Detection rates of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and atrial fibrillation by selective screening of patients without cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with significant asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS) and atrial fibrillation (AF) could benefit from specific interventions to prevent heart attack and stroke, but are often clinically 'silent'. We aimed to determine detection rate of ACAS and AF by screening, targeting a population at increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Data on adults who attended voluntary and self-funded commercial screening clinics in the United States or the United Kingdom between 2008 and 2013 were used. The Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk equation was applied to each participants and detection rates of targeted screening for ≥50% ACAS and AF to those at highest risk of CVD was assessed. RESULTS: Among 0.4 million individuals between 40 and 80 years, without CVD, 6191 (1.6%) had ACAS and 1026 (0.3%) had AF. Selective screening of participants with a predicted 10-year CVD risk of ≥20% identified 40% of ACAS cases, a prevalence of 3.7%, leading to a number needed to screen (NNS) of 27, as well as 39% of AF cases, a prevalence of 0.6%, with a NNS of 170. Selective screening of those with a predicted 10-year CVD risk of ≥15% identified 54% of ACAS cases, a prevalence of 3.3%, and an NNS of 31, as well as 51% of AF cases, a prevalence of 0.5%, with an NNS of 195. CONCLUSIONS: Selective screening for ACAS and AF implemented in ASCVD risk assessment greatly reduces the NNS when compared with population-level screening with detection rates of ACAS and AF substantially greater in people at higher predicted CVD risk.

Stroke risk management in carotid atherosclerotic disease: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the ESC Council on Stroke and the ESC Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases.

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (1) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (2) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailores personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management encompassing statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multimorbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for interdisciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making.

Editor's Choice - Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy on 20 Year Incidence of Recorded Dementia: A Randomised Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Stroke and carotid atherosclerosis are associated with dementia. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces stroke risk, although its effect on later dementia is uncertain. Participants in the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST-1), randomly allocated to immediate vs. deferral of CEA (i.e., no intervention unless or until triggered by ipsilateral transient ischaemic attack or stroke), were followed, to study effects on dementia. METHODS: From 1993 to 2003, ACST-1 included 3 120 participants with asymptomatic tight carotid stenosis. All UK and Swedish patients (n = 1 601; 796 immediate vs. 805 deferral) were followed with trial records, national electronic health record linkage, and (UK only) by post and telephone. Cumulative incidence and competing risk analyses were used to measure the effects of risk factors and CEA on dementia risk. Intention to treat analyses yielded hazard ratios (HRs; immediate vs. deferral) of dementia. RESULTS: The median follow up was 19.4 years (interquartile range 16.9 - 21.7). Dementia was recorded in 107 immediate CEA patients and 115 allocated delayed surgery; 1 290 patients died (1 091 [538 vs. 536] before any dementia diagnosis). Dementia incidence rose with age and with female sex (men: 8.3% aged < 70 years at trial entry vs. 15.1% aged ≥ 70; women: 15.1% aged < 70 years at trial entry vs. 22.4% aged ≥ 70 years) and was higher in those with pre-existing cerebral infarction (silent or with prior symptoms; 20.2% vs. 13.6%). Dementia risk was similar in both randomised groups: 6.7% vs. 6.6% at 10 years and 14.3% vs. 15.5% at 20 years, respectively. The dementia HR was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 - 1.28; p = .89), with no heterogeneity in the neutral effect of immediate CEA on dementia related to age, carotid stenosis, blood pressure, diabetes, country of residence, or medical treatments at trial entry (heterogeneity values p > .05). CONCLUSION: CEA was not associated with significant reductions in the long term hazards of dementia, but the CI did not exclude a proportional benefit or hazard of about 25%.

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. METHODS: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). INTERPRETATION: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Editor's Choice - Risk of Stroke before Revascularisation in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Pooled Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommending rapid revascularisation of symptomatic carotid stenosis are largely based on data from clinical trials performed at a time when best medical therapy was potentially less effective than today. The risk of stroke and its predictors among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis awaiting revascularisation in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in medical arms of earlier RCTs was assessed. METHODS: The pooled data of individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in four recent RCTs, and of patients randomised to medical therapy in three earlier RCTs comparing CEA vs. medical therapy, were compared. The primary outcome event was any stroke occurring between randomisation and treatment by CAS or CEA, or within 120 days after randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 4 754 patients from recent trials and 1 227 from earlier trials were included. In recent trials, patients were randomised a median of 18 (IQR 7, 50) days after the qualifying event (QE). Twenty-three suffered a stroke while waiting for revascularisation (cumulative 120 day risk 1.97%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 - 3.17). Shorter time from QE until randomisation increased stroke risk after randomisation (χ2 = 6.58, p = .011). Sixty-one patients had a stroke within 120 days of randomisation in the medical arms of earlier trials (cumulative risk 5%, 95% CI 3.8 - 6.2). Stroke risk was lower in recent than earlier trials when adjusted for time between QE and randomisation, age, severity of QE, and degree of carotid stenosis (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.88, p = .019). CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis enrolled in recent large RCTs had a lower risk of stroke after randomisation than historical controls. The added benefit of carotid revascularisation to modern medical care needs to be revisited in future studies. Until then, adhering to current recommendations for early revascularisation of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis considered to require invasive treatment is advisable.

