Citations

Abstract Background The multicenter prospective CREST‐2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. Objective To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. Methods Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access‐related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity‐score matched logistic regression. Results The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access‐related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42). Conclusion We found no significant differences in rates of major access‐related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

Introduction: In order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of neurovascular clinical research studies, increase data quality, facilitate data sharing, help educate new clinical investigators and reduce study start-up time, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) convened a Working Group (WG) that developed Version 1.0 (published 2010) Stroke-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs). Since their initial publication, intervening advances in science and initial experience with the CDEs identified a need to update them and refine guidance on their deployment. Hypothesis/Objective: The NINDS has updated guidance on uniform data structures for use in cerebrovascular research in epidemiology, clinical trials and imaging studies in order to advance the prevention, acute treatment and recovery from cerebrovascular disease. Methods: The NINDS convened experts in research and data element design drawing strongly from investigators in the NIH StrokeNet and other NINDS clinical research projects. Results: Stroke CDE leadership developed a revised process for classifying Stroke CDEs among the four hierarchical categories of Core, Supplemental - Highly Recommended, Supplemental and Exploratory. Due to the heterogeneity of stroke conditions and study types, the classification of Supplemental - Highly Recommended was used for study type (clinical trial or observational), disease type (e.g., ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage) and disease phase (primary prevention, acute, recovery and secondary prevention). Conclusion: The second iteration of NINDS CDE recommendations for neurovascular disease is an important step towards more efficient study start-up time and improved data sharing. The updated CDEs were released on the NINDS CDE website in May 2015. The information at this meeting will include examples of how the Stroke CDEs may be used by a research study, an explanation of the new CDE classifications, and examples of navigating and selecting CDEs from the NINDS CDE website. Support: This project was funded by HHSN271201200034C.

Introduction: Inclusion of asymptomatic patients in randomized trials comparing revascularization to medical therapy has been questioned if they have been previously symptomatic. Hypothesis: Duration of asymptomatic status is not associated with better outcomes following endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS). Methods: Patients in CREST were classified as asymptomatic if they had not had a TIA or stroke ipsilateral to the study artery within 6 months prior to randomization. We compared those patients who had always been asymptomatic (AA) to those who had been previously symptomatic (PS) ≥ 6 months prior to randomization. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age and treatment were used to assess risk of 30-day stroke or death (S+D), and risk of any 30-day S+D plus ipsilateral stroke at 4 years by asymptomatic status Results: Among the 1056 asymptomatic patients who received the assigned procedure within 30 days of randomization, 977 (93%) were AA and 79 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in the 30-day and 4 year outcomes (Table). Conclusion: In CREST, 93% of the asymptomatic patients were always asymptomatic. Similar outcomes for the previously symptomatic patients (7%) supports the inclusion of such patients in randomized trials comparing CEA and CAS to medical treatment.

Introduction: Low rates of enrollment into stroke clinical trials are an ongoing challenge for the stroke research community. We sought to retrospectively describe the association between medical eligibility and recruitment rates for two acute clinical trials. Methods: Within a population of 1.3 million, we screened local hospital admissions in 2010 using ICD-9 discharge codes 430-436, and performed chart review. Within the region are 15 adult acute care hospitals, all of which are covered by the same stroke team for clinical care and trial enrollment. Medical eligibility, the number of eligible patients/total number of patients, was calculated for the IMS-III trial and the CLEAR-ER trials using their inclusion/exclusion criteria. The number of patients enrolled in the trial per month of open enrollment was determined for each hospital. Statistical analysis included paired signed rank test and regression. Results: In 2010, 2035 ischemic strokes (IS) were hospitalized in the region. Regional medical eligibility was 1.7% for IMS III and 4.5% for CLEARER (p=0.001), overall regional hospital enrollment/month was 0.81 for IMS III and 1.84 for CLEAR-ER (p=0.001). Eligibility rates per hospital ranged from 0-9.5%, and recruitment rates per hospital/mo ranged from 0-0.38. Hospital-level eligibility and recruitment rates were significantly correlated (see figure for both trials combined, adjusted r2 = 0.57, p<0.001.) Discussion: Within our population, medical eligibility explained 57% of the variability in hospital-level enrollment rates for two acute IS trials. The use of population-based epidemiology in trial planning may identify optimal trial enrollment criteria, which must be weighed against proper patient selection. Many other factors impact enrollment rates, such as competing trials, which were not considered here. Further evaluation of our population-based eligibility rates in sites outside our region and with additional clinical trials is needed.

