An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear. METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response. RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Treatment of carotid stenosis in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian, standard risk patients with stenting versus endarterectomy trials.

OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA. METHODS: Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97). CONCLUSIONS: In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA.

Factors influencing credentialing of interventionists in the CREST-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2) is a pair of randomized trials assessing the relative efficacy of carotid revascularization in the setting of intensive medical management (IMM) in patients with asymptomatic high-grade atherosclerotic stenosis. One of the trials assesses IMM with or without carotid artery stenting (CAS). Given the low risk of stroke in nonrevascularized patients receiving IMM, it is essential that there be low periprocedural risk of stroke for CAS if it is to show incremental benefit. Thus, credentialing of interventionists to ensure excellence is vital. This analysis describes the protocol-driven approach to credentialing of CAS interventionists for CREST-2 and its outcomes. METHODS: To be eligible to perform stenting in CREST-2, interventionists needed to be credentialed on the basis of a detailed Interventional Management Committee (IMC) review of data from their last 25 consecutive cases during the past 24 months along with self-reported lifetime experience case numbers. When necessary, additional prospective cases performed in a companion registry were requested after webinar training. Here we review the IMC experience from the first formal meeting on March 21, 2014 through October 14, 2017. RESULTS: The IMC had 102 meetings, and 8311 cases submitted by 334 interventionists were evaluated. Most were either cardiologists or vascular surgeons, although no single specialty made up the majority of applicants. The median total experience was 130 cases (interquartile range [IQR], 75-266; range, 25-2500). Only 9% (30/334) of interventionists were approved at initial review; approval increased to 46% (153/334) after submission of new cases with added training and re-review. The median self-reported lifetime case experience for those approved was 211.5 (IQR, 100-350), and the median number of cases submitted for review was 30 (IQR, 27-35). The number of CAS procedures performed per month (case rate) was the only factor associated with approval during the initial cycle of review (P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: Identification of interventionists who were deemed sufficiently skilled for CREST-2 has required substantial oversight and a controlled system to judge current skill level that controls for specialty-based practice variability, procedural experience, and periprocedural outcomes. High-volume interventionists, particularly those with more recent experience, were more likely to be approved to participate in CREST-2. Primary approval was not affected by operator specialty.

Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease.

Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis 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]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.

Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial, we found no significant difference between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group with respect to the primary composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any subsequent ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up. We now extend the results to 10 years. METHODS: Among patients with carotid-artery stenosis who had been randomly assigned to stenting or endarterectomy, we evaluated outcomes every 6 months for up to 10 years at 117 centers. In addition to assessing the primary composite end point, we assessed the primary end point for the long-term extension study, which was ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period. RESULTS: Among 2502 patients, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite end point between the stenting group (11.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1 to 14.8) and the endarterectomy group (9.9%; 95% CI, 7.9 to 12.2) over 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44). With respect to the primary long-term end point, postprocedural ipsilateral stroke over the 10-year follow-up occurred in 6.9% (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.7) of the patients in the stenting group and in 5.6% (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.6) of those in the endarterectomy group; the rates did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.52). No significant between-group differences with respect to either end point were detected when symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients were analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years of follow-up, we did not find a significant difference between patients who underwent stenting and those who underwent endarterectomy with respect to the risk of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, or death and subsequent ipsilateral stroke. The rate of postprocedural ipsilateral stroke also did not differ between groups. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott Vascular Solutions; CREST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.).

