Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence.

Background and Purpose: Carotid stenosis is arterial disease narrowing of the origin of the internal carotid artery (main brain artery). Knowing how to best manage this is imperative because it is common in older people and an important cause of stroke. Inappropriately high expectations have grown regarding the value of carotid artery procedures, such as surgery (endarterectomy) and stenting, for lowering the stroke risk associated with carotid stenosis. Meanwhile, the improving and predominant value of medical intervention (lifestyle coaching and medication) continues to be underappreciated. Methods and Results: This article aims to be an objective presentation and discussion of the scientific literature critical for decision making when the primary goal is to optimize patient outcome. This compilation follows from many years of author scrutiny to separate fact from fiction. Common sense conclusions are drawn from factual statements backed by original citations. Detailed research methodology is given in cited papers. This article has been written in plain language given the importance of the general public understanding this topic. Issues covered include key terminology and the economic impact of carotid stenosis. There is a summary of the evidence-base regarding the efficacy and safety of procedural and medical (non-invasive) interventions for both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusions are drawn with respect to current best management and research priorities. Several "furphies" (misconceptions) are exposed that are commonly used to make carotid stenting and endarterectomy outcomes appear similar. Ongoing randomized trials are mentioned and why they are unlikely to identify a routine practice indication for carotid artery procedures. There is a discussion of relevant worldwide guidelines regarding carotid artery procedures, including how they should be improved. There is an outline of systematic changes that are resulting in better application of the evidence-base. Conclusion: The cornerstone of stroke prevention is medical intervention given it is non-invasive and protects against all arterial disease complications in all at risk. The "big" question is, does a carotid artery procedure add patient benefit in the modern era and, if so, for whom?

Misconceptions regarding the adequacy of best medical intervention alone for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Medical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal. METHODS: We reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017. RESULTS: Randomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Medical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure.

Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Is Associated With Circadian and Other Variability in Embolus Detection.

Background and Purpose: Variability in transcranial Doppler (TCD) detection of embolic signals (ES) is important for risk stratification. We tested the effect of time of day on ES associated with 60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Materials and Methods: Subjects were from the Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Embolus Detection (ASED) Study such that half were previously ES-positive and half ES-negative with 6-monthly 60-min TCD monitoring. All underwent bilateral TCD monitoring for two 12-h sessions separated by 24 h. ES detection rates were calculated using 6 and 4-h intervals from midnight and effective TCD monitoring time. Results: Ten subjects (8 male, mean age 79.5 years) were monitored. Over 24 h, 5/10 study arteries with 60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis were ES-positive (range 1-28 ES/artery, 56 total ES from 177.9 total effective monitoring hours). The remaining five study arteries and all eight successfully monitored contralateral arteries were ES-negative. Using 6-h intervals the mean ES detection rate peaked at 0600-midday (0.64/h) and was lowest 1800-midnight (0.09/h) with an incidence rate ratio of 7.26 (95% CI 2.52-28.64, P ≤ 0.001). Using 4-h intervals the mean ES detection rate peaked at 0800-midday (0.64/h) and was lowest midnight-0400 (0.12/h) with an incidence rate ratio of 5.51 (95% CI 1.78-22.67, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Embolism associated with asymptomatic carotid stenosis shows circadian variation with highest rates 4-6 h before midday. This corresponds with peak circadian incidence of stroke and other vascular complications. These and ASED Study results show that monitoring frequency, duration, and time of day are important in ES detection.

Optimizing the Definitions of Stroke, Transient Ischemic Attack, and Infarction for Research and Application in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Until now, stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) have been clinically based terms which describe the presence and duration of characteristic neurological deficits attributable to intrinsic disorders of particular arteries supplying the brain, retina, or (sometimes) the spinal cord. Further, infarction has been pathologically defined as death of neural tissue due to reduced blood supply. Recently, it has been proposed we shift to definitions of stroke and TIA determined by neuroimaging results alone and that neuroimaging findings be equated with infarction. METHODS: We examined the scientific validity and clinical implications of these proposals using the existing published literature and our own experience in research and clinical practice. RESULTS: We found that the proposals to change to imaging-dominant definitions, as published, are ambiguous and inconsistent. Therefore, they cannot provide the standardization required in research or its application in clinical practice. Further, we found that the proposals are scientifically incorrect because neuroimaging findings do not always correlate with the clinical status or the presence of infarction. In addition, we found that attempts to use the proposals are disrupting research, are otherwise clinically unhelpful and do not solve the problems they were proposed to solve. CONCLUSION: We advise that the proposals must not be accepted. In particular, we explain why the clinical focus of the definitions of stroke and TIA should be retained with continued sub-classification of these syndromes depending neuroimaging results (with or without other information) and that infarction should remain a pathological term. We outline ways the established clinically based definitions of stroke and TIA, and use of them, may be improved to encourage better patient outcomes in the modern era.

Successes and Challenges in Implementation of Radon Control Activities in Iowa, 2010-2015.

BACKGROUND: Radon gas has recently become more prominent in discussions of lung cancer prevention nationally and in Iowa. A review in 2013 of cancer plans in the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program found that 42% of cancer plans, including Iowa's, had terminology on radon. Plans included awareness activities, home testing, remediation, policy, and policy evaluation. COMMUNITY CONTEXT: Iowa has the highest average radon concentrations in the United States; 70% of homes have radon concentrations above the Environmental Protection Agency's action levels. Radon control activities in Iowa are led by the Iowa Cancer Consortium, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and the Iowa Radon Coalition. METHODS: A collaborative approach was used to increase levels of awareness, testing, and (if necessary) mitigation, and to introduce a comprehensive radon control policy in Iowa by engaging partners and stakeholders across the state. OUTCOME: The multipronged approach and collaborative work in Iowa appears to have been successful in increasing awareness: the number of radon tests completed in Iowa increased by 20% from 19,600 in 2009 to 23,500 in 2014, and the number of mitigations completed by certified mitigators increased by 108% from 2,600 to more than 5,400. INTERPRETATION: Through collaboration, Iowa communities are engaged in activities that led to increases in awareness, testing, mitigation, and policy. States interested in establishing a similar program should consider a multipronged approach involving multiple entities and stakeholders with different interests and abilities. Improvements in data collection and analysis are necessary to assess impact.

Systematic Review of Guidelines for the Management of Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We systematically compared and appraised contemporary guidelines on management of asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We systematically searched for guideline recommendations on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS) published in any language between January 1, 2008, and January 28, 2015. Only the latest guideline per writing group was selected. Each guideline was analyzed independently by 2 to 6 authors to determine clinical scenarios covered, recommendations given, and scientific evidence used. RESULTS: Thirty-four eligible guidelines were identified from 23 different regions/countries in 6 languages. Of 28 guidelines with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations, 24 (86%) endorsed CEA (recommended it should or may be provided) for ≈50% to 99% average-surgical-risk asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 17 (61%) endorsed CAS, 8 (29%) opposed CAS, and 1 (4%) endorsed medical treatment alone. For asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients considered high-CEA-risk because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 13 guidelines (46%). Thirty-one of 33 guidelines (94%) with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations endorsed CEA for patients with ≈50% to 99% average-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 19 (58%) endorsed CAS and 9 (27%) opposed CAS. For high-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 27 guidelines (82%). Guideline procedural recommendations were based only on results of trials in which patients were randomized 12 to 34 years ago, rarely reflected medical treatment improvements and often understated potential CAS hazards. Qualifying terminology summarizing recommendations or evidence lacked standardization, impeding guideline interpretation, and comparison. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review has identified many opportunities to modernize and otherwise improve carotid stenosis management guidelines.