Weaver, Fred A.

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.

Background: The CREST trial demonstrated that for patients at standard risk of surgical complications, there was no significant difference in the primary composite outcome of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke, or late ipsilateral stroke between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although CAS had a higher rate of stroke, and CEA had a higher rate of MI. The economic implications of these two strategies are unknown. Methods: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the CREST trial. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the US health care system in 2008 dollars using a combination of resource-based and event-based methods. Costs for carotid revascularization procedures were based on measured resource use and unit costs derived from a sample of study hospitals. Non-procedural costs for these hospitalizations were estimated using hospital billing data (charges) and cost-center-specific cost-to-charge-ratios. Costs for follow-up events were estimated using national average DRG reimbursements. The primary analysis was based on a modified intention-to-treat population for which the assigned procedure was attempted (n=1212 CAS; 1193 CEA). Results: CAS was associated with higher total procedural costs (Δ=$675, see Table), driven mainly by higher costs for disposable supplies. Length of stay was shorter for CAS, with associated reductions in non-procedural hospital costs (Δ = -$436). Total cost for the index hospitalization remained slightly higher for CAS (Δ=$239) with similar differences at 1 year. Conclusions: For patients at standard risk of surgical complications, total 1-year costs are slightly higher for CAS vs. CEA, driven largely by higher initial procedural costs. Cost-utility analysis will be performed to determine whether differences in quality of life observed in CREST render CAS an economically attractive strategy. CAS (n= 1212) CEA (n=1193) Δ CAS - CEA (95% CI via bootstrap) Index Procedure Costs, $ Excluding MD Fees 6782 ± 1412 5743 ± 1370 1039 (926, 1148) MD Fees 1114 ± 240 1478 ± 108 -364 (-379, -349) Total 7896 ± 1551 7221 ± 1450 675 (555, 800) Index Hospital Stay 7159 ± 5108 7595 ± 7482 -436 (-951, -59) TOTAL Index Hosp Costs 15055 ± 5539 14816 ± 7709 239 (-302, 778) Index Hosp LOS (days) ICU LOS 0.7 ± 1.1 0.8 ± 1.4 -0.1 (-0.24, -0.04) Non-ICU LOS 1.9 ± 3.2 2.2 ± 4.1 -0.2 (-0.55, 0.06) TOTAL LOS 2.6 ± 3.3 3.0 ± 4.5 -0.4 (-0.7, -0.06) 1-year Rehosp Costs: Repeat Revasc - CAS 295 ± 2097 273 ± 2126 -21 (-142, 201) Repeat Revasc - CEA 287 ± 2088 477 ± 2510 -190 (-371, -11) Ipsilateral Stroke 556 ± 3273 384 ± 2580 172 (-75, 402) TIA 48 ± 520 33 ± 487 16 (-25, 56) Death 63 ± 846 45 ± 779 18 (-49, 85) TOTAL Rehosp costs 1321 ± 4827 1293± 4502 28 (-334, 396) TOTAL 1-year costs 16375 ± 7730 16108 ± 9030 267 (-366, 961)

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.