Duration of asymptomatic status and outcomes following carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most carotid revascularization studies define asymptomatic as symptom-free for more than 180 days; however, it is unknown if intervention carries similar risk among those currently asymptomatic but with previous symptoms (PS) vs those who were always asymptomatic (AA). METHODS: We compared the periprocedural and 4-year risks of PS vs AA patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS)/angioplasty. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and treatment were used to assess the risk of periprocedural stroke and/or death (S+D; any S+D during periprocedural period), stroke and death at 4 years (any S+D within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years) and the primary end point at 4 years (any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years). Analysis was performed pooling the CEA-treated and CAS-treated patients, and separately for each treatment. RESULTS: Of 1181 asymptomatic patients randomized in CREST, 1104 (93%) were AA and 77 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in risk when comparing the AA and PS cohorts in the pooled CAS+CEA population for periprocedural S+D (2.0% vs 1.3%), S+D at 4 years (3.6% vs 3.2%), or the primary end point (5.2% vs 5.8%). There were also no differences among those assigned to CEA (periprocedural S+D, 1.5% vs 0%; S+D at 4 years, 2.7% vs 0%; or primary end point, 5.1% vs 2.4%) or CAS (periprocedural S+D, 2.5% vs 2.8%; S+D at 4 years, 4.4% vs 6.9%; or primary end point, 5.3% vs 9.8%) when analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: In CREST, only a small minority of asymptomatic patients had previous ipsilateral symptoms. The outcomes of periprocedural S+D, periprocedural S+D, and ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years, and the primary end point did not differ for AA patients compared with PS patients.

Influence of multiple stents on periprocedural stroke after carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST).

BACKGROUND: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST), carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion length and nature of the lesions were important factors that predicted the observed difference in stroke rates between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Additional patient-related factors influencing CAS outcomes in CREST included age and symptomatic status. The importance of the operator's proficiency and its influence on periprocedural complications have not been well defined. We evaluated data from CREST to determine the impact of use of multiple stents, which we speculate may be related to technical proficiency. METHODS: CREST includes CAS performed for symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis and asymptomatic ≥70% stenosis. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were enrolled in the trial and in the lead-in registry. Data from patients enrolled in the CREST registry and randomized trial from 2000 to 2008 were reviewed for patient- and lesion-related characteristics along with number of stents deployed. The occurrence of 30-day stroke and demographic and clinical features were recorded. Odds ratios for 30-day stroke associated with the use of multiple stents were calculated in univariate analysis and on multivariable analysis after adjustment for demographics (age, sex, symptomatic status), lesion characteristics (length, ulceration, eccentric, percentage stenosis), and risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking). RESULTS: The registry (n = 1531) and trial (n = 1121) enrolled 2652 patients undergoing CAS. The mean age was 69 years; 36% were women, and 38% were symptomatic. The mean diameter stenosis was 78%, and the mean lesion length was 18 mm (±standard deviation, 8 mm). Risk factors included hypertension (85%), diabetes (32%), dyslipidemia (84%), and smoking (23%). All patients received Acculink stents (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Ill) that were 20, 30, or 40 mm in length (straight or tapered) and Accunet (Abbot Vascular) embolic protection when possible. Most patients received one stent (n = 2545), whereas 98 patients received two stents and 9 patients received three stents (P < .001) to treat the lesion. Patients receiving more than one stent were older (P = .01) but did not differ in other demographic or risk factors. Strokes occurred in 118 (4.5%) of all CAS procedures, in 102 (4%) with the use of one stent, and in 16 (15%) with the use of two or three stents. After adjustment for demographics, lesion characteristics, and risk factors, the use of more than one stent resulted in 2.90 odds (95% confidence interval, 1.49-5.64) for a stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Although we know that lesion characteristics (length, ulceration) play an important role in CAS outcomes, in this early experience with carotid stenting, a significant and independent relationship existed between the number of stents used and procedural risk of CAS. We postulate that this was an indicator of the operator's inexperience with the procedure.

Interventional cardiologists: Beware and be aware: An updated report of radiation-induced cutaneous cancers.

