Chiu, David

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

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: Concern for underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials has focused on enrollment proportions and generalizability. The interplay of trial event-rates with diversity has not been emphasized. Methods: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stent Trial (CREST) randomized 2502 patients and compared them by race, ethnicity, baseline characteristics, and primary outcome (any peri-procedural stroke, death or MI and subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years); those with unknown race or ethnicity were excluded. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status and treatment were used to test for a treatment by race/ethnicity interaction. Results: One-hundred-nine patients (4.4%) were black, 32 (1.3%) Asian, 2332 (93.4%) white, 11 (0.4%) other by self-report, and 18 (0.7%) unknown; 90 (3.6%) were Hispanic, 2377 (95%) non-Hispanic, and 35 (1.4%) unknown. Compared to whites, racial minorities were younger (mean age 67±8.9 vs 69±8.8, p=0.004), more often female (44% vs 34%, p=0.01), symptomatic (63 vs 52%, p=0.01), and diabetic (51% vs 29%, p<0.0001), but less often dyslipidemic (76% vs 85%, p=0.004), current smokers (19% vs 27%, p=0.04), or had a history of cardiovascular disease (34% vs 46%, p=0.007). Hispanics were more often diabetic (48% vs 30%, p=0.0002). The rate of the primary endpoint was 10.9%±0.9% at 10 years, and did not differ by race or ethnicity (p inter >0.24). In the context of this low rate, even if minority recruitment were increased to represent 50% of study participants, and if the treatment difference in one race were a greater hazard of HR = 1.49 (anticipated alternative hypothesis), then the hazard ratio in the other group would need to be <0.73, or >3.31, to have 90% power of detection. Conclusions: The proportion of racial and ethnicity participation in CREST was suboptimal at < 10%. Primary outcomes did not differ by minority or ethnic status. However, in low event-rate trials very high and even unrealistic enrollment goals for diversity, for example ≥50%, may still be insufficient for detection of outcome differences by race or ethnicity.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial ( CREST ) is a multicenter randomized trial of stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. This study assesses management of vascular risk factors. Methods and Results Management was provided by the patient's physician, with biannual monitoring results collected by the local site. Therapeutic targets were low‐density lipoprotein, cholesterol <100 mg/dL, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, fasting blood glucose <126 mg/dL, and nonsmoking status. Optimal control was defined as achieving all 4 goals concurrently. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare risk factors at baseline with those observed in scheduled follow‐up visits for up to 48 months. In the analysis cohort of 2210, significant improvements in risk‐factor control were observed across risk factors for all follow‐up visits compared with baseline. At 48 months, achievement of the low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal improved from 59.1% to 73.6% ( P <0.001), achievement of the systolic blood pressure goal improved from 51.6% to 65.1% ( P <0.001), achievement of the glucose goal improved from 74.9% to 80.7% ( P =0.0101), and nonsmoking improved from 74.4% to 80.9% ( P <0.0001). The percentage with optimal risk‐factor control also improved significantly, from 16.7% to 36.2% ( P <0.001), but nearly 2 of 3 study participants did not achieve optimal control during the study. Conclusions Site‐based risk‐factor control improved significantly in the first 6 months and over the long term in CREST but was often suboptimal. Intensive medical management should be considered for future trials of carotid revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration URL: 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.