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.

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.

The utility of routine autologous bone-flap swab cultures in predicting post-cranioplasty infection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of autologous bone-flap swab cultures performed at the time of cranioplasty in predicting postcranioplasty surgical site infection (SSI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing craniectomy (with bone-flap storage in tissue bank), followed by delayed autologous bone-flap replacement cranioplasty between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2020. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic hospital. METHODS: We framed the bone-flap swab culture taken at the time of cranioplasty as a diagnostic test for predicting postcranioplasty SSI. We calculated, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Among 282 unique eligible cases, 16 (5.6%) developed SSI after cranioplasty. A high percentage of bone-flap swab cultures were positive at the time of craniectomy (66.7%) and cranioplasty (59.5%). Most organisms from bone-flap swab cultures were Cutibacterium acnes or coagulase-negative staphylococci (76%-85%), and most SSI pathogens were methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (38%). Bone-flap swab culture had poor sensitivity (0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.31), specificity (0.4; 95% CI, 0.34-0.45), and positive likelihood ratio (0.12) for predicting postcranioplasty SSI. CONCLUSION: Overall, autologous bone-flap swab cultures performed at the time of cranioplasty have poor utility in predicting postcranioplasty SSI. Eliminating this low-value practice would result in significant workload reductions and associated healthcare costs.

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.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

Joint Associations Between Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference With Atrial Fibrillation in Men and Women.

Background Associations between adiposity and atrial fibrillation (AF) might differ between sexes. We aimed to determine precise estimates of the risk of AF by body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) in men and women. Methods and Results Between 2008 and 2013, over 3.2 million adults attended commercial screening clinics. Participants completed health questionnaires and underwent physical examination along with cardiovascular investigations, including an ECG. We excluded those with cardiovascular and cardiac disease. We used multivariable logistic regression and determined joint associations of BMI and WC and the risk of AF in men and women by comparing likelihood ratio χ2 statistics. Among 2.1 million included participants 12 067 (0.6%) had AF. A positive association between BMI per 5 kg/m2 increment and AF was observed, with an odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.57-1.73) for men and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.30-1.42) for women among those with a BMI above 20 kg/m2. We found a positive association between AF and WC per 10 cm increment, with an odds ratio of 1.47 (95% CI, 1.36-1.60) for men and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.26-1.49) for women. Improvement of likelihood ratio χ2 was equal after adding BMI and WC to models with all participants. In men, WC showed stronger improvement of likelihood ratio χ2 than BMI (30% versus 23%). In women, BMI showed stronger improvement of likelihood ratio χ2 than WC (23% versus 12%). Conclusions We found a positive association between BMI (above 20 kg/m2) and AF and between WC and AF in both men and women. BMI seems a more informative measure about risk of AF in women and WC seems more informative in men.

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.

Utility of risk prediction models to detect atrial fibrillation in screened participants.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of stroke. While the prevalence of AF is low in the general population, risk prediction models might identify individuals for selective screening of AF. We aimed to systematically identify and compare the utility of established models to predict prevalent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for risk prediction models for AF. We adapted established risk prediction models and assessed their predictive performance using data from 2.5M individuals who attended vascular screening clinics in the USA and the UK and in the subset of 1.2M individuals with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. We assessed discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and agreement between observed and predicted cases using calibration plots. After screening 6959 studies, 14 risk prediction models were identified. In our cohort, 10 464 (0.41%) participants had AF. For discrimination, six prediction model had AUROC curves of 0.70 or above in all individuals and those with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. In these models, calibration plots showed very good concordance between predicted and observed risks of AF. The two models with the highest observed prevalence in the highest decile of predicted risk, CHARGE-AF and MHS, showed an observed prevalence of AF of 1.6% with a number needed to screen of 63. Selective screening of the 10% highest risk identified 39% of cases with AF. CONCLUSION: Prediction models can reliably identify individuals at high risk of AF. The best performing models showed an almost fourfold higher prevalence of AF by selective screening of individuals in the highest decile of risk compared with systematic screening of all cases. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42019123847).

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.

Absence of Consistent Sex Differences in Outcomes From Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. METHODS: Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as P≤0.10. RESULTS: Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant (P=0.065), indicating heterogeneity among trials. Contributors to this heterogeneity are primarily differences in periprocedural period. When the trials are nevertheless pooled, there were no significant sex differences in risk in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS).

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.