We describe 5 years of follow-up of a previously reported case of disabling ionizing radiation (IR)-related cutaneous cancer in a high-volume interventional cardiologist. This case illustrates the cycle of exposure, disease, remission, and re-exposure that demonstrates the cause-and-effect relationship between radiation exposure and cutaneous cancer. Prior cautions for working in environments with radiation exposure emphasized strict adherence to the ALARA principle and called for improved radiation protection equipment. New studies stress that radiation exposure should be as near to zero as possible and place a call for research and technologies that mitigate the use of IR for all interventionists.

Factors Associated With Time to Site Activation, Randomization, and Enrollment Performance in a Stroke Prevention Trial.

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.

Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Results From 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. METHODS: We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0-7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. RESULTS: Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 (P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Association between age and risk of stroke or death from carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting: a meta-analysis of pooled patient data from four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Age was reported to be an effect-modifier in four randomised controlled trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with better CEA outcomes than CAS outcomes noted in the more elderly patients. We aimed to describe the association of age with treatment differences in symptomatic patients and provide age-specific estimates of the risk of stroke and death within narrow (5 year) age groups. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we analysed individual patient-level data from four randomised controlled trials within the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration (CSTC) involving patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We included only trials that randomly assigned patients to CAS or CEA and only patients with symptomatic stenosis. We assessed rates of stroke or death in 5-year age groups in the periprocedural period (between randomisation and 120 days) and ipsilateral stroke during long-term follow-up for patients assigned to CAS or CEA. We also assessed differences between CAS and CEA. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. FINDINGS: Collectively, 4754 patients were randomly assigned to either CEA or CAS treatment in the four studies. 433 events occurred over a median follow-up of 2·7 years. For patients assigned to CAS, the periprocedural hazard ratio (HR) for stroke and death in patients aged 65-69 years compared with patients younger than 60 years was 2·16 (95% CI 1·13-4·13), with HRs of roughly 4·0 for patients aged 70 years or older. We noted no evidence of an increased periprocedural risk by age group in the CEA group (p=0·34). These changes underpinned a CAS-versus CEA periprocedural HR of 1·61 (95% CI 0·90-2·88) for patients aged 65-69 years and an HR of 2·09 (1·32-3·32) for patients aged 70-74 years. Age was not associated with the postprocedural stroke risk either within treatment group (p≥0·09 for CAS and 0·83 for CEA), or between treatment groups (p=0·84). INTERPRETATION: In these RCTs, CEA was clearly superior to CAS in patients aged 70-74 years and older. The difference in older patients was almost wholly attributable to increasing periprocedural stroke risk in patients treated with CAS. Age had little effect on CEA periprocedural risk or on postprocedural risk after either procedure. FUNDING: None.

Carotid angiographic characteristics in the CREST trial were major contributors to periprocedural stroke and death differences between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated a higher periprocedural stroke and death (S+D) rate among patients randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) than to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Herein, we seek factors that affect the CAS-CEA treatment differences and potentially to identify a subgroup of patients for whom CAS and CEA have equivalent periprocedural S+D risk. METHODS: Patient and arterial characteristics were assessed as effect modifiers of the CAS-CEA treatment difference in 2502 patients by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Lesion length and lesions that were contiguous or were sequential and noncontiguous extending remote from the bulb were identified as influencing the CAS-to-CEA S+D treatment difference. For those with longer lesion length (≥12.85 mm), the risk of CAS was higher than that of CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-9.78). Among patients with sequential or remote lesions extending beyond the bulb, the risk for S+D was higher for CAS relative to CEA (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 1.20-67.8). For the 37% of patients with lesions that were both short and contiguous, the odds of S+D in those treated with CAS was nonsignificantly 28% lower than for CEA (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.21-2.46). CONCLUSIONS: The higher S+D risk for those treated with CAS appears to be largely isolated to those with longer lesion length and/or those with sequential and remote lesions. In the absence of those lesion characteristics, CAS appears to be as safe as CEA with regard to periprocedural risk of S+D.

