Citations

Background and Purpose— Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis (carotid artery stenting [CAS]) carries a higher risk of procedural stroke or death than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It is unclear whether this extra risk is present both on the day of procedure and within 1 to 30 days thereafter and whether clinical risk factors differ between these periods. Methods— We analyzed the risk of stroke or death occurring on the day of procedure (immediate procedural events) and within 1 to 30 days thereafter (delayed procedural events) in 4597 individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CAS (n=2326) or CEA (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials. Results— Compared with CEA, patients treated with CAS were at greater risk for immediate procedural events (110 versus 42; 4.7% versus 1.9%; odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9–3.8) but not for delayed procedural events (59 versus 46; 2.5% versus 2.0%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9–1.9; interaction P =0.006). In patients treated with CAS, age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed events while qualifying event severity only increased the risk of delayed events. In patients treated with CEA, we found no risk factors for immediate events while a higher level of disability at baseline and known history of hypertension were associated with delayed procedural events. Conclusions— The increased procedural stroke or death risk associated with CAS compared with CEA was caused by an excess of events occurring on the day of procedure. This finding demonstrates the need to enhance the procedural safety of CAS by technical improvements of the procedure and increased operator skill. Higher age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed procedural events in CAS, mechanisms of which remain to be elucidated. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470. URL: https://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.

Rationale For patients with asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis, clinical investigations have focused on preventing cerebral infarction, yet stenosis that reduces cerebral blood flow may independently impair cognition. Whether revascularization of a hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis can alter the course of cognitive decline has never been investigated in the context of a randomized clinical trial. Hypothesis Among patients randomized in the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis (CREST-2) trials, the magnitude of treatment differences (revascularization versus medical management alone) with regard to cognition will differ between those with flow impairment compared to those without flow impairment. Sample size We will enroll approximately 500 patients from CREST-2, of which we anticipate 100 will have hemodynamic impairment. We estimate 93% power to detect a clinically meaningful treatment difference of 0.5 SD. Methods and design We will use perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to stratify by hemodynamic status. Linear regression will compare treatment differences, controlling for baseline cognitive status, age, depression, prior cerebral infarcts, silent infarction, white matter hyperintensity volume, and cerebral microbleeds. Study outcomes The primary outcome is change in cognition at one year. Secondary outcomes include silent infarction, change in white matter hyperintensity volume, number of cerebral microbleeds, and cortical thickness over one year. Discussion If cognitive impairment can be shown to be reversible by revascularization, then we can redefine “symptomatic carotid stenosis” to include cognitive impairment and identify a new population of patients likely to benefit from revascularization. Trial Registration US National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinicaltrials.gov NCT03121209

Background and Purpose— Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods— From a literature review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2184 carotid artery stenting and 2261 carotid endarterectomy patients from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated 7 long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with C statistics and calibration plots. Results— Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after carotid artery stenting and in 84 (3.7%) patients after carotid endarterectomy. Most models for short-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (n=4) or carotid endarterectomy (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (C statistics ranging from 0.49–0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had a slightly better performance with C statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions— Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome seemed to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients.

Background The recommended maximum age and time window for intravenous alteplase treatment of acute ischemic stroke differs between the Europe Union and United States. Aims We compared the effects of alteplase in cohorts defined by the current Europe Union or United States marketing approval labels, and by hypothetical revisions of the labels that would remove the Europe Union upper age limit or extend the United States treatment time window to 4.5 h. Methods We assessed outcomes in an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials of intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) versus control for acute ischemic stroke. Outcomes included: excellent outcome (modified Rankin score 0–1) at 3–6 months, the distribution of modified Rankin score, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality. Results Alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0–1 among 2449/6136 (40%) patients who met the current European Union label and 3491 (57%) patients who met the age-revised label (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.21−1.68 and 1.43, 1.23−1.65, respectively), but not in those outside the age-revised label (1.06, 0.90−1.26). By 90 days, there was no increased mortality in the current and age-revised cohorts (hazard ratios 0.98, 95% CI 0.76−1.25 and 1.01, 0.86–1.19, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the age-revised label (1.19, 0.99–1.42). Similarly, alteplase increased the odds of modified Rankin score 0-1 among 1174/6136 (19%) patients who met the current US approval and 3326 (54%) who met a 4.5-h revised approval (odds ratio 1.55, 1.19−2.01 and 1.37, 1.17−1.59, respectively), but not for those outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.14, 0.97−1.34). By 90 days, no increased mortality remained for the current and 4.5-h revised label cohorts (hazard ratios 0.99, 0.77−1.26 and 1.02, 0.87–1.20, respectively) but mortality remained higher outside the 4.5-h revised approval (1.17, 0.98–1.41). Conclusions An age-revised European Union label or 4.5-h-revised United States label would each increase the number of patients deriving net benefit from alteplase by 90 days after acute ischemic stroke, without excess mortality.