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the leading procedure for carotid stenosis, yet national data on trends in rates and outcomes are limited. We determined CEA rates among Medicare beneficiaries and evaluated mortality and readmission over 8 years. Methods: We used Medicare fee-for-service data to identify beneficiaries aged ≥65y who had their first CEA (ICD-9 38.12) from 2003-2010 and calculated annual rates per 100,000 person-years (PY). We fit mixed models to assess trends in patient-level outcomes, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and symptomatic status. We also evaluated hospital-level trends by calculating risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates. A spatial mixed model adjusted for age, sex, and race was fit to calculate county-specific risk-standardized CEA rates in 2003-2004. Results: There were 505,966 unique CEA hospitalizations. The annual number of CEA discharges decreased from 81,604 in 2003 to 47,597 in 2010 (42% decrease), though the patient characteristics remained largely similar. The national CEA rate was 283 per 100,000 PY in 2003, and there was considerable geographic variability (Figure A). This rate decreased each year to a low of 172 per 100,000 PY in 2010. The rate of stroke or death within 30 days decreased from 3.2 to 2.7%, with a significant adjusted annual reduction of 3% (Figure B). Annual reductions in other short- and long-term outcomes were similar, ranging from 2-3%. The median hospital-level 30-day RSMR decreased over time from 0.99 to 0.57%, while the variation between hospitals increased (interquartile range of 0.7-1.67 percentage points). The 30-day RSRR decreased from 11.0 to 10.1%, but there was more homogeneity across hospitals and years. Conclusions: CEA use among Medicare patients decreased dramatically from 2003-2010, while mortality and readmission outcomes improved. The relative importance of biological and sociological mechanisms for these trends merits further study.

Background: Carotid revascularization was addressed by NASCET and ACAS. NASCET showed a 2-year stroke and death of 32.3% in medical patients and a 15.8% incidence in surgical patients (16.5% absolute/51% relative reduction). Similarly, ACAS revealed an 11% 5-year risk in medical patients and 5.1% in surgical patients (5.9% absolute reduction/53% relative reduction). Absolute risk (rather than relative risk) reduction is of prime interest to the patient. However, in these studies, treatment efficacy was assessed on a relative basis, and these procedures were equally efficacious (51% vs. 53% relative risk). The higher event rates in the symptomatic patients resulted in a larger absolute risk reduction in NASCET (16.5% vs. 5.9%). CREST is the only carotid revascularization study to include both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS), and we looked at absolute and relative risks associated with both procedures. Methods: Treatment differences in CREST by symptomatic status were reviewed and interaction terms analyzed. Results: Symptomatic periprocedural stroke and death rates were 6% for CAS vs. 3.2% for CEA (2.8% absolute/47% relative difference/p = 0.02), and were 2.5% for CAS vs. 1.4% for CEA (1.2% absolute/53% relative difference/p = 0.15) for asymptomatic. While treatment differences in periprocedural rates were significant for symptomatic but not asymptomatic patients, there was no difference in treatment efficacy as determined by relative risk reduction. Even the most prominent interaction terms were clearly not significant, p > 0.38. Discussion: There is no evidence of a CAS-CEA difference in treatment efficacy by symptomatic status in CREST. There are significant findings in symptomatic patients. This is likely a product of an increased background rate of events in this strata. While symptomatic status can identify a subgroup with an increased background rate, other factors (e.g. age or stenosis) could identify subgroups of asymptomatic patients with high event rates and large absolute treatment differences.

