Citations

Background In previous carotid revascularization trials, stroke as a qualifying symptom has had the greatest importance as a predictor of subsequent outcomes. However, the importance of stroke, TIA, amaurosis fugax, and asymptomatic status has not been analyzed together and comparatively as predictors of outcome for carotid stenosis in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Methods Qualifying events were analyzed for the 1321 symptomatic patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and were modeled as predictors of the primary outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, and death during a 30-day peri-procedural period, or ipsilateral stroke over the follow-up period out to 4 years); the potential predictive value was also tested for the outcome of stroke and death. The model included other potential predictors such as age, sex, and treatment. Results The distribution of pre-randomization qualifying events among symptomatic patients in CREST was 572 strokes, 550 TIA, and 199 amaurosis fugax. Relative to symptomatic patients qualifying for the study with stroke, the risk of subsequent primary endpoint was 15% lower for those qualifying with TIA (HR=0.85; 95% CI = 0.57 - 1.28), 36% lower for those qualifying with amaurosis fugax (HR=0.64; 95% CI = 0.3 - 1.23), and 48% lower for asymptomatic patients (HR=0.52; 95% CI = 0.35 - 0.76). The risk of stroke or death was 11% lower for TIA (HR=0.89; 95% CI = 0.57 - 1.40), 18% lower for amaurosis fugax (HR=0.82; 95% CI = 0.42 - 1.60), and 57% lower for asymptomatic patients (HR=0.43; 95% CI = 0.28 - 0.67) when compared to symptomatic patients qualifying with stroke. The risk for patients with stroke or TIA did not differ significantly, and the risk for asymptomatic patients and patients with amaurosis fugax did not differ significantly. Conclusion Outcomes in patients with carotid disease were predicted in descending order by stroke, TIA, amaurosis fugax, and asymptomatic status in a large RCT. Asymptomatic status and amaurosis fugax have a comparatively benign prognosis. Better understanding of these predictors may help in determining who will benefit from carotid revascularization and how quickly they may benefit given the perioperative risks.

Introduction: Careful selection and timely activation of clinical sites in multicenter clinical trials is critical for successful enrollment, subject safety, and generalizability of results. Methods: In the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2), a multidisciplinary Site Selection Committee evaluated applicants referred via participation in CREST, CREST principal investigators (PIs) and other investigators, StrokeNet and industry partners. Data for consideration included performance metrics in CREST and other carotid trials and a site selection questionnaire containing information on the investigators as well as quantitative data on carotid procedures performed. Any FDA warning letters were reviewed. Results: The Committee met bi-weekly for 36 months (n=64 meetings). Applications from 176 sites between March 2014 and July 2016 were evaluated: 153 were approved, 7 are under Committee review, 5 were approved but withdrew, 5 were placed on a waiting list, and 6 were rejected. One-hundred-four sites have completed the regulatory and training requirements to randomize: 51 (49%) academic medical centers, 31 (30%) private hospital-based centers, 16 (15%) private office-based practices, and 6 (6%) Veterans Administration medical centers. The mean times from application-to- approval was 5.2 weeks (interquartile range, 1.9, 6.2), and from approval-to-randomization status was 46.7 weeks (interquartile range, 35.4, 51.7). Specialties of the 104 site PIs are vascular surgery for 35 (33.7%), cardiology for 30 (28.8%), neurology for 25 (24%), neurosurgery for 8 (7.7%), interventional radiology for 4 (3.8%), and interventional neuroradiology for 2 (1.9%). Conclusions: Careful site selection is time-consuming for prospective sites and for trial leadership. Times from application-to-site-approval were modest (mean = 5.2 weeks), in contrast to the times for completing regulatory and training requirements (mean = 46.7 weeks). However, subject enrollment by teams from a wide range of medical centers led by a multi-disciplinary cohort of PIs will promote the generalizability of trial results.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.