Clark, Wayne M.

Background and Purpose: Studies of carotid artery disease have suggested that high-grade stenosis can affect cognition, even without stroke. The presence and degree of cognitive impairment in such patients have not been reported and compared with a demographically matched population-based cohort. Methods: We studied cognition in 1000 consecutive CREST-2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial) patients, a treatment trial for asymptomatic carotid disease. Cognitive assessment was after randomization but before assigned treatment. The cognitive battery was developed in the general population REGARDS Study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke), involving Word List Learning Sum, Word List Recall, and Word List fluency for animal names and the letter F. The carotid stenosis patients were >45 years old with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis and no history of prevalent stroke. The distribution of cognitive performance for the patients was standardized, accounting for age, race, and education using performance from REGARDS, and after further adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and smoking. Using the Wald Test, we tabulated the proportion of Z scores less than the anticipated deviate for the population-based cohort for representative percentiles. Results: There were 786 baseline assessments. Mean age was 70 years, 58% men, and 52% right-sided stenosis. The overall Z score for patients was significantly below expected for higher percentiles ( P <0.0001 for 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles) and marginally below expected for the 25th percentile ( P =0.015). Lower performance was attributed largely to Word List Recall ( P <0.0001 for all percentiles) and for Word List Learning (50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles below expected, P ≤0.01). The scores for left versus right carotid disease were similar. Conclusions: Baseline cognition of patients with severe carotid stenosis showed below normal cognition compared to the population-based cohort, controlling for demographic and cardiovascular risk factors. This cohort represents the largest group to date to demonstrate that poorer cognition, especially memory, in this disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02089217.

Introduction: Inclusion of asymptomatic patients in randomized trials comparing revascularization to medical therapy has been questioned if they have been previously symptomatic. Hypothesis: Duration of asymptomatic status is not associated with better outcomes following endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS). Methods: Patients in CREST were classified as asymptomatic if they had not had a TIA or stroke ipsilateral to the study artery within 6 months prior to randomization. We compared those patients who had always been asymptomatic (AA) to those who had been previously symptomatic (PS) ≥ 6 months prior to randomization. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age and treatment were used to assess risk of 30-day stroke or death (S+D), and risk of any 30-day S+D plus ipsilateral stroke at 4 years by asymptomatic status Results: Among the 1056 asymptomatic patients who received the assigned procedure within 30 days of randomization, 977 (93%) were AA and 79 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in the 30-day and 4 year outcomes (Table). Conclusion: In CREST, 93% of the asymptomatic patients were always asymptomatic. Similar outcomes for the previously symptomatic patients (7%) supports the inclusion of such patients in randomized trials comparing CEA and CAS to medical treatment.

Background: The CREST trial demonstrated that for patients at standard risk of surgical complications, there was no significant difference in the primary composite outcome of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke, or late ipsilateral stroke between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although CAS had a higher rate of stroke, and CEA had a higher rate of MI. The economic implications of these two strategies are unknown. Methods: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the CREST trial. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the US health care system in 2008 dollars using a combination of resource-based and event-based methods. Costs for carotid revascularization procedures were based on measured resource use and unit costs derived from a sample of study hospitals. Non-procedural costs for these hospitalizations were estimated using hospital billing data (charges) and cost-center-specific cost-to-charge-ratios. Costs for follow-up events were estimated using national average DRG reimbursements. The primary analysis was based on a modified intention-to-treat population for which the assigned procedure was attempted (n=1212 CAS; 1193 CEA). Results: CAS was associated with higher total procedural costs (Δ=$675, see Table), driven mainly by higher costs for disposable supplies. Length of stay was shorter for CAS, with associated reductions in non-procedural hospital costs (Δ = -$436). Total cost for the index hospitalization remained slightly higher for CAS (Δ=$239) with similar differences at 1 year. Conclusions: For patients at standard risk of surgical complications, total 1-year costs are slightly higher for CAS vs. CEA, driven largely by higher initial procedural costs. Cost-utility analysis will be performed to determine whether differences in quality of life observed in CREST render CAS an economically attractive strategy. CAS (n= 1212) CEA (n=1193) Δ CAS - CEA (95% CI via bootstrap) Index Procedure Costs, $ Excluding MD Fees 6782 ± 1412 5743 ± 1370 1039 (926, 1148) MD Fees 1114 ± 240 1478 ± 108 -364 (-379, -349) Total 7896 ± 1551 7221 ± 1450 675 (555, 800) Index Hospital Stay 7159 ± 5108 7595 ± 7482 -436 (-951, -59) TOTAL Index Hosp Costs 15055 ± 5539 14816 ± 7709 239 (-302, 778) Index Hosp LOS (days) ICU LOS 0.7 ± 1.1 0.8 ± 1.4 -0.1 (-0.24, -0.04) Non-ICU LOS 1.9 ± 3.2 2.2 ± 4.1 -0.2 (-0.55, 0.06) TOTAL LOS 2.6 ± 3.3 3.0 ± 4.5 -0.4 (-0.7, -0.06) 1-year Rehosp Costs: Repeat Revasc - CAS 295 ± 2097 273 ± 2126 -21 (-142, 201) Repeat Revasc - CEA 287 ± 2088 477 ± 2510 -190 (-371, -11) Ipsilateral Stroke 556 ± 3273 384 ± 2580 172 (-75, 402) TIA 48 ± 520 33 ± 487 16 (-25, 56) Death 63 ± 846 45 ± 779 18 (-49, 85) TOTAL Rehosp costs 1321 ± 4827 1293± 4502 28 (-334, 396) TOTAL 1-year costs 16375 ± 7730 16108 ± 9030 267 (-366, 961)