Background There is evidence that center-volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). We sought to evaluate the effect of center-volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods In CREST, the primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. Certification was achieved by 477 surgeons performing more than 12 procedures per year with complication rates less than 3% for asymptomatic patients and less than 5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous training and credentialing process that included a lead-in registry. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 composed of 82 sites each enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 with 24 sites enrolling 25-51 patients and Group 3 with 10 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite endpoint and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results The safety of CAS and CEA did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary endpoint (p=0.54) or by stroke and death (p=0.87). Conclusion Complication rates (as indicated by the primary endpoint and its components) were low in CREST and were not associated with center-volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures; because of ongoing entry of new interventionalists and surgeons into CREST, operator experience independent of center-volume cannot be addressed.

Background Carotid artery stent (CAS) placement may be used as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in selected patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Perhaps because stroke is an uncommon event after CAS, the angiographic predictors of stroke have been incompletely described. Methods A total of 1070 catheter-based angiograms were centrally reviewed in patients undergoing CAS enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Of these patients, 43 (4%) experienced periprocedural stroke. Angiograms were reviewed using qualitative and quantitative methodology before and after CAS. Reviews were done blinded to patient outcomes and strokes were adjudicated by a central committee blinded to results of angiography. The view showing the greatest carotid stenosis severity was selected. Extreme tortuosity was defined as 2 severe bends >90 degrees (maximum angulation/20 mm segment) beyond the target lesion, sequential lesions as lesions separated by ≥10 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer as a discrete area of contrast extension beyond the normal arterial lumen with a narrow inlet into the ulceration. Results The internal carotid artery reference diameter was 4.2 ± 0.8 mm, the minimal lumen diameter was 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, and the baseline % diameter stenosis was 74.1 ± 11.6%. There were no differences in vessel size or severity of the stenosis in patients with and without stroke. Morphologic predictors significantly related to the risk of subsequent stroke are listed in the Table . Calcification, lesion eccentricity, baseline flow, and distance from the bifurcation were not predictive of periprocedural stroke (p > 0.05). Conclusion In CREST, four angiographic variables were found to increase risk for stroke during and within 30 days after CAS: severe distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, lesion length > 20 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer. Angiographic characteristics beyond percent stenosis may help in patient selection in terms of best revascularization option.

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.

Objectives The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) showed no difference in the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS). We compared restenosis or occlusion, and repeat revascularization, between CAS and CEA over 2 years of follow-up. Methods Restenosis, occlusion, and repeat revascularization were assessed at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months post-randomization. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70% diameter reduction) was defined by a peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥300 cm/second on standardized duplex ultrasonography (DUS), occlusion by an absence of flow within the target artery on DUS, and repeat revascularization by any additional procedure (CEA, angioplasty or CAS) performed on the index artery. Studies were performed in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted in the CREST Ultrasound Core Lab. Patients included in this report were those who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization and had an ultrasound reviewed at the Core Lab (n=2191). Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Results In the analytic cohort, 1086 patients received CAS and 1105 received CEA. Over 2 years 113 patients developed restenosis, 56 (rate 5.8%) in the CAS group and 57 (rate 5.8%) in the CEA group; and 8 developed an occlusion, 3 (rate 0.3 %) in the CAS group and 5 (rate 0.5%) in the CEA group. The combined restenosis-occlusion rate was 6.0% (n=58) for CAS and 6.3% (n=62) for CEA (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.63-1.29, p=0.58). Forty-three patients of the 2191 underwent repeat revascularization (20 CAS, 23 CEA, p=0.69) of which 28 had restenosis by our criteria and so were included ( Figure ). Stroke occurred in 13 (4 CAS; 9 CEA) of the 120 patients with restenosis or occlusion; 1 of the 4 CAS strokes occurred after restenosis was detected, and 5 of 9 CEA strokes occurred after restenosis was detected. Conclusions This analysis of carotid restenosis is the largest reported to date from any randomized clinical trial. Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and similar up to 2 years following CAS or CEA among 2191 patients. The rates of revascularization likewise did not differ between CAS and CEA. Follow-up out to 10 years is ongoing. Figure. Kaplan-Meier curves of restenosis and occlusion over 2 years.