Brown, Martin M.

ImportancePatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have ischemic stroke despite taking oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) have a very high risk of recurrence. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a mechanical stroke prevention strategy that may provide additional protection in patients with thromboembolic events under OAT.ObjectiveTo compare percutaneous LAAO with continuing OAT alone regarding stroke prevention in patients with AF who had a thromboembolic event despite taking OAT.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a propensity score–matched comparison of the STR-OAC LAAO cohort, an international collaboration of 21 sites combining patients from multiple prospective registries of patients who underwent LAAO between 2010 and 2022. STR-OAC LAAO cohort patients who had follow-up longer than 3 months were propensity score–matched to a previously published control cohort comprising patients from an established international collaboration of investigator-initiated prospective studies. This control cohort included patients with nonvalvular AF, recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and follow-up longer than 3 months who were taking OAT before the index event. Analyses were adjusted for imbalances in gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, and CHA2 DS2-VASc score.ExposureLeft atrial appendage occlusion vs continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy alone (control group).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was time to first ischemic stroke.ResultsFour hundred thirty-three patients from the STR-OAC LAAO cohort (mean [SD] age, 72 [9] years; 171 [39%] females and 262 [61%] males; mean [SD] CHA2 DS2-VASc score, 5.0 [1.6]) were matched to 433 of 1140 patients (38%) from the control group. During 2-year follow-up, 50 patients experienced ischemic stroke: an annualized event rate of 2.8% per patient-year in the STR-OAC LAAO group vs 8.9% per patient-year in the control group. Left atrial appendage occlusion was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P < .001) compared with the control group. After LAAO, OAT was discontinued in 290 patients (67%), and the remaining 143 patients (33%) continued OAT after LAAO as an adjunctive therapy.Conclusions and RelevanceIn patients with nonvalvular AF and a prior thromboembolic event despite taking OAT, LAAO was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke compared with continued OAT alone. Randomized clinical trial data are needed to confirm that LAAO may be a promising treatment option for this population with a very high risk of stroke.

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: Historical data suggest that patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis are at high risk of early recurrent stroke. Guidelines therefore recommend revascularization within 2 weeks of symptoms. We assessed the risk of stroke or death occurring before revascularization in modern trials of symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods: We pooled data of all individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in the EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS and CREST trials. The outcome event (OE) was death or any stroke occurring between randomization and treatment by CAS or CEA, or up to 120 days after randomization among patients not undergoing treatment in this period. Results: 4707 patients were included in the analysis. Median time from qualifying event until randomization was 18 (interquartile range 7-50) days. Median time from randomization until treatment was 6 (2-11) days in the CAS group, and 7 (3-12) days in the CEA group (p<0.001). 31% of patients in the CAS group and 27% in the CEA group underwent revascularization within 14 days of the qualifying event. The OE occurred in 21 patients (CAS: 8, CEA: 13), all within 31 days of randomization (Kaplan Meier estimate: 2.4%, standard error 0.7%; fig.), including 18 non-fatal strokes, 1 fatal stroke, and 2 non-stroke related deaths. In 2 of the patients, the date of the qualifying event was unknown, in 8 patients the OE occurred within 14 days of the qualifying event and in 11 patients >14 days after the qualifying event. All patients with the OE had severe (70-99% degree) stenosis. No other baseline variables predicted the OE. Discussion: Despite the fact that less than a third of patients underwent revascularization within 14 days of the qualifying event, only 2.4% of patients had a recurrent stroke or died before treatment. The risk is lower than expected from historical data, which may reflect advances in medical therapy. Patients at risk are those with severe degree of stenosis.

Background and Purpose: CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Methods: Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as P ≤0.10. Results: Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant ( P =0.065), indicating heterogeneity among trials. Contributors to this heterogeneity are primarily differences in periprocedural period. When the trials are nevertheless pooled, there were no significant sex differences in risk in any follow-up period. Conclusions: There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com ; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

Abstract Background The effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for stroke prevention depends on low procedural risks. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and timing of procedural complications after CEA, which may clarify underlying mechanisms and help inform safe discharge policies. Methods Individual-patient data were obtained from four large carotid intervention trials (VACS, ACAS, ACST-1 and GALA; 1983–2007). Patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis directly after randomization were used for the present analysis. Timing of procedural death and stroke was divided into intraoperative day 0, postoperative day 0, days 1–3 and days 4–30. Results Some 3694 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 103 patients (2·8 per cent) had serious procedural complications (18 fatal strokes, 68 non-fatal strokes, 11 fatal myocardial infarctions and 6 deaths from other causes) [Correction added on 20 April, after first online publication: the percentage value has been corrected to 2·8]. Of the 86 strokes, 67 (78 per cent) were ipsilateral, 17 (20 per cent) were contralateral and two (2 per cent) were vertebrobasilar. Forty-five strokes (52 per cent) were ischaemic, nine (10 per cent) haemorrhagic, and stroke subtype was not determined in 32 patients (37 per cent). Half of the strokes happened on the day of CEA. Of all serious complications recorded, 44 (42·7 per cent) occurred on day 0 (20 intraoperative, 17 postoperative, 7 with unclear timing), 23 (22·3 per cent) on days 1–3 and 36 (35·0 per cent) on days 4–30. Conclusion At least half of the procedural strokes in this study were ischaemic and ipsilateral to the treated artery. Half of all procedural complications occurred on the day of surgery, but one-third after day 3 when many patients had been discharged.

