Levine, Steven R.

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 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 —The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is accepted widely for measuring acute stroke deficits in clinical trials, but it contains items that exhibit poor reliability or do not contribute meaningful information. To improve the scale for use in clinical research, we used formal clinimetric analyses to derive a modified version, the mNIHSS. We then sought to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the new mNIHSS. Methods —The mNIHSS was derived from our prior clinimetric studies of the NIHSS by deleting poorly reproducible or redundant items (level of consciousness, face weakness, ataxia, dysarthria) and collapsing the sensory item into 2 responses. Reliability of the mNIHSS was assessed with the certification data originally collected to assess the reliability of investigators in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) rtPA (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) Stroke Trial. Validity of the mNIHSS was assessed with the outcome results of the NINDS rtPA Stroke Trial. Results —Reliability was improved with the mNIHSS: the number of scale items with poor κ coefficients on either of the certification tapes decreased from 8 (20%) to 3 (14%) with the mNIHSS. With the use of factor analysis, the structure underlying the mNIHSS was found identical to the original scale. On serial use of the scale, goodness of fit coefficients were higher with the mNIHSS. With data from part I of the trial data, the proportion of patients who improved ≥4 points within 24 hours after treatment was statistically significantly increased by tPA (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence limits, 1.0, 1.8; P =0.05). Likewise, the odds ratio for complete/nearly complete resolution of stroke symptoms 3 months after treatment was 1.7 (95% confidence limits, 1.2, 2.6) with the mNIHSS. Other outcomes showed the same agreement when the mNIHSS was compared with the original scale. The mNIHSS showed good responsiveness, ie, was useful in differentiating patients likely to hemorrhage or have a good outcome after stroke. Conclusions —The mNIHSS appears to be identical clinimetrically to the original NIHSS when the same data are used for validation and reliability. Power appears to be greater with the mNIHSS with the use of 24-hour end points, suggesting the need for fewer patients in trials designed to detect treatment effects comparable to rtPA. The mNIHSS contains fewer items and might be simpler to use in clinical research trials. Prospective analysis of reliability and validity, with the use of an independently collected cohort, must be obtained before the mNIHSS is used in a research setting.