Chaturvedi, Seemant

Motivation: The price of medical treatment continues to rise due to (i) an increasing population; (ii) an aging human growth; (iii) disease prevalence; (iv) a rise in the frequency of patients that utilize health care services; and (v) increase in the price. Objective: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already well-known for its superiority in various healthcare applications, including the segmentation of lesions in images, speech recognition, smartphone personal assistants, navigation, ride-sharing apps, and many more. Our study is based on two hypotheses: (i) AI offers more economic solutions compared to conventional methods; (ii) AI treatment offers stronger economics compared to AI diagnosis. This novel study aims to evaluate AI technology in the context of healthcare costs, namely in the areas of diagnosis and treatment, and then compare it to the traditional or non-AI-based approaches. Methodology: PRISMA was used to select the best 200 studies for AI in healthcare with a primary focus on cost reduction, especially towards diagnosis and treatment. We defined the diagnosis and treatment architectures, investigated their characteristics, and categorized the roles that AI plays in the diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms. We experimented with various combinations of different assumptions by integrating AI and then comparing it against conventional costs. Lastly, we dwell on three powerful future concepts of AI, namely, pruning, bias, explainability, and regulatory approvals of AI systems. Conclusions: The model shows tremendous cost savings using AI tools in diagnosis and treatment. The economics of AI can be improved by incorporating pruning, reduction in AI bias, explainability, and regulatory approvals.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German–Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German–Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German–Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Purpose: The safety of revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, and the efficacy of medical therapy for stroke prevention have improved. Therefore, results of prior randomized trials may not apply to current treatment decisions. The NINDS-funded CREST-2 will compare carotid endarterectomy and intensive medical therapy (IMT) versus IMT alone (n=1240), and carotid stenting and IMT versus IMT alone (n=1240) in asymptomatic patients with≥70% stenosis. Materials & Methods: CREST-2 consists of two parallel randomized clinical trials to be conducted at a target of ≈120 centers, including within NINDS StrokeNet. The composite primary outcome is stroke or death during the peri-procedural period or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter up to 4 years. Blinded assessment of cognition will be done periodically. Centrally directed IMT includes tight control of blood pressure (systolic target <140 mm Hg) and cholesterol (LDL target <70 mg/dl) as well as lifestyle coaching. Results: As of June 12, 2015, 94 centers have been approved by the Site Selection Committee. Credentialing is ongoing, with 198 approved surgeons and 64 approved interventionists; 124 additional conditionally approved interventionists will be able to submit additional cases for review under the CREST-2 Registry. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid will offer CAS reimbursement for Registry enrollees. As of June 12, 2015, there are 39 actively enrolling centers, and 37 patients have been randomized. Conclusion: CREST-2 is designed to identify the best approach for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The first patient was randomized in December, 2014. An update will be provided regarding the numbers of patients randomized, centers certified, as well as surgeons and interventionists fully approved. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02089217

Background: Presence of atherosclerotic disease in more than one vascular bed (polyvascular disease) is associated with an increased risk of long-term vascular events. In the setting of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the predictors of disease in other vascular beds is not well delineated. Objective: To identify the frequency and predictors of disease in other vascular beds the CREST 2 randomized trial population with hemodynamically significant stenosis. Methods: Recorded baseline characteristics among CREST 2 participants included: demographics, past medical history, lifestyle factors, and laboratory studies. Each variable was tested against three potential definitions of disease in other beds (cardiac, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or disease in cardiac + PAD). Statistical analysis was done with Chi square and t tests as appropriate. Results: Data from 1447 patients were available for analysis. In these subjects with carotid disease, 51% also had cardiac disease, 24% also had PAD, and 16% had disease in in both cardiac and PAD. There was no relationship between age or race and presence of disease in other beds. Those with cardiac disease were more likely to be male. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and former history of smoking were all more common in those with either cardiac and PAD (TABLE). Elevated triglyceride and low HDL levels were also associated with all three definitions of disease in other beds. Those with either PAD or cardiac + PAD were more likely to be current smokers. Conclusions: Among CREST 2 participants, several medical conditions and lifestyle factors were associated with an increased frequency of disease in other vascular beds. Smoking, in particular, appears to be more common in those with PAD. Future analyses will address whether those with disease in other beds have higher rates of stroke or death.

Baseline Differences in Risk Factor Control and Medication Use Between 2 Trials Employing Intensive Medical Management (SAMMPRIS & CREST2) Background: The CREST2 trial Intensive Medical Management (IMM) protocol was adapted from the SAMMPRIS trial. However, since the 2011 publication of initial results of SAMMPRIS, there has been a greater appreciation for the importance of risk factor control in patients at risk of stroke associated with atherosclerosis. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in baseline risk factor control and medication use between SAMMPRIS and CREST2. Methods: Baseline risk factor and medication use data from 451 patients enrolled in SAMMPRIS (2008-2011) with severe symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis and 1473 patients enrolled in CREST2 (2014-2019) with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis were compared using the Chi-square test and t-test. Results: The Table shows baseline risk factor values and medications. SAMMPRIS patients were younger but had significantly worse risk factor control than CREST2 patients for all measures. There was no significant difference in statin use at baseline, but the mean SAMMPRIS subjects’ LDL was 16.1 mg/dL higher than in CREST2. CREST2 patients had higher rates of use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and thiazides, but lower rates of use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Conclusions: Despite being older, CREST2 patients have significantly better baseline risk factor profiles than SAMMPRIS patients. This could be due to greater appreciation of the importance of risk factor control and healthy lifestyle habits for stroke prevention or more aggressive treatment targets in guideline recommendations. Although risk factor control appears to be improving since SAMMPRIS, many CREST2 patients are still not meeting recommended risk factor goals at baseline and may benefit from IMM protocols.