Introduction: Occurrence of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy or stenting have each been associated with increased later mortality. Methods: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) 69 strokes, 37 protocol MIs, and 19 biomarker + only events occurred within 30 days among 2272 patients followed up to 10 years. Mortality was determined and compared for patients with stroke, MI, or biomarker + only to those without. Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status and treatment were calculated to assess the relationship between mortality and stroke and mortality and MI status. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted. Results: Patients with peri-procedural stroke had a 67% greater likelihood of long-term mortality compared to those without stroke (HR=1.67, 95% CI 1.15,2.43; p<0.007)(Figure A). Patients with a protocol MI had a 249% greater likelihood of mortality, and biomarker+ only patients had a 104% greater likelihood of mortality, compared to those without MI (HR=3.49; 95%CI 2.20,5.53, p<0.0001; and HR=2.04; 95% CI 1.09,3.83, p=0.03)(Figure B). Discussion: Stroke, MI, and biomarker + only events following CEA or CAS are associated with increased long-term mortality. The higher risk for MI may be a marker for patients with serious underlying heart disease, rather than causal, providing an opportunity to decrease long-term mortality through aggressive diagnostic evaluation and preventive treatment.

Background: With patients living a decade or longer post-procedure, long-term data are needed to assess the durability of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Identifying characteristics of those consenting or declining to continue in long-term follow-up may suggest strategies to improve retention in clinical trials. Purpose: This report describes differences between patients choosing or declining to continue follow-up for up to 10 years in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. Methods: Following completion of the primary outcome, patients who were in active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial follow-up were asked to continue beyond their original 4-year commitment for a maximum of 10 years. The characteristics of those who consented were compared with those who declined. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis, and backwards stepwise logistic regression (the most parsimonious model) was used to determine the factors associated with continuation. Results: Of the 1921 active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial participants for whom consent to extend follow-up was requested, 1695 (88%; mean age: 68.4) consented; 226 (12%; mean age: 69.6) declined. Of those who did not consent versus those who consented, 66% versus 48% were symptomatic at baseline (p < 0.0001), at follow-up 28% versus 20% were smokers (p = 0.009), 85% versus 90% were hypertensive (p = 0.01), and 84% versus 94% were dyslipidemic (p < 0.0001). Additional factors that differed between those who did not consent and those who consented included the mean number of years in the study at time of consent (4.8 years vs 3.7 years (p = <0.0001)) and patients from sites that enrolled <30 patients compared to sites randomizing 30 or more (70% vs 52% (p < 0.0001)). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that those with lesser odds of consenting to the extended follow-up were older (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.96), more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.80), smokers (odds ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.70), were in the study 5+ years versus <3 (odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.34), and at a site that randomized <30 patients (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.63), while patients with dyslipidemia at follow-up had increased odds of consenting (odds ratio: 2.28 (1.47, 3.54)). Conclusion: Symptomatic status, increasing age, randomized at lower volume centers, and longer time in follow-up were associated with reduced odds of consenting to long-term follow-up. Identifying factors associated with reduced willingness to extend participation long-term can suggest targeted strategies to improve retention in future clinical trials.