Citations

Background and Purpose— Multicenter clinical trials attempt to select sites that can move rapidly to randomization and enroll sufficient numbers of patients. However, there are few assessments of the success of site selection. Methods— In the CREST-2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trials), we assess factors associated with the time between site selection and authorization to randomize, the time between authorization to randomize and the first randomization, and the average number of randomizations per site per month. Potential factors included characteristics of the site, specialty of the principal investigator, and site type. Results— For 147 sites, the median time between site selection to authorization to randomize was 9.9 months (interquartile range, 7.7, 12.4), and factors associated with early site activation were not identified. The median time between authorization to randomize and a randomization was 4.6 months (interquartile range, 2.6, 10.5). Sites with authorization to randomize in only the carotid endarterectomy study were slower to randomize, and other factors examined were not significantly associated with time-to-randomization. The recruitment rate was 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.28) patients per site per month. By univariate analysis, factors associated with faster recruitment were authorization to randomize in both trials, principal investigator specialties of interventional radiology and cardiology, pre-trial reported performance >50 carotid angioplasty and stenting procedures per year, status in the top half of recruitment in the CREST trial, and classification as a private health facility. Participation in StrokeNet was associated with slower recruitment as compared with the non-StrokeNet sites. Conclusions— Overall, selection of sites with high enrollment rates will likely require customization to align the sites selected to the factor under study in the trial. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089217.

Rationale Trials conducted decades ago demonstrated that carotid endarterectomy by skilled surgeons reduced stroke risk in asymptomatic patients. Developments in carotid stenting and improvements in medical prevention of stroke caused by atherothrombotic disease challenge understanding of the benefits of revascularization. Aim Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2) will test whether carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting plus contemporary intensive medical therapy is superior to intensive medical therapy alone in the primary prevention of stroke in patients with high-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods and design CREST-2 is two multicenter randomized trials of revascularization plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone. One trial randomizes patients to carotid endarterectomy plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone; the other, to carotid stenting plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone. The risk factor targets of centrally directed intensive medical therapy are LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl and systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg. Study outcomes The primary outcome is the composite of stroke and death within 44 days following randomization and stroke ipsilateral to the target vessel thereafter, up to four years. Change in cognition and differences in major and minor stroke are secondary outcomes. Sample size Enrollment of 1240 patients in each trial provides 85% power to detect a treatment difference if the event rate in the intensive medical therapy alone arm is 4.8% higher or 2.8% lower than an anticipated 3.6% rate in the revascularization arm. Discussion Management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis requires contemporary randomized trials to address whether carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting plus intensive medical therapy is superior in preventing stroke beyond intensive medical therapy alone. Whether carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting has favorable effects on cognition will also be tested. Trial registration United States National Institutes of Health Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02089217

Although rapidly expanding in its use, carotid artery stenting remains a relatively new procedure. Its growth is due, at least in part, to the perceived advantages of a less invasive technique. However, the clinical effectiveness and specific role for stenting in the treatment of carotid occlusive disease are still under evaluation. The primary aim of the randomized clinical trial, Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), was to contrast the relative efficacy of carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy in preventing stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during a 30-day periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke over the follow-up period in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis. The secondary goals were to describe the differential efficacy of the 2 procedures in men and women, contrast periprocedural (30-day) morbidity and postprocedural morbidity and mortality, estimate and contrast the restenosis rates of the 2 procedures, evaluate differences in measures of health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness, and identify subgroups of participants at differential risk of stenting or surgery. This report summarizes the results obtained from CREST with respect to its primary and secondary aims.

Background and Purpose— Prior meta-analysis showed that carotid endarterectomy benefits decline with increasing surgical delay following symptoms. For symptomatic patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), we assessed if differences in time between symptoms and carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting are associated with differences in risk of periprocedural stroke or death. Methods— We analyzed the 1180 symptomatic patients in CREST who received their assigned procedure and had clearly defined timing of symptoms. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on time from symptoms to procedure: <15, 15 to 60, and >60 days. Results— For carotid endarterectomy, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was not significantly different for the 2 later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–2.49 for 15–60 days and hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.25–3.33 for >60 days; P =0.89). For carotid artery stenting, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was also not significantly different for later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.40 for 15–60 days and hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–2.75 for >60 days; P =0.93). Conclusions— Time from symptoms to carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting did not alter periprocedural safety, supporting early revascularization regardless of modality. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background The association between resting heart rate and ischemic stroke remains unclear. Aim To examine the association between resting heart rate and ischemic stroke. Methods A total of 24 730 participants (mean age: 64 ± 9·3 years; 59% women; 41% blacks) from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who were free of stroke at the time of enrollment (2003–2007) were included in this analysis. Resting heart rate was determined from baseline electrocardiogram data. Heart rate was examined as a continuous variable per 10 bpm increase and also as a categorical variable using tertiles (<61 bpm, 61 to 70 bpm, and >70 bpm). First-time ischemic stroke events were identified during follow-up and adjudicated by physician review. Results Over a median follow-up of 7·6 years, a total of 646 ischemic strokes occurred. In a Cox regression model adjusted for socio-demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and potential confounders, each 10 bpm increase in heart rate was associated with a 10% increase in the risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio = 1·10, 95% confidence interval = 1·02, 1·18). In the categorical model, an increased risk of ischemic stroke was observed for heart rates in the middle (hazard ratio = 1·29, 95% confidence interval = 1·06, 1·57) and upper (hazard ratio = 1·37, 95% confidence interval = 1·12, 1·67) tertiles compared with the lower tertile. The results were consistent when the analysis was stratified by age, gender, race, exercise habits, hypertension, and coronary heart disease. Conclusion In REGARDS, high resting heart rates were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke compared with low heart rates. Further research is needed to examine whether interventions aimed to reduce heart rate decrease stroke risk.

