Lal, Brajesh K.

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.

Abstract Background The multicenter prospective CREST‐2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. Objective To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. Methods Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access‐related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity‐score matched logistic regression. Results The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access‐related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42). Conclusion We found no significant differences in rates of major access‐related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

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 Carotid artery stent (CAS) placement may be used as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in selected patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Perhaps because stroke is an uncommon event after CAS, the angiographic predictors of stroke have been incompletely described. Methods A total of 1070 catheter-based angiograms were centrally reviewed in patients undergoing CAS enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Of these patients, 43 (4%) experienced periprocedural stroke. Angiograms were reviewed using qualitative and quantitative methodology before and after CAS. Reviews were done blinded to patient outcomes and strokes were adjudicated by a central committee blinded to results of angiography. The view showing the greatest carotid stenosis severity was selected. Extreme tortuosity was defined as 2 severe bends >90 degrees (maximum angulation/20 mm segment) beyond the target lesion, sequential lesions as lesions separated by ≥10 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer as a discrete area of contrast extension beyond the normal arterial lumen with a narrow inlet into the ulceration. Results The internal carotid artery reference diameter was 4.2 ± 0.8 mm, the minimal lumen diameter was 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, and the baseline % diameter stenosis was 74.1 ± 11.6%. There were no differences in vessel size or severity of the stenosis in patients with and without stroke. Morphologic predictors significantly related to the risk of subsequent stroke are listed in the Table . Calcification, lesion eccentricity, baseline flow, and distance from the bifurcation were not predictive of periprocedural stroke (p > 0.05). Conclusion In CREST, four angiographic variables were found to increase risk for stroke during and within 30 days after CAS: severe distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, lesion length > 20 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer. Angiographic characteristics beyond percent stenosis may help in patient selection in terms of best revascularization option.

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.

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: Perfusion weighted imaging on MRI (MRP) and computerized tomography perfusion (CTP) are increasingly required to manage large vessel disease. Computerized algorithms can quantify perfusion data, but the programs are expensive and not widely used outside acute stroke evaluation. We aimed to determine how well human observers can identify asymmetries in cerebral perfusion images compared with an automated computer algorithm. Methods: Ten clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease (4 vascular neurologists, 3 neuroradiologists, 1 vascular surgeon, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 interventional radiologist) were given 28 post-processed, color-coded, axial-slice MRP scans from patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endovascular versus Stenting Trial - Hemodynamics (CREST-H) study. All patients had >70%, unilateral, asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and had varying degrees of time-to-peak (TTP) delay on the side of stenosis, ranging from 0 to 2 secs, quantified by a semi-automated system that computes quantitative perfusion maps, using deconvolution of tissue and arterial signals (Olea, Cambridge, MA). A minimum volume of 10cc was required for a given TTP delay. Clinicians were asked to determine asymmetry (y/n) and side of occlusion for each case. Number of correct responses that matched the computer output were tallied. Results: We averaged correct responses by the 10 clinicians for cases at each increment of TTP delay; (Figure). At TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, accuracy was ≥80%. At 1.25 sec accuracy fell to 60%, and at ≤ 1 sec, accuracy was ≤50%. For TTP=0 (no asymmetry), accuracy was 71%. Conclusions: Visual impression of hemodynamic asymmetry among experienced clinicians was reasonably accurate for TTP delays ≥1.5 seconds, but declined with more subtle asymmetries. Depending on the clinical impact of TTP delays (for CREST-H: correlation with cognitive decline), experienced clinicians may perform as well as an automated algorithm.

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.