Mediators of the Age Effect in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is higher combined risk of stroke or death (S+D) at older ages with carotid stenting. We assess whether this can be attributed to patient or arterial characteristics that are in the pathway between older age and higher risk. METHODS: Mediation analysis of selected patient (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia) and arterial characteristics assessed at the clinical sites and the core laboratory (plaque length, eccentric plaque, ulcerated plaque, percent stenosis, peak systolic velocity, and location) was performed in 1123 carotid artery stenting-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). We assessed the association of age with these characteristics, the association of these characteristics with stroke risk, and the amount of mediation of the association of age on the combined risk of periprocedural S+D with adjustment for these factors. RESULTS: Only plaque length as measured at the sites increased with age, was associated with increased S+D risk and significantly mediated the association of age on S+D risk. However, adjustment for plaque length attenuated the increased risk per 10 years of age from 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.37) to 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.29), accounting for only 8% of the increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Plaque length seems to be in the pathway between older age and higher risk of S+D among carotid artery stenting-treated patients, but it mediated only 8% of the age effect excess risk of carotid artery stenting in CREST. Other factors and mechanisms underlying the age effect need to be identified as plaque length will not identify elderly patients for whom stenting is safe relative to endarterectomy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Agreement between site-reported and ultrasound core laboratory results for duplex ultrasound velocity measurements in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) had duplex ultrasound (DU) scans prior to treatment and during follow-up to document the severity of carotid disease and the anatomic outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). An ultrasound core laboratory (UCL) reviewed DU data from the clinical sites. This analysis was done to determine the agreement between site-reported and UCL-verified DU velocity measurements. METHODS: Clinical site DU worksheets, B-mode images, and Doppler velocity waveforms for the treated carotid arteries were reviewed at the UCL. The highest internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity (PSV) and associated Doppler angle were verified. If the angle was misaligned by >3 degrees, it was remeasured at the UCL and the PSV was recalculated. Agreement for PSV was defined as site-reported PSV within ± 5% of UCL-verified PSV. Transcription errors were corrected by the UCL but were not considered as disagreements. Follow-up analysis was limited to patients who received the assigned treatment. RESULTS: The UCL reviewed 1702 prior-to-treatment and 1743 12-month follow-up DU scans (873 CEA, 870 CAS) from 111 clinical sites. Site-reported and UCL-verified PSV agreed in 1124 (66%) of the prior-to-treatment scans and 1200 (69%) of the follow-up scans. In those cases with a disagreement, Doppler angle accounted for disagreement in 339 (59%) of the prior-to-treatment scans and 277 (51%) of the follow-up scans. Based on a threshold PSV for ≥ 70% stenosis of ≥ 230 cm/s on the prior-to-treatment scans and ≥ 300 cm/s on the follow-up scans, UCL review resulted in reclassification of stenosis severity in 75 (4.4%) of the prior-to-treatment scans and 13 (0.75%) of the follow-up scans. There is evidence that the proportion of reclassification at follow-up was greater for CAS (10 scans; 1.2%) than for CEA (three scans; 0.34%) (P = .057). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate of agreement between site-reported and UCL-verified DU results in CREST, and UCL review was associated with a low rate of stenosis reclassification. However, angle alignment errors were quite common and prompted recalculation of velocity in 20% of prior-to-treatment scans and 18% of follow-up scans. The use of a UCL provides a uniform process for DU interpretation and can identify sources of error and suggest technical improvements for future studies.

Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. RESULTS: For 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)