Background and Purpose— Evidence indicates that center volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy and stenting. We evaluated the effect of enrollment volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods— The primary composite end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. The 477 approved surgeons performed >12 procedures per year with complication rates <3% for asymptomatic patients and <5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous 2 step credentialing process. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 sites enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 sites enrolling 25 to 51 patients, and Group 3 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite end point and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results— The safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting and carotid endarterectomy did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary end point ( P =0.54) or by stroke and death ( P =0.87). A trend toward an inverse relationship between center enrollment volume and complications was mitigated by adjustment for known risk factors. Conclusions— Complication rates were low in CREST and were not associated with center enrollment volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background and Purpose— The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial was completed with a low stroke and death rate. A lead-in series of patients receiving carotid artery stenting was used to select the physician-operators for the study, where performance was evaluated by complication rates and by peer review of cases. Herein, we assess the potential contribution of statistical evaluation of complication rates. Methods— The ability to discriminate between stent operators who can successfully meet the published guideline of <3% combined rate of stroke and death is calculated under the binomial distribution, based on a small consecutive case series (n=24 patients). Results— A criterion of ≤2 stroke or death events among the 24 patients (<8% event rate) was required of operators. Setting such a high criterion, however, ensures an inability to exclude operators who cannot meet the criteria. In fact, if a good operator is defined as having a 2% event rate and a poor operator as a 6% event rate, even a series of 240 patients would (on average) still exclude 5.4% of the good operators and include 4.6% of the poor operators. Conclusions— The low periprocedural event rates in the trial suggest success in separating skillful operators from less skillful. However, it seems unlikely that statistical assessment of event rates in the lead-in contributed to successful selection, but rather successful selection was more likely because of peer review of subjective and other factors including patient volume and technical approaches. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background Censoring that is dependent on covariates associated with survival can arise in randomized trials due to changes in recruitment and eligibility criteria to minimize withdrawals, potentially leading to biased treatment effect estimates. Imputation approaches have been proposed to address censoring in survival analysis; while these approaches may provide unbiased estimates of treatment effects, imputation of a large number of outcomes may over- or underestimate the associated variance based on the imputation pool selected. Purpose We propose an improved method, risk-stratified imputation, as an alternative to address withdrawal related to the risk of events in the context of time-to-event analyses. Methods Our algorithm performs imputation from a pool of replacement subjects with similar values of both treatment and covariate(s) of interest, that is, from a risk-stratified sample. This stratification prior to imputation addresses the requirement of time-to-event analysis that censored observations are representative of all other observations in the risk group with similar exposure variables. We compared our risk-stratified imputation to case deletion and bootstrap imputation in a simulated dataset in which the covariate of interest (study withdrawal) was related to treatment. A motivating example from a recent clinical trial is also presented to demonstrate the utility of our method. Results In our simulations, risk-stratified imputation gives estimates of treatment effect comparable to bootstrap and auxiliary variable imputation while avoiding inaccuracies of the latter two in estimating the associated variance. Similar results were obtained in analysis of clinical trial data. Limitations Risk-stratified imputation has little advantage over other imputation methods when covariates of interest are not related to treatment. Risk-stratified imputation is intended for categorical covariates and may be sensitive to the width of the matching window if continuous covariates are used. Conclusions The use of the risk-stratified imputation should facilitate the analysis of many clinical trials, in which one group has a higher withdrawal rate that is related to treatment.

Background— Stroke occurs more commonly after carotid artery stenting than after carotid endarterectomy. Details regarding stroke type, severity, and characteristics have not been reported previously. We describe the strokes that have occurred in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods and Results— CREST is a randomized, open-allocation, controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Stroke was a component of the primary composite outcome. Patients who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization were included. Stroke was adjudicated by a panel of board-certified vascular neurologists with secondary central review of clinically obtained brain images. Stroke type, laterality, timing, and outcome were reported. A periprocedural stroke occurred among 81 of the 2502 patients randomized and among 69 of the 2272 in the present analysis. Strokes were predominantly minor (81%, n=56), ischemic (90%, n=62), in the anterior circulation (94%, n=65), and ipsilateral to the treated artery (88%, n=61). There were 7 hemorrhages, which occurred 3 to 21 days after the procedure, and 5 were fatal. Major stroke occurred in 13 (0.6%) of the 2272 patients. The estimated 4-year mortality after stroke was 21.1% compared with 11.6% for those without stroke. The adjusted risk of death at 4 years was higher after periprocedural stroke (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–4.76). Conclusions— Stroke, particularly severe stroke, was uncommon after carotid intervention in CREST, but stroke was associated with significant morbidity and was independently associated with a nearly 3-fold increased future mortality. The delayed timing of major and hemorrhagic stroke after revascularization suggests that these strokes may be preventable. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.