Background and Purpose— This analysis was performed to assess the association between perioperative and clinical variables and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods— Individual patient-level data from the 5 largest randomized controlled carotid trials were pooled in the Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration database. A total of 4181 patients who received carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic stenosis per protocol were included. Determinants of outcome included carotid endarterectomy technique, type of anesthesia, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, shunting, antiplatelet medication, and clinical variables. Stroke or death within 30 days after carotid endarterectomy was the primary outcome. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated in multilevel multivariable analyses using a Poisson regression model. Results— Mean age was 69.5±9.2 years (70.7% men). The 30-day stroke or death rate was 4.3%. In the multivariable regression analysis, local anesthesia was associated with a lower primary outcome rate (versus general anesthesia; aRR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.50–0.99]). Shunting (aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.05–1.95]), a contralateral high-grade carotid stenosis or occlusion (aRR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.02–2.47]), and a more severe neurological deficit (mRS, 3–5 versus 0–2: aRR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.30–4.83]) were associated with higher primary outcome rates. None of the other characteristics were significantly associated with the perioperative stroke or death risk. Conclusions— The current results indicate lower perioperative stroke or death rates in patients operated upon under local anesthesia, whereas a more severe neurological deficit and a contralateral high-grade carotid stenosis or occlusion were identified as potential risk factors. Despite a possible selection bias and patients not having been randomized, these findings might be useful to guide surgeons and anesthetists when treating patients with symptomatic carotid disease.

Background: Over the past decades, stroke risk associated with carotid disease has decreased, reflecting improvements in medical therapy and a more rigorous control of vascular risk factors. It is less clear whether the procedural risk of carotid revascularization has declined over time. Methods: We analyzed temporal changes in procedural risks among 4597 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis treated with carotid artery stenting (n=2326) or carotid endarterectomy (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials between 2000 and 2008, using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each source trial. Models were additionally adjusted for age and other baseline characteristics predicting treatment risk. The primary outcome event was any procedural stroke or death, occurring during or within 30 days after revascularization. Results: The procedural stroke or death risk decreased significantly over time in all patients (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.97; P =0.006). This effect was driven by a decrease in the carotid endarterectomy group (unadjusted odds ratio per year, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.92; P =0.003), whereas no significant decrease was found after carotid artery stenting (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.04; P =0.33). Carotid endarterectomy patients had a lower procedural stroke or death risk compared with carotid artery stenting patients, and the difference significantly increased over time (interaction P =0.031). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the results remained essentially the same. Conclusions: The risk of stroke or death associated with carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis decreased over an 8-year period, independent of clinical predictors of procedural risk. No corresponding reduction in procedural risk was seen in patients treated with stenting. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S), NCT00004732 (CREST), ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE), and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

Introduction: A 3.4% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.7%) higher peri-procedural stroke and death risk has been previously documented for those treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) relative to those treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the CAS versus CEA treatment differences in long-term outcomes and the post-procedure durability have not been described. Methods: Data from the 4 largest CAS-versus-CEA randomized trials for treatment of symptomatic carotid atherosclerosis (EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS, and CREST) were pooled, and treatment differences assessed for the outcome of any stroke or death during a 120-day peri-procedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke afterward. Results: Long-term follow-up was analysed for 4754 patients. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2.0 to 6.9 years, with 88 peri-procedural and 55 post-procedural events among those CEA-treated, and 169 and 64 for those CAS-treated. After the peri-procedural period, the annual rates of stroke following CAS was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8) and following CEA 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8), resulting in non-significant durability differences of less than 1% over the period extending up to 9 years (see Table). The previously-documented 3.4% higher peri-procedural event rate in the CAS group contributed to a significant 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6% to 4.7%) treatment difference at 1-year, and the aforementioned similar durability implied that this significant difference remained relatively constant over the period extending up to 9 years (see table). Conclusions: The post-procedure durability of CAS and CEA were similar, both with event rates below 1%. The similarity of post-procedure events rates implies that the previously-documented higher peri-procedural in the CAS group is “carried forward” with a higher risk of outcomes extending to 9-years.