Citations

The recently published SPACE-2 trial (Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery Versus Endarterectomy-2) compared 3 treatments to prevent stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis ≥70%: (1) carotid endarterectomy plus best medical treatment (BMT), (2) transfemoral carotid artery stenting plus BMT, or (3) BMT alone. Because of low enrollment, the findings of similar safety and efficacy for carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone were inconclusive. Publication of the CREST (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial)-2 results should provide level A evidence that has been lacking for 2 to 3 decades, to guide treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis. For symptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis, no trials are underway to update the degree of benefit reported for carotid endarterectomy by NASCET (North American Carotid Endarterectomy Trial) and ECST (European Carotid Surgery Trial), published in 1991. Subsequently, the use of cigarettes has plummeted, and major improvements in medical treatments and in carotid revascularization have emerged. These advances have coincided with abrupt decline in the clinical end points necessary for treatment comparisons in procedural trials. One of the advances in the invasive management of carotid disease has been transcarotid artery revascularization, already with limited approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Establishing safety and efficacy of transcarotid artery revascularization compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting, or BMT alone may be challenging because of enrollment, regulatory, and funding barriers to design and complete an adequately powered randomized trial.

Introduction: Increasing stenosis has been questioned as a factor increasing risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Hypothesis: Greater severity of carotid stenosis is associated with higher rates of periprocedural stroke and death following revascularization for asymptomatic patients. Methods: Asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis ≥ 70% by ultrasound or ≥ 60% by angiogram were eligible for the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST). Patients who had a catheter-angiogram were divided into tertiles based on the degree of stenosis. Outcomes were the occurrence of any stroke or death at 30 days. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age and treatment were used to assess risk of 30 day stroke or death by tertile of stenosis. Results: Among 1181 asymptomatic patients, qualifying angiograms were done for 662 patients who had assigned procedure performed within 30 days of randomization. Median % stenosis was 62.6, 73.4, and 83.0 for the tertiles that otherwise differed only for female sex (40% female in tertile 1, 36% in tertile 2, 29% in tertile 3, p=0.01). The 30-day stroke and death rates did not differ significantly by severity of stenosis (Table), but the number of stroke and deaths was only 14 across the tertiles (Table). Similarly meaningful comparison of CEA vs CAS was not possible. Conclusion: This is the largest contemporary study of carotid angiograms performed in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis. No relationship was detected between severity of stenosis and 30-day stroke and death. The safety of CEA and CAS in asymptomatic patients limits detection of other factors that may increase risk because so few events complicate these procedures.

Objective: To compare the perioperative risk of any stroke, death and MI and the long-term risk of re-stenosis and stroke following CEA with patching (a prosthetic or vein patch sutured to the arterial opening to widen the closure) versus CEA with primary closure in CREST. Methods: We included patients who were randomized and underwent CEA in CREST. We compared peri-procedural and 4-year event rates and 2-year restenosis rates, in addition to rates of reoperation between the two groups. Re-stenosis was defined as elevated peak systolic velocity ≥3.0 m/s on carotid duplex US. Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazard models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results: There were 1,148 patients who underwent CEA (755 {66%} patch; 328 {29%} primary closure). We excluded 43 patients who underwent eversion CEA and 24 patients missing CEA data (5%). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to age, sex, race and comorbidities (Table 1). There were significant reductions in the risk of any periprocedural stroke and death (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.82, P<0.02), in re-operation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.80, P<0.01), in the 4-year risk of stroke (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.97, P<0.04) and in the 2-year risk of re-stenosis (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.45, P<0.0001) in the patch compared to the primary closure group (Table 2). Conclusion: Patch closure should be considered for all CEAs because of the association of patch closure with reductions in risk of periprocedural stroke and death, re-operation, and long-term clinical and anatomic durability.

Background: We have previously reported that carotid artery stenting (CAS) carries a higher stroke risk than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients over the age of 70. The question arises if advanced age is a surrogate for other factors? If so, can those factors be separately identified such that advanced chronological age alone would not be considered a contra-indication for CAS? Here we consider whether the CAS/CEA choice could be guided by other factors known in the clinical center at the time of patient evaluation, independent of age, in order to provide optimal 4-year outcomes. Methods: Demographic factors (age, sex and race), symptomatic status, patient risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking), and arterial characteristics (percent stenosis) were available on 2,502 patients. Additional detailed arterial characteristics (ulcerated plaque, distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, circumferential calcification) were available on 1141 CAS and 438 CEA patients. Potential differential treatment efficacy was assessed by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a proportional hazard model containing established predictors of outcome (treatment, symptomatic status, sex, age and age-by-treatment interaction). Results: No other factor was found to mitigate advanced age with evidence of additional treatment effect modification of 4-year outcome (p > 0.10). Discussion: Beyond the previously described differential treatment efficacy by age, there were no other patient or arterial characteristic detected to identify patient subgroups that would differentially benefit from the choice of CAS versus CEA. Our inability to identify factors to guide treatment choices could be due to the low number of stroke and death events, incomplete information regarding arterial characteristics in the CEA population, or the potential exclusion of “high risk” groups (such as those with severe arterial tortuosity) from the study.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) enrolled 2502 patients between December of 2000 and mid-July of 2008. We analyzed temporal changes in outcomes for both CEA and CAS over the course of this study. Methods Enrollment was divided into 3 consecutive epochs (5 years, 14 months, and 16 months), each with approximately 834 patients ( Table ). Rates for the primary outcome of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (DSMI) and for death and stroke (DS) during the periprocedural period were calculated. Poisson regression was used to adjust rates for age, sex, dyslipidemia, and symptomatic status, all of which were found to influence outcomes. Results For CAS, there was a 26% decline in DSMI (6.2% → 4.6%) and a 35% decline in DS (5.5% → 3.6%). For both composite endpoints in CEA there was no consistent pattern ( Table ). As CREST progressed, it enrolled younger patients, more men, patients more likely to be dyslipidemic and enrolled more asymptomatic patients (all p < 0.05). Adjustment for these changes mediated the improvement in event rates for the CAS patients, and had no consistent effect on CEA event rates ( Table ). Conclusion Periprocedural safety for CAS improved over time in CREST. Changes were inconsistent for CEA. Improvements for CAS in part appear to reflect changes in patient selection related to age, sex, and risk factors, as adjustment for those variables attenuated the decline in rates. Linking rates to operator experience was not feasible because of the large number of new interventionalists and surgeons entering CREST over time.