Howard, Virginia J

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 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: 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.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial ( CREST ) is a multicenter randomized trial of stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. This study assesses management of vascular risk factors. Methods and Results Management was provided by the patient's physician, with biannual monitoring results collected by the local site. Therapeutic targets were low‐density lipoprotein, cholesterol <100 mg/dL, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, fasting blood glucose <126 mg/dL, and nonsmoking status. Optimal control was defined as achieving all 4 goals concurrently. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare risk factors at baseline with those observed in scheduled follow‐up visits for up to 48 months. In the analysis cohort of 2210, significant improvements in risk‐factor control were observed across risk factors for all follow‐up visits compared with baseline. At 48 months, achievement of the low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal improved from 59.1% to 73.6% ( P <0.001), achievement of the systolic blood pressure goal improved from 51.6% to 65.1% ( P <0.001), achievement of the glucose goal improved from 74.9% to 80.7% ( P =0.0101), and nonsmoking improved from 74.4% to 80.9% ( P <0.0001). The percentage with optimal risk‐factor control also improved significantly, from 16.7% to 36.2% ( P <0.001), but nearly 2 of 3 study participants did not achieve optimal control during the study. Conclusions Site‐based risk‐factor control improved significantly in the first 6 months and over the long term in CREST but was often suboptimal. Intensive medical management should be considered for future trials of carotid revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration URL: 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 The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) received five years' funding ($21 112 866) from the National Institutes of Health to compare carotid stenting to surgery for stroke prevention in 2500 randomized participants at 40 sites. Aims Herein we evaluate the change in the CREST budget from a fixed to variable-cost model and recommend strategies for the financial management of large-scale clinical trials. Methods Projections of the original grant's fixed-cost model were compared to the actual costs of the revised variable-cost model. The original grant's fixed-cost budget included salaries, fringe benefits, and other direct and indirect costs. For the variable-cost model, the costs were actual payments to the clinical sites and core centers based upon actual trial enrollment. We compared annual direct and indirect costs and per-patient cost for both the fixed and variable models. Differences between clinical site and core center expenditures were also calculated. Results Using a variable-cost budget for clinical sites, funding was extended by no-cost extension from five to eight years. Randomizing sites tripled from 34 to 109. Of the 2500 targeted sample size, 138 (5·5%) were randomized during the first five years and 1387(55·5%) during the no-cost extension. The actual per-patient costs of the variable model were 9% ($13 845) of the projected per-patient costs ($152 992) of the fixed model. Conclusions Performance-based budgets conserve funding, promote compliance, and allow for additional sites at modest additional cost. Costs of large-scale clinical trials can thus be reduced through effective management without compromising scientific integrity.

OBJECTIVE Stroke symptoms among individuals reporting no physician diagnosis of stroke are associated with an increased risk of future stroke. Few studies have assessed whether individuals with diabetes or prediabetes, but no physician diagnosis of stroke, have an increased prevalence of stroke symptoms. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study included 25,696 individuals aged ≥45 years from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who reported no history of stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline (2003–2007). Glucose measurements, medication use, and self-reported physician diagnosis were used to categorize participants into diabetes, prediabetes, or normal glycemia groups. The presence of six stroke symptoms was assessed using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS The prevalence of any stroke symptom was higher among participants with diabetes (22.7%) compared with those with prediabetes (15.6%) or normal glycemia (14.9%). In multivariable models, diabetes was associated with any stroke symptom (prevalence odds ratio [POR] 1.28 [95% CI 1.18–1.39]) and two or more stroke symptoms (1.26 [1.12–1.43]) compared with normal glycemia. In analyses of individual stroke symptoms, diabetes was associated with numbness (1.15 [1.03–1.29]), vision loss (1.52 [1.31–1.76]), half-vision loss (1.54 [1.30–1.84]), and lost ability to understand people (1.34 [1.12–1.61]) after multivariable adjustment. No association was present between prediabetes and stroke symptoms. CONCLUSIONS In this population-based study, almost one in four individuals with diabetes reported stroke symptoms, which suggests that screening for stroke symptoms in diabetes may be warranted.