Development and Internal Validation of a Risk Score to Detect Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Risk scores have been developed to detect individuals at high risk of ACS, thereby enabling targeted screening, but previous external validation showed scope for refinement of prediction by adding additional predictors. The aim of this study was to develop a novel risk score in a large contemporary screened population. METHODS: A prediction model was developed for moderate (≥50%) and severe (≥70%) ACS using data from 596 469 individuals who attended screening clinics. Variables that predicted the presence of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS independently were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping techniques. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and agreement between predicted and observed cases using calibration plots. RESULTS: Predictors of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS were age, sex, current smoking, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, blood pressure, and blood lipids. Models discriminated between participants with and without ACS reliably, with an AUROC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.78) for ≥ 50% ACS and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.82) for ≥ 70% ACS. The number needed to screen in the highest decile of predicted risk to detect one case with ≥50% ACS was 13 and that of ≥70% ACS was 58. Targeted screening of the highest decile identified 41% of cases with ≥50% ACS and 51% with ≥70% ACS. CONCLUSION: The novel risk model predicted the prevalence of ACS reliably and performed better than previous models. Targeted screening among the highest decile of predicted risk identified around 40% of all cases with ≥50% ACS. Initiation or intensification of cardiovascular risk management in detected cases might help to reduce both carotid related ischaemic strokes and myocardial infarctions.

Procedural Risks of Carotid Intervention in 19,000 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. Historical RCTs may not represent contemporary practice and administrative datasets may estimate procedural risks more reliably. We studied procedural risks after carotid intervention in a novel, international administrative data set of 18,997 patients admitted to 28 hospitals across 7 countries. METHODS: Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (n = 16,220) and CAS (n = 2,777) between 2011 and 2015 were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital death within seven days. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients whose length of hospital stay (LOS) exceeded 2 days. We also describe the rate of computerized tomography brain imaging within 2 days of CEA and CAS (proxy for stroke) as procedural strokes were not reliably recorded. RESULTS: In symptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.2% [5/2,118] (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5), and 57.0% [628/1,101] (54.1-60.0) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.1% [21/14,102] (0.1-0.2), and 28.5% [2,864/10,039] (27.7-29.4) had prolonged LOS. In symptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 3.3% [10/307] (1.3-5.2), and 64.3% [144/224] (58.0-70.5) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 0.7% [18/2,470] (0.4-1.1), and 27.5% [601/2,187] (25.6-29.4) had prolonged LOS. After CEA, 8.1% [89/1,101] (6.5-9.7) symptomatic patients and 2.1% [207/10,039] (1.8-2.3) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. After CAS, 7.1% [16/224] (4.0-10.7) symptomatic patients and 3.2% [71/2,187] (2.5-4.0) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Death and LOS after CEA and CAS were higher in symptomatic than asymptomatic patients. Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had particularly increased risk of death. This may be partly explained by case selection, with more comorbid patients preferentially undergoing CAS. While RCTs effectively compare long-term efficacy of CEA versus CAS, administrative datasets can provide reliable estimates of contemporary procedural risks.

