Sheffet, Alice J.

Background: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was among factors considered in a post-hoc assessment of the risk of revascularization by carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in women enrolled in CREST. Methods: Of the 872 women in CREST, 775 (89%) were post-menopausal and current HRT status was known in 739 (95%). The study composite outcome was defined as any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke over a 4-year follow-up period. Treatment groups were combined and differences in the composite outcome were assessed by current HRT at baseline. Results: There were 77/739 (10%) current HRT users. HRT users were more likely to be symptomatic at baseline than non-users (65% vs. 52%; p = 0.027), and were less likely to be diabetic (19% vs. 32%; p = 0.024). However, they were similar in most other factors including age, race, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and length of follow-up (p > 0.10). There were no (0) periprocedural events among the 77 HRT users while there were 43 (6.5%) events among the 662 non-users (p = 0.017). Among those event-free at the end of the periprocedural period, there was little evidence of an impact of baseline HRT on the risk of ipsilateral stroke with 2 (2.6%) post-procedural events among 77 HRT users and 12 (1.9%) among 619 non-users. Conclusion: We found that women on current HRT have lower periprocedural risk associated with CAS or CEA than non-users, but little difference in risk after the procedural period. The mechanism for this unexpected finding is elusive. We urge caution in the interpretation of this post-hoc observation and encourage replication or refutation by other revascularization studies with similar data.

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the leading procedure for carotid stenosis, yet national data on trends in rates and outcomes are limited. We determined CEA rates among Medicare beneficiaries and evaluated mortality and readmission over 8 years. Methods: We used Medicare fee-for-service data to identify beneficiaries aged ≥65y who had their first CEA (ICD-9 38.12) from 2003-2010 and calculated annual rates per 100,000 person-years (PY). We fit mixed models to assess trends in patient-level outcomes, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and symptomatic status. We also evaluated hospital-level trends by calculating risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates. A spatial mixed model adjusted for age, sex, and race was fit to calculate county-specific risk-standardized CEA rates in 2003-2004. Results: There were 505,966 unique CEA hospitalizations. The annual number of CEA discharges decreased from 81,604 in 2003 to 47,597 in 2010 (42% decrease), though the patient characteristics remained largely similar. The national CEA rate was 283 per 100,000 PY in 2003, and there was considerable geographic variability (Figure A). This rate decreased each year to a low of 172 per 100,000 PY in 2010. The rate of stroke or death within 30 days decreased from 3.2 to 2.7%, with a significant adjusted annual reduction of 3% (Figure B). Annual reductions in other short- and long-term outcomes were similar, ranging from 2-3%. The median hospital-level 30-day RSMR decreased over time from 0.99 to 0.57%, while the variation between hospitals increased (interquartile range of 0.7-1.67 percentage points). The 30-day RSRR decreased from 11.0 to 10.1%, but there was more homogeneity across hospitals and years. Conclusions: CEA use among Medicare patients decreased dramatically from 2003-2010, while mortality and readmission outcomes improved. The relative importance of biological and sociological mechanisms for these trends merits further study.

Background: Carotid revascularization was addressed by NASCET and ACAS. NASCET showed a 2-year stroke and death of 32.3% in medical patients and a 15.8% incidence in surgical patients (16.5% absolute/51% relative reduction). Similarly, ACAS revealed an 11% 5-year risk in medical patients and 5.1% in surgical patients (5.9% absolute reduction/53% relative reduction). Absolute risk (rather than relative risk) reduction is of prime interest to the patient. However, in these studies, treatment efficacy was assessed on a relative basis, and these procedures were equally efficacious (51% vs. 53% relative risk). The higher event rates in the symptomatic patients resulted in a larger absolute risk reduction in NASCET (16.5% vs. 5.9%). CREST is the only carotid revascularization study to include both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS), and we looked at absolute and relative risks associated with both procedures. Methods: Treatment differences in CREST by symptomatic status were reviewed and interaction terms analyzed. Results: Symptomatic periprocedural stroke and death rates were 6% for CAS vs. 3.2% for CEA (2.8% absolute/47% relative difference/p = 0.02), and were 2.5% for CAS vs. 1.4% for CEA (1.2% absolute/53% relative difference/p = 0.15) for asymptomatic. While treatment differences in periprocedural rates were significant for symptomatic but not asymptomatic patients, there was no difference in treatment efficacy as determined by relative risk reduction. Even the most prominent interaction terms were clearly not significant, p > 0.38. Discussion: There is no evidence of a CAS-CEA difference in treatment efficacy by symptomatic status in CREST. There are significant findings in symptomatic patients. This is likely a product of an increased background rate of events in this strata. While symptomatic status can identify a subgroup with an increased background rate, other factors (e.g. age or stenosis) could identify subgroups of asymptomatic patients with high event rates and large absolute treatment differences.

Background There is evidence that center-volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). We sought to evaluate the effect of center-volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods In CREST, the primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. Certification was achieved by 477 surgeons performing more than 12 procedures per year with complication rates less than 3% for asymptomatic patients and less than 5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous training and credentialing process that included a lead-in registry. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 composed of 82 sites each enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 with 24 sites enrolling 25-51 patients and Group 3 with 10 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite endpoint and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results The safety of CAS and CEA did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary endpoint (p=0.54) or by stroke and death (p=0.87). Conclusion Complication rates (as indicated by the primary endpoint and its components) were low in CREST and were not associated with center-volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures; because of ongoing entry of new interventionalists and surgeons into CREST, operator experience independent of center-volume cannot be addressed.

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.