to compare those who enrolled with those not able to consent. Results— Overall, 10% (54 of 517) were enrolled using surrogate authorization. Self-consented and surrogate-authorized cases did not differ significantly in age, sex, or conventional risk factors. Surrogate-authorized cases had significantly more severe stroke deficits, larger infarcts, and infarcts localizing to left supratentorial regions. Similarly, at the site restricting enrollment, stroke severity and characteristics differed between self-consented individuals and those otherwise eligible but unable to provide consent. Conclusions— Failure to permit surrogate authorization in genetic studies of ischemic stroke may skew enrollment toward less severe strokes caused by smaller infarcts. This potential consent bias may undermine the ability to identify genetic determinants of risk and severity and suggests that surrogate enrollment in these studies can be ethically justifiable.

Background and Purpose — We sought to determine pedigree availability for a concordant sibling pair study of genetic risk factors in ischemic stroke. Methods — Probands with confirmed ischemic stroke were prospectively enrolled. Family histories were obtained by systematic interview. A study neurologist prospectively assigned stroke subtype. Results — Of 310 probands (median age, 75 years; range, 26 to 97 years; 48% women), 75% had at least 1 living sibling; 10%, at least 1 concordant living sibling; 2%, at least 1 concordant sibling living in the same city; and 7%, at least 1 concordant living and 1 discordant living sibling. Likelihood of having a concordant sibling increased significantly with proband age, even after adjustment for sibship size ( P =0.002). Positive family history of stroke was not related to either proband stroke subtype or risk factor profile. Conclusions — Approximately 10 probands were screened to find 1 potentially concordant living sibling. A concordant sibling pair study should be multicentered and enable enrollment of siblings from diverse geographic areas.

Genetic variants in the gene encoding integrin α2 ( ITGA2) have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between haplotype-tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tSNPs) in ITGA2 and risk of ischemic stroke in a collection of North American stroke cases and controls. The study included 484 cases and 263 controls. Thirteen tSNPs were genotyped. Association tests at and across each tSNP were performed, including haplotype association analysis. Secondary analyses considered stroke subtypes on the basis of Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) criteria. We observed significant association between tSNP rs3756541 (additive model, odds ratio (OR), 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11 to 2.04; P = 0.009) and disease and a trend toward association at rs2303124 (recessive model, OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.33; P = 0.03). These associations remained significant in the haplotype analyses. The associated tSNPs did not distinguish stroke etiology after application of TOAST criteria. Our results suggest that genetic variability within ITGA2 may confer risk for ischemic stroke independent of conventional risk factors. These results provide additional support for a role for platelet receptor genes in the pathogenesis of ischemic stroke of diverse subtypes.