Improving Quality of Carotid Interventions: Identifying Hospital-Level Structural Factors that can Improve Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: "Structural factors" relating to organization of hospitals may affect procedural outcomes. This study's aim was to clarify associations between structural factors and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid endarterectomy stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review of studies published in English since 2005 was conducted. Structural factors assessed were as follows: population size served by the vascular department; number of hospital beds; availability of dedicated vascular beds; established clinical pathways; surgical intensive care unit (SICU) size; and specialty of surgeon/interventionalist. Primary outcomes were as follows: mortality; stroke; cardiac complications; length of hospital stay (LOS); and cost. RESULTS: There were 11 studies (n = 95,100 patients) included in this systematic review. For CEA, reduced mortality (P < 0.0001) and stroke rates (P = 0.001) were associated with vascular departments serving >75,000 people. Larger hospitals were associated with lower mortality, stroke rate, and cardiac events, compared with smaller hospitals (less than 130 beds). Provision of vascular beds after CEA was associated with lower mortality (P = 0.0008) and fewer cardiac events (P = 0.03). Adherence to established clinical pathways was associated with reduced stroke and cardiac event rates while reducing CEA costs. Large SICUs (≥7 beds) and dedicated intensivists were associated with decreased mortality after CEA while a large SICU was associated with reduced stroke rate (P = 0.001). Vascular surgeons performing CEA were associated with lower stroke rates and shorter LOS (P = 0.0001) than other specialists. CAS outcomes were not influenced by specialty but costless when performed by vascular surgeons (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Structural factors affect CEA outcomes, but data on CAS were limited. These findings may inform reconfiguration of vascular services, reducing risks and costs associated with carotid interventions.

Developmental, Morphological and Physiological Traits in Plants Exposed for Five Generations to Chronic Low-Level Ionising Radiation.

The effects of ionising radiation (IR) on plants are important for environmental protection but also in agriculture, horticulture, space science, and plant stress biology. Much current understanding of the effects of IR on plants derives from acute high-dose studies but exposure to IR in the environment frequently occurs at chronic low dose rates. Chronic low dose-rate studies have primarily been field based and examined genetic or cytogenetic endpoints. Here we report research that investigated developmental, morphological and physiological effects of IR on Arabidopsis thaliana grown over 7 generations and exposed for five generations to chronic low doses of either 137Cs (at a dose rate of c. 40 µGy/h from ß/γ emissions) or 10 µM CdCl2. In some generations there were significant differences between treatments in the timing of key developmental phases and in leaf area or symmetry but there were, on the basis of the chosen endpoints, no long-term effects of the different treatments. Occasional measurements also detected no effects on root growth, seed germination rates or redox poise but in the generation in which it was measured exposure to IR did decrease DNA-methylation significantly. The results are consistent with the suggestion that chronic exposure to c. 40 µGy/h can have some effects on some traits but that this does not affect function across multiple generations at the population level. This is explained by the redundancy and/or degeneracy between biological levels of organization in plants that produces a relatively loose association between genotype and phenotype. The importance of this explanation to understanding plant responses to stressors such as IR is discussed. We suggest that the data reported here provide increased confidence in the Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs) recommended by the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) by providing data from controlled conditions and helping to contextualize effects reported from field studies. The differing sensitivity of plants to IR is not well understood and further investigation of it would likely improve the use of DCRLs for radiological protection.

Validation of Risk Prediction Models to Detect Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Background Significant asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is associated with higher risk of strokes. While the prevalence of moderate and severe ACS is low in the general population, prediction models may allow identification of individuals at increased risk, thereby enabling targeted screening. We identified established prediction models for ACS and externally validated them in a large screening population. Methods and Results Prediction models for prevalent cases with ≥50% ACS were identified in a systematic review (975 studies reviewed and 6 prediction models identified [3 for moderate and 3 for severe ACS]) and then validated using data from 596 469 individuals who attended commercial vascular screening clinics in the United States and United Kingdom. We assessed discrimination and calibration. In the validation cohort, 11 178 (1.87%) participants had ≥50% ACS and 2033 (0.34%) had ≥70% ACS. The best model included age, sex, smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, vascular and cerebrovascular disease, measured blood pressure, and blood lipids. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.75) for ≥50% ACS and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.79) for ≥70% ACS. The prevalence of ≥50% ACS in the highest decile of risk was 6.51%, and 1.42% for ≥70% ACS. Targeted screening of the 10% highest risk identified 35% of cases with ≥50% ACS and 42% of cases with ≥70% ACS. Conclusions Individuals at high risk of significant ACS can be selected reliably using a prediction model. The best-performing prediction models identified over one third of all cases by targeted screening of individuals in the highest decile of risk only.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates after carotid procedures performed by different specialties.