Background: Data from the CDC show that approximately one-quarter of adults have elevated triglyceride (TG) levels. Recent trials have demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment of high TG levels, in patients already on statin therapy, reduces the rate of major vascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke (REDUCE-IT trial). We sought to assess how often patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS) have elevated TG levels and factors associated with high TG values. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST 2) were analyzed. Baseline lipid profiles were evaluated to determine high TG treatment eligibility as per the REDUCE-IT trial. We also evaluated baseline use of pharmacologic treatment for high TG levels. Demographic factors and baseline medical conditions were studied in relation to high (>150 mg/dl) TG values. Chi square and t tests were used to assess baseline factors and abnormal TG values. Results: As of August 10, 2020, 1655 of 1689 randomized patients (mean age 69.7 years, 61% men) had baseline lipid profiles suitable for analysis. Treatment eligibility according to REDUCE-IT (LDL 41-100 mg/dl, TG>150 mg/dl) was present in 21% (345) of subjects. In these patients, the median TG value was 205 (IQR 93) mg/dl. Fibrate medications were used at baseline in 4.5% of patients. Analysis of demographic and medical history factors and TG values greater than 150 mg/dl is found in the Table. There was significant positive correlation between baseline hemoglobin A1C and triglyceride values (p<0.0001) Conclusions: One in five patients in CREST 2 has TG values that potentially justify pharmacologic treatment. Elevated TG levels are most correlated with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, decreased physical activity, and heart disease. Clinicians should investigate treatment of elevated TG levels as a component of intensive medical therapy for stroke prevention.

Background and Purpose: The CREST2 trial (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis) is comparing intensive medical management (IMM) alone to IMM plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy or transfemoral carotid artery stenting for preventing stroke or death within 44 days after randomization or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter. There are extensive clinical trial data on outcomes after revascularization of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but not for IMM. As such, the experimental treatment in CREST2 is IMM, which is described in this article. Methods: IMM consists of aspirin 325 mg/day and intensive risk factor management, primarily targeting systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg (initially systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg) and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol <70 mg/dL. Secondary risk factor targets focus on tobacco smoking, non-HDL (high-density lipoprotein), HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c), physical activity, and weight. Risk factor management is performed by site personnel and a lifestyle coaching program delivered by telephone. We report interim risk factor data on 1618 patients at baseline and last follow-up through 24 months. Results: The mean baseline LDL of 80.5 mg/dL improved to 66.7 mg/dL. The mean baseline systolic blood pressure of 139.7 mm Hg improved to 130.3 mm Hg. The proportion of patients in-target improved from 43% to 61% for systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and from 45% to 67% for LDL<70 mg/dL (both changes P <0.001). Conclusions: The rigorous multimodal approach to intensive stroke risk factor management in CREST2 has resulted in significant improvements in risk factor control that will enable a comparison of cutting-edge medical care to revascularization in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089217.

Background: The importance of physical activity in preventing major vascular events has received increased attention in the past decade. Due to the inclusion of the INTERVENT lifestyle modification program, the CREST2 trial provides a unique opportunity to study physical activity profiles in patients with severe asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis. Hypothesis: Based on data from a trial of intracranial stenosis patients, we aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that <40% of carotid stenosis subjects will have optimal physical activity levels. We also assessed key subgroups to determine patterns of physical activity. Methods: We analyzed 1087 CREST2 participants with baseline data on physical activity. The Physician-based Assessment and Counseling for Exercise (PACE) score is recorded for each patient and dichotomized as “in target” (4-8 points) or “out of target” (<4 points). A PACE score of <4 indicates a subject who does not engage in regular exercise. Results are analyzed for the entire trial. Chi square testing and t-tests were performed for evaluation of subgroup differences. Results: The mean age of the study population is 69.5±7.8 years (60% male). The median PACE score at baseline is 4.0 (mean 3.8±2.1; IQR 2 to 6). The Table shows baseline characteristics of patients by mean PACE score. Being male, not having diabetes mellitus, having a body mass index <30kg/m2, being a non-smoker, and not having a history of peripheral arterial disease were associated with significantly higher mean PACE scores (P<0.01). Conclusions: We have defined several patient groups with asymptomatic carotid stenosis that have suboptimal physical activity. These results provide opportunities for targeted efforts to improve primary stroke prevention. These baseline data will also allow investigators to determine if trial involvement and the INTERVENT program leads to improvement in the level of physical activity.

Background: In CREST2, intensive medical management of subjects’ vascular risk factors is overseen by the site Principal Investigator (PI) and implemented by a designated Medical Management Physician (MMP) and coordinator. These physicians have different specialties and experience with risk factor management. We sought to determine the relationship between risk factor control and PI and MMP specialty. Methods: Data on 613 patients with at least 1 follow-up visit from 105 CREST2 sites were used for these analyses. CREST2 sites were categorized based on both PI specialty and MMP specialty. Specialty of the site-designated primary MMP was used for sites with more than one MMP. We compared the percentage of patients in target at last follow-up visit for the primary risk factors, LDL < 70 mg/dL and SBP <140 mm Hg, among PI specialties and MMP specialties, using the chi-square test. Results: The table shows the number of patients by PI and MMP specialty, as well as their control of SBP and LDL. There were no significant differences in control of SBP or LDL by PI specialty. There was a trend toward an association between LDL control and MMP specialty, with higher rates of LDL control at sites with Internal Medicine MMP specialists and lower rates of control with Vascular Surgery MMPs. SBP control rates were not significantly different across MMP specialties. Conclusions: In this early analysis of risk factor control in the CREST2 study, site PI and MMP specialty did not have a significant effect on LDL and SBP during follow-up. This suggests that protocol care pathways are generalizable to diverse physicians.