Voeks, Jenifer H.

OBJECTIVE Given temporal changes in diabetes prevalence and stroke incidence, this study investigated age, race, and sex differences in the diabetes–stroke association in a contemporary prospective cohort, the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We included 23,002 non-Hispanic black and white U.S. adults aged ≥45 years without prevalent stroke at baseline (2003–2007). Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL, random glucose ≥200 mg/dL, or use of glucose-lowering medication. Incident stroke events were expert adjudicated and available through September 2017. RESULTS The prevalence of diabetes was 19.1% at baseline. During follow-up, 1,018 stroke events occurred. Among adults aged <65 years, comparing those with diabetes to those without diabetes, the risk of stroke was increased for white women (hazard ratio [HR] 3.72 [95% CI 2.10–6.57]), black women (HR 1.88 [95% CI 1.22–2.90]), and white men (HR 2.01 [95% CI 1.27–3.27]) but not black men (HR 1.27 [95% CI 0.77–2.10]) after multivariable adjustment. Among those aged ≥65 years, diabetes increased the risk of stroke for white women and black men, but not black women (HR 1.05 [95% CI 0.74–1.48]) or white men (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.62–1.21]). CONCLUSIONS In this contemporary cohort, the diabetes–stroke association varied by age, race, and sex together, with a more pronounced effect observed among adults aged <65 years. With the recent increase in the burden of diabetes complications at younger ages in the U.S., additional efforts are needed earlier in life for stroke prevention among adults with diabetes.

Background: The importance of physical activity in preventing major vascular events has received increased attention in the past decade. Due to the inclusion of the INTERVENT lifestyle modification program, the CREST2 trial provides a unique opportunity to study physical activity profiles in patients with severe asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis. Hypothesis: Based on data from a trial of intracranial stenosis patients, we aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that <40% of carotid stenosis subjects will have optimal physical activity levels. We also assessed key subgroups to determine patterns of physical activity. Methods: We analyzed 1087 CREST2 participants with baseline data on physical activity. The Physician-based Assessment and Counseling for Exercise (PACE) score is recorded for each patient and dichotomized as “in target” (4-8 points) or “out of target” (<4 points). A PACE score of <4 indicates a subject who does not engage in regular exercise. Results are analyzed for the entire trial. Chi square testing and t-tests were performed for evaluation of subgroup differences. Results: The mean age of the study population is 69.5±7.8 years (60% male). The median PACE score at baseline is 4.0 (mean 3.8±2.1; IQR 2 to 6). The Table shows baseline characteristics of patients by mean PACE score. Being male, not having diabetes mellitus, having a body mass index <30kg/m2, being a non-smoker, and not having a history of peripheral arterial disease were associated with significantly higher mean PACE scores (P<0.01). Conclusions: We have defined several patient groups with asymptomatic carotid stenosis that have suboptimal physical activity. These results provide opportunities for targeted efforts to improve primary stroke prevention. These baseline data will also allow investigators to determine if trial involvement and the INTERVENT program leads to improvement in the level of physical activity.

Objectives: Assessment of carotid disease is most commonly performed with duplex ultrasonography (DUS). Measures of plaque area and tissue composition from DUS images may identify patients at risk for future neurologic events, and may assess the effects of vascular risk-factor modification (by measuring change in plaque area and/or tissue constituents). We quantified plaque area and tissue constituents from DUS images of CREST-2 participants at baseline and correlated them with their baseline vascular risk factors. Methods: CREST-2 consists of two multicenter, randomized trials in patients with asymptomatic ≥70% carotid stenosis comparing intensive medical management (IMM) plus endarterectomy or stenting vs IMM alone. Baseline B-mode DUS images from 500 patients underwent manual plaque outlining and automatic pixel brightness assessment. Plaque area, grayscale median (GSM), Gray-Weale score for heterogeneity, and areas for intraplaque hemorrhage and lipid were the output parameters. We computed the parameter estimates (95% confidence intervals) for baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, race, diabetes, smoking, BMI, blood pressure and LDL levels) versus plaque characteristics. Results: High-risk plaque features (larger plaque area, lower GSM , lower Gray-Weale scores, or larger areas of hemorrhage and lipid) were present in older patients, males, and those with elevated diastolic blood pressure and LDL levels (Table). Conclusions: In a randomized trial of asymptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, DUS-based computation of plaque geometry and tissue composition is feasible. Elevated diastolic blood pressure and LDL levels at baseline are associated with high-risk plaque characteristics. These novel findings identify potentially modifiable targets for aggressive treatment to reduce stroke-risk in patients with carotid stenosis.

Background: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) previously reported increased mortality in patients who sustained a periprocedural stroke or cardiac event (myocardial infarction [MI] or biomarker only) in follow-up to 4 years. We now extend these observations to 10 years. Methods and Results: CREST is a randomized controlled trial designed to compare the outcomes of carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between mortality and periprocedural stroke, MI, or biomarker-only events. For 10-year follow-up, patients with periprocedural stroke were at 1.74× the risk of death compared with those without stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=1.74; 95% CI, 1.21–2.50; P <0.003). This increased risk was driven by increased early (between 0 and 90 days) mortality (adjusted HR=14.41; 95% CI, 5.33–38.94; P <0.0001), with no significant increase in late (between 91 days and 10 years) mortality (adjusted HR=1.40; 95% CI, 0.93–2.10; P =0.11). Patients with a protocol MI were at 3.61× increased risk of death compared with those without MI (adjusted HR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.28–5.73; P <0.0001), with an increased hazard both early (adjusted HR=8.20; 95% CI, 1.86–36.2; P =0.006) and late (adjusted HR=3.40; 95% CI, 2.09–5.53; P <0.0001). Patients with a biomarker-only event were at 2.04× increased risk overall (adjusted HR=2.04; 95% CI, 1.09–3.84; P =0.03) than those without MI, with an increased early hazard (adjusted HR=8.44; 95% CI, 1.09–65.5; P =0.04) and a suggestive but nonsignificant association toward higher 91-day to 10-year risk (1.88; 95% CI, 0.97–3.64; P =0.062) contributing to the increased risk. Conclusions: In the CREST trial, patients with periprocedural events demonstrate a substantial increase in future mortality to 10 years. For stroke, this risk is largely confined to an early time frame while periprocedural MI or biomarker-only events confer a continuous increased mortality for 10 years. Strategies to reduce periprocedural events and to optimize the evaluation and management of patients with cardiac events should be considered in efforts to reduce not only early but also long-term mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background: In CREST2, intensive medical management of subjects’ vascular risk factors is overseen by the site Principal Investigator (PI) and implemented by a designated Medical Management Physician (MMP) and coordinator. These physicians have different specialties and experience with risk factor management. We sought to determine the relationship between risk factor control and PI and MMP specialty. Methods: Data on 613 patients with at least 1 follow-up visit from 105 CREST2 sites were used for these analyses. CREST2 sites were categorized based on both PI specialty and MMP specialty. Specialty of the site-designated primary MMP was used for sites with more than one MMP. We compared the percentage of patients in target at last follow-up visit for the primary risk factors, LDL < 70 mg/dL and SBP <140 mm Hg, among PI specialties and MMP specialties, using the chi-square test. Results: The table shows the number of patients by PI and MMP specialty, as well as their control of SBP and LDL. There were no significant differences in control of SBP or LDL by PI specialty. There was a trend toward an association between LDL control and MMP specialty, with higher rates of LDL control at sites with Internal Medicine MMP specialists and lower rates of control with Vascular Surgery MMPs. SBP control rates were not significantly different across MMP specialties. Conclusions: In this early analysis of risk factor control in the CREST2 study, site PI and MMP specialty did not have a significant effect on LDL and SBP during follow-up. This suggests that protocol care pathways are generalizable to diverse physicians.

Rationale: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is commonly seen in medical practice. CREST-2 is a pair of concurrent two-arm multi-site randomized trials of intensive medical management versus intensive medical management in combination with revascularization by endarterectomy or stenting. It is not known how often patients entering the trials have opportunities for further risk factor reduction at study entry and whether these opportunities vary across trial centers. Methods: Baseline data on 683 patients from 109 clinical sites were used for these analyses. We determined the rates of control at baseline for systolic blood pressure (SBP), defined as <140 mmHg (or ≥140 with >15mmHg orthostatic drop), and low density lipoprotein (LDL), defined as <70 mg/dl. We then tested differences in these baseline control rates by site-related characteristics, including site type, StrokeNet site vs. not, specialty of site Principal Investigator (PI), type of hospital, central vs local IRB, type of research team and whether site is enrolling in one or both trials. P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: At baseline, the mean SBP was 140.4±20.5 mmHg, but only 62% of participants were in target. The mean LDL at baseline was 83.7±36.9, mg/dl, with 42% in target. None of the site characteristics were associated with a higher level of control for SBP at baseline. The only characteristic associated with having a higher level of LDL control was sites enrolling in only the CAS trial (57%) compared to those enrolling in the CEA only (24%) or in both trials (42%) (p=0.02). Conclusions: Opportunities to improve on risk factors are common among CREST-2 participants, but site characteristics did not predict the likelihood of being at goal for SBP while sites enrolling in only the CAS trial had a higher level of LDL control.

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

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: With patients living a decade or longer post-procedure, long-term data are needed to assess the durability of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Identifying characteristics of those consenting or declining to continue in long-term follow-up may suggest strategies to improve retention in clinical trials. Purpose: This report describes differences between patients choosing or declining to continue follow-up for up to 10 years in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. Methods: Following completion of the primary outcome, patients who were in active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial follow-up were asked to continue beyond their original 4-year commitment for a maximum of 10 years. The characteristics of those who consented were compared with those who declined. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis, and backwards stepwise logistic regression (the most parsimonious model) was used to determine the factors associated with continuation. Results: Of the 1921 active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial participants for whom consent to extend follow-up was requested, 1695 (88%; mean age: 68.4) consented; 226 (12%; mean age: 69.6) declined. Of those who did not consent versus those who consented, 66% versus 48% were symptomatic at baseline (p < 0.0001), at follow-up 28% versus 20% were smokers (p = 0.009), 85% versus 90% were hypertensive (p = 0.01), and 84% versus 94% were dyslipidemic (p < 0.0001). Additional factors that differed between those who did not consent and those who consented included the mean number of years in the study at time of consent (4.8 years vs 3.7 years (p = <0.0001)) and patients from sites that enrolled <30 patients compared to sites randomizing 30 or more (70% vs 52% (p < 0.0001)). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that those with lesser odds of consenting to the extended follow-up were older (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.96), more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.80), smokers (odds ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.70), were in the study 5+ years versus <3 (odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.34), and at a site that randomized <30 patients (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.63), while patients with dyslipidemia at follow-up had increased odds of consenting (odds ratio: 2.28 (1.47, 3.54)). Conclusion: Symptomatic status, increasing age, randomized at lower volume centers, and longer time in follow-up were associated with reduced odds of consenting to long-term follow-up. Identifying factors associated with reduced willingness to extend participation long-term can suggest targeted strategies to improve retention in future clinical trials.