OBJECTIVE: Different competencies and skills are required and obtained during medical specialization. However, whether these have an impact on procedural outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear. We assessed the reported association between operator specialization and procedural outcomes after CEA or CAS to determine whether CEA and CAS should be performed by specific specialties. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and Embase up to August 21, 2017, for randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more specialties performing CEA or CAS for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The composite primary outcome was procedural stroke or death (ie, occurring within 30 days of the procedure or before discharge). Risk estimates were pooled with a generic inverse variance random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies (26 providing data on CEA, 8 providing data on CAS, and 1 providing data on both CEA and CAS) were included, describing 256,033 CEA and 38,605 CAS procedures. For CEA, decreased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by vascular surgeons was found with pooled unadjusted relative risk (RR) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.86; seven studies) compared with neurosurgeons and RR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.99; six studies) compared with general surgeons. An increased risk of procedural stroke or death for operations performed by neurosurgeons compared with cardiothoracic surgeons was found with a pooled unadjusted RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.46). No studies adjusted for potential confounding, and no significant unadjusted associations were found in other comparisons of operator specialty for the primary outcome. For CAS, no differences in procedural stroke or death were found by operator specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Studies were at high risk of bias mainly because of potential confounding by patient selection for CEA and CAS. Current evidence is insufficient to restrict CEA or CAS to specific specialties.

Sex-Specific Associations of Vascular Risk Factors With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Findings From 1.5 Million Women and 0.8 Million Men in the United States and United Kingdom.

Background Large studies are required for reliable estimates of important risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This could guide targeted AAA screening programs, particularly in subgroups like women who are currently excluded from such programs. Method and Results In a cross-sectional study, 1.5 million women and 0.8 million men without known vascular disease attended commercial screening clinics in the United Kingdom or United States from 2008 to 2013. Measurements of vascular risk factors were related to AAA using logistic regression with correction for regression dilution bias. Screening detected 12 729 new AAA cases (0.6%). Compared with never smoking, current smoking was associated with 15 times the risk of AAA among women (risk ratio 15.0, 95% CI 13.2-17.0) and 7 times among men (7.3, 6.4-8.2). In women aged <75 years, the risk of AAA was nearly 30 times greater in current smokers (26.4, 20.3-34.2). In every age group, the prevalence of AAA in female smokers was greater than in male never-smokers. Positive log-linear associations with AAA for women and men were also observed for usual body mass index, usual systolic blood pressure, height, usual low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and usual triglycerides. Conclusions Log-linear increases in the risks of AAA with traditional vascular risk factors should be considered when evaluating populations that may be at-risk for the development of AAA, and when considering potential treatments. However, at any given age, female smokers are at higher risk of AAA than male never-smokers, and a policy of screening male never-smokers but not higher-risk female smokers is questionable.

Management of carotid stenosis for primary and secondary prevention of stroke: state-of-the-art 2020: a critical review.

Carotid atherosclerotic plaque is encountered frequently in patients at high cardiovascular risk, especially in the elderly. When plaque reaches 50% of carotid lumen, it induces haemodynamically significant carotid stenosis, for which management is currently at a turning point. Improved control of blood pressure, smoking ban campaigns, and the widespread use of statins have reduced the risk of cerebral infarction to <1% per year. However, about 15% of strokes are still secondary to a carotid stenosis, which can potentially be detected by effective imaging techniques. For symptomatic carotid stenosis, current ESC guidelines put a threshold of 70% for formal indication for revascularization. A revascularization should be discussed for symptomatic stenosis over 50% and for asymptomatic carotid stenosis over 60%. This evaluation should be performed by ultrasound as a first-line examination. As a complement, computed tomography angiography (CTA) and/or magnetic resonance angiography are recommended for evaluating the extent and severity of extracranial carotid stenosis. In perspective, new high-risk markers are currently being developed using markers of plaque neovascularization, plaque inflammation, or plaque tissue stiffness. Medical management of patient with carotid stenosis is always warranted and applied to any patient with atheromatous lesions. Best medical therapy is based on cardiovascular risk factors correction, including lifestyle intervention and a pharmacological treatment. It is based on the tri-therapy strategy with antiplatelet, statins, and ACE inhibitors. The indications for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are similar: for symptomatic patients (recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack ) if stenosis >50%; for asymptomatic patients: tight stenosis (>60%) and a perceived high long-term risk of stroke (determined mainly by imaging criteria). Choice of procedure may be influenced by anatomy (high stenosis, difficult CAS or CEA access, incomplete circle of Willis), prior illness or treatment (radiotherapy, other neck surgery), or patient risk (unable to lie flat, poor AHA assessment). In conclusion, neither systematic nor abandoned, the place of carotid revascularization must necessarily be limited to the plaques at highest risk, leaving a large place for optimized medical treatment as first line management. An evaluation of the value of performing endarterectomy on plaques considered to be at high risk is currently underway in the ACTRIS and CREST 2 studies. These studies, along with the next result of ACST-2 trial, will provide us a more precise strategy in case of carotid stenosis.