Background Randomized clinical trials often encounter slow enrollment. Failing to meet sample size requirements has scientific, financial, and ethical implications. Aims We report interventions used to accelerate recruitment in a large multicenter clinical trial that was not meeting prespecified enrollment commitments. Methods The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial began randomization in December 2000. To accelerate enrollment, multiple recruitment tactics were initiated, which included expanding the number of sites, hiring a recruitment director (May 2003), broadening eligibility criteria (April 2005), branding with a study logo, Web site, and recruitment materials, increasing site visits by study leadership, sending e-mails to the site teams after every enrollment, distributing electronic newsletters, and implementing investigator and coordinator conferences. Results From December 2000 through May 2003, 14 sites became active (54 patients randomized), from June 2003 through April 2005, 44 sites were added (404 patients randomized), and from May 2005 through July 2008, 54 sites were added (2044 patients randomized). During these time intervals, the number of patients enrolled per site per year was 1.5, 3.6, and 5.6. For the single years 2004 to 2008, the mean monthly randomization rates per year were 19.7, 38.1, 56.4, 53.0, and 54.7 (annualized), respectively. Enrollment was highest after recruitment tactics were implemented: 677 patients in 2006, 636 in 2007, and 657 in 2008 (annualized). The prespecified sample size of 2502 patients, 47% asymptomatic, was accomplished on July 2008. Conclusions Aggressive recruitment tactics and investment in a full-time recruitment director who can lead implementation may be effective in accelerating recruitment in multicenter trials.

Background and Purpose— We compared the associations of self-reported atrial fibrillation (AF) and ECG-detected AF with incident stroke in the Risk of Stroke in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. Methods— In this analysis, 27 109 participants aged 45 years or older without previous stroke were included. Stroke cases were identified and adjudicated during an average of 4.4 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) of self-reported AF, ECG-detected AF, and AF detected by either method with incident stroke. We also examined the predictive ability of the Framingham Stroke Risk Score (FSRS) when the component AF was defined by different methods. Results— After adjustment for components of the FSRS, self-reported AF, ECG-detected AF, and AF by either method were predictive of incident stroke (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05–1.88; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.10–3.27; HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16–2.01, respectively). When self-report, ECG, or either method, separately, were considered as the method of AF ascertainment in the FSRS, the HR per 1% increase in the FSRS were identical across AF ascertainment methods (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03–1.04; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.04–1.05; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03–1.04; respectively). Conclusions— Self-reported AF is a strong predictor of stroke that can be used interchangeably or in combination with ECG-detected AF in stroke risk prediction models.

Background and Purpose— Warfarin reduces stroke risk by approximately 60% in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Differences in awareness and treatment of AF may contribute to racial and geographic disparities in stroke mortality. The objective was to examine predictors of awareness of the diagnosis of AF and treatment with warfarin. Methods— RE asons for G eographic a nd R acial D ifferences in S troke (REGARDS) is a national, population-based, longitudinal study of 30 239 blacks and whites ≥45 years old with oversampling from blacks and the southeastern stroke belt states. Participants were enrolled January 2003 to October 2007. Data were collected using telephone interview, in-home evaluation, and self-administered questionnaires. The main variable of awareness of AF was defined by a positive answer to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you had atrial fibrillation?” and whether there was evidence of treatment on the basis of an in-home medications inventory. Results— From baseline electrocardiograms, 432 individuals (88 black and 344 white) had AF. Of these, 88% (360 of 409) had at least 1 additional CHADS 2 stroke risk factor and 60% (258 of 432) were aware of their AF. The odds of blacks being aware of their AF were one third that of whites (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52). Among those aware, the odds of blacks being treated with warfarin were only one fourth as great as whites (OR=0.28; 0.13 to 0.60). Conclusion— Blacks were less likely than whites to be aware of having AF or to be treated with warfarin. Potential reasons for the racial disparity in warfarin treatment warrant further investigation.