Nine-month results of the REFORM study: a prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical study of the safety and effectiveness of the Formula™ balloon-expandable stent for treatment of renal artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 9-month safety and effectiveness outcomes of the Formula™ balloon-expandable renal stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS) following suboptimal angioplasty. BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic RAS can cause hypertension and ischemic nephropathy. When clinically indicated, an interventional approach with renal angioplasty and stent implantation is the preferred method for revascularization of atherosclerotic renal artery stenoses. METHODS: The REFORM study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study of stent implantation following suboptimal PTRA using the Formula stent. One hundred patients with atherosclerotic ostial renal artery lesions =18 mm in length with a >50% residual stenosis following PTA were enrolled. The primary endpoint was 9-month primary patency. RESULTS: The 9-month primary patency rate was 91.7%. The 9-month major adverse event rate was 2.2%. Mean systolic blood pressure was significantly decreased at follow-up (from 150 ± 21 mm Hg at baseline to 141 ± 21 mm Hg at 9 months; P = 0.003). Mean serum creatinine (SCr) level and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were not significantly different at 9 months. A clinically meaningful improvement in renal function (i.e., =25% increase in eGFR or =0.5 mg/dl decrease in SCr) was observed in 9% of patients at 1 month and 12% of patients at 9 months. A clinically meaningful decline in renal function (i.e., =25% decrease in eGFR or =0.5 mg/dl increase in SCr) was observed in only 3% of patients at 1 month and 7% of patients at 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: The Formula stent was safe and effective in treating atherosclerotic RAS following suboptimal angioplasty.

Adapting to Evolving Technologies and Treatment Guidelines in a Procedural Trial: A Qualitative Review of the CREST-2 Experience.

Multiple challenges confront procedural trials, including slow enrollment, lack of equipoise among patients and physicians, and failure to achieve adequate masking. Nonetheless, randomized clinical trials provide the best evidence of efficacy. The evolution of technology, techniques, and standards of care during the conduct of procedural trials challenges external validity. In this study, we review how a multicenter trial of revascularization of asymptomatic carotid arteries for stroke prevention has managed changes in treating carotid stenosis and medical management of atherothrombotic disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02089217.

Myocardial infarction after carotid stenting and endarterectomy: results from the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial.

BACKGROUND: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) found a higher risk of stroke after carotid artery stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac biomarkers and ECGs were performed before and 6 to 8 hours after either procedure and if there was clinical evidence of ischemia. In CREST, MI was defined as biomarker elevation plus either chest pain or ECG evidence of ischemia. An additional category of biomarker elevation with neither chest pain nor ECG abnormality was prespecified (biomarker+ only). Crude mortality and risk-adjusted mortality for MI and biomarker+ only were assessed during follow-up. Among 2502 patients, 14 MIs occurred in carotid artery stenting and 28 MIs in carotid endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.94; P=0.032) with a median biomarker ratio of 40 times the upper limit of normal. An additional 8 carotid artery stenting and 12 carotid endarterectomy patients had biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 1.61; P=0.36), and their median biomarker ratio was 14 times the upper limit of normal. Compared with patients without biomarker elevation, mortality was higher over 4 years for those with MI (hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67 to 6.92) or biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 8.68). After adjustment for baseline risk factors, both MI and biomarker+ only remained independently associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients randomized to carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting, both MI and biomarker+ only were more common with carotid endarterectomy. Although the levels of biomarker elevation were modest, both events were independently associated with increased future mortality and remain an important consideration in choosing the mode of carotid revascularization or medical therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Carotid artery stenting: a clinical update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to prevent stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative technique. Data regarding comparative effectiveness of CAS and CEA are now available and merit review. RECENT FINDINGS: Four large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CAS and CEA have shown a higher rate of stroke in symptomatic patients. The largest and most recent trial reported a lower occurrence of myocardial infarction (MI) following CAS and showed overall comparability of CAS to CEA for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Despite methodological differences, these RCTs are consistent in finding an interaction of patient age with outcomes. In younger patients, CAS appears equivalent or superior to CEA if considering the sum of death, stroke, and MI. In elderly patients, CEA appears to have a lower complication rate. For asymptomatic patients, reduction in event rates with current medical therapy may render previous trial results invalid. SUMMARY: CAS is an alternative to CEA in patients requiring carotid intervention. Comparison of both CAS and CEA with contemporary medical management will also be required before recommendations can be made regarding the optimal treatment of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenoses.