Brajesh K. Lal

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.)

Updated Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for management of extracranial carotid disease

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis is a cornerstone of stroke prevention and has been the subject of extensive clinical investigation, including multiple controlled randomized trials. The appropriate treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to the community of vascular surgeons. In 2008, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, only one randomized trial, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS), had been published. Since that publication, four major randomized trials comparing CEA and CAS have been published, and the role of medical management has been re-emphasized. The current publication updates and expands the 2008 guidelines with specific emphasis on six areas: imaging in identification and characterization of carotid stenosis, medical therapy (as stand-alone management and also in conjunction with intervention in patients with carotid bifurcation stenosis), risk stratification to select patients for appropriate interventional management (CEA or CAS), technical standards for performing CEA and CAS, the relative roles of CEA and CAS, and management of unusual conditions associated with extracranial carotid pathology. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, as has been done with other Society for Vascular Surgery guideline documents.[corrected] The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. CAS should be reserved for symptomatic patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% at high risk for CEA for anatomic or medical reasons. CAS is not recommended for asymptomatic patients at this time. Asymptomatic patients at high risk for intervention or with <3 years life expectancy should be considered for medical management as the first-line therapy.

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.).

Management of atherosclerotic carotid artery disease: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) appointed a committee of experts to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of carotid stenosis. In formulating clinical practice recommendations, the committee used systematic reviews to summarize the best available evidence and the GRADE scheme to grade the strength of recommendations (GRADE 1 for strong recommendations; GRADE 2 for weak recommendations) and rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, and very low quality). In symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with low-grade carotid stenosis (<50% in symptomatic and <60% in asymptomatic patients), we recommend optimal medical therapy rather than revascularization (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (more than 50%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus optimal medical therapy (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). In symptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=50%) and high perioperative risk, we suggest carotid artery stenting as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (GRADE 2 recommendation, low quality evidence). In asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis (>/=60%), we recommend carotid endarterectomy plus medical management as long as the perioperative risk is low (GRADE 1 recommendation, high quality evidence). We recommend against carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe (>/=60%) carotid artery stenosis (GRADE 1 recommendation, low quality evidence). A possible exception includes patients with >/=80% carotid artery stenosis and high anatomic risk for carotid endarterectomy.

Age and Outcomes After Carotid Stenting and Endarterectomy The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial

Background and Purpose— High stroke event rates among carotid artery stenting (CAS)-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) lead-in registry generated an a priori hypothesis that age may modify the relative efficacy of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In the primary CREST report, we previously noted significant effect modification by age. Here we extend this investigation by examining the relative efficacy of the components of the primary end point, the treatment-specific impact of age, and contributors to the increasing risk in CAS-treated patients at older ages. Methods— Among 2502 CREST patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of age on the CAS-to-CEA relative efficacy, and the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients. Results— Age acted as a treatment effect modifier for the primary end point (P interaction=0.02), with the efficacy of CAS and CEA approximately equal at age 70 years. For CAS, risk for the primary end point increased with age (P<0.0001) by 1.77-times (95% confidence interval, 1.38–2.28) per 10-year increment; however, there was no evidence of increased risk for CEA-treated patients (P=0.27). Stroke events were the primary contributor to the overall effect modification (P interaction=0.033), with equal risk at ≈64 years. The treatment-by-age interaction for CAS and CEA was not altered by symptomatic status (P=0.96) or by sex (P=0.45). Conclusions— Outcomes after CAS versus CEA were related to patient age, attributable to increasing risk for stroke after CAS at older ages. Patient age should be an important consideration when choosing between the 2 procedures for treating carotid stenosis. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial: Credentialing of Interventionalists and Final Results of Lead-in Phase

The success of carotid artery stenting in preventing stroke requires a low risk of periprocedural stroke and death. A comprehensive training and credentialing process was prerequisite to the randomized Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) to assemble a competent team of interventionalists with low periprocedural event rates. Interventionalists submitted cases to a multidisciplinary Interventional Management Committee. This committee evaluated 427 applicants. Of these, 238 (56%) were selected to participate in the training program and the lead-in phase, 73 (17%) who had clinical registry experience and satisfactory results with the devices used in CREST were exempt from training and were approved for the randomized phase, and 116 (27%) did not qualify for training. At 30 days in the lead-in study, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death occurred in 6.1% of symptomatic subjects and 4.8% of asymptomatic subjects. Stroke or death occurred in 5.8% of symptomatic subjects and 3.8% of asymptomatic subjects. Outcomes were better for younger subjects and varied by operator training. Based on experience, training, and lead-in results, the Interventional Management Committee selected 224 interventionalists to participate in the randomized phase of CREST. We believe that the credentialing and training of interventionalists participating in CREST have been the most rigorous reported to date for any randomized trial evaluating endovascular treatments. The study identified competent operators, which ensured that the randomized trial results fairly contrasted outcomes between endarterectomy and stenting.

Duplex ultrasound velocity criteria for the stented carotid artery

OBJECTIVES Ultrasound velocity criteria for the diagnosis of in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) are not well established. In the present study, we test whether ultrasound velocity measurements correlate with increasing degrees of in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing CAS and develop customized velocity criteria to identify residual stenosis > or =20%, in-stent restenosis > or =50%, and high-grade in-stent restenosis > or =80%. METHODS Carotid angiograms performed at the completion of CAS were compared with duplex ultrasound (DUS) imaging performed immediately after the procedure. Patients were followed up with annual DUS imaging and underwent both ultrasound scans and computed tomography angiography (CTA) at their most recent follow-up visit. Patients with suspected high-grade in-stent restenosis on DUS imaging underwent diagnostic carotid angiograms. DUS findings were therefore available for comparison with luminal stenosis measured by carotid angiograms or CTA in all these patients. The DUS protocol included peak-systolic (PSV) and end-diastolic velocity (EDV) measurements in the native common carotid artery (CCA), proximal stent, mid stent, distal stent, and distal internal carotid artery (ICA). RESULTS Of 255 CAS procedures that were reviewed, 39 had contralateral ICA stenosis and were excluded from the study. During a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 1 to 10 years), 23 patients died and 64 were lost. Available for analysis were 189 pairs of ultrasound and procedural carotid angiogram measurements; 99 pairs of ultrasound and CTA measurements during routine follow-up; and 29 pairs of ultrasound and carotid angiograms measurements during follow-up for suspected high-grade in-stent restenosis > or =80% (n = 310 pairs of observations, ultrasound vs carotid angiograms/CTA). The accuracy of CTA vs carotid angiograms was confirmed (r(2) = 0.88) in a subset of 19 patients. Post-CAS PSV (r(2) = .85) and ICA/CCA ratios (r(2) = 0.76) correlated most with the degree of stenosis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated the following optimal threshold criteria: residual stenosis > or =20% (PSV >or =150 cm/s and ICA/CCA ratio > or =2.15), in-stent restenosis > or =50% (PSV > or =220 cm/s and ICA/CCA ratio > or =2.7), and in-stent restenosis > or =80% (PSV 340 cm/s and ICA/CCA ratio > or =4.15). CONCLUSIONS Progressively increasing PSV and ICA/CCA ratios correlate with evolving restenosis within the stented carotid artery. Ultrasound velocity criteria developed for native arteries overestimate the degree of in-stent restenosis encountered. These changes persist during long-term follow-up and across all grades of in-stent restenosis after CAS. The proposed new velocity criteria accurately define residual stenosis >or =20%, in-stent restenosis >or =50%, and high-grade in-stent restenosis > or =80% in the stented carotid artery.

Updated Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for management of extracranial carotid disease: Executive summary

In 2008, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid bifurcation stenosis. Since that time, a number of prospective randomized trials have been completed and have shed additional light on the best treatment of extracranial carotid disease. This has prompted the Society for Vascular Surgery to form a committee to update and expand guidelines in this area. The review was done using the GRADE methodology.[corrected] The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be below 3% to ensure benefit for the patient. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) should be reserved for symptomatic patients with stenosis 50% to 99% at high risk for CEA for anatomic or medical reasons. CAS is not recommended for asymptomatic patients at this time. Asymptomatic patients at high risk for intervention or with <3 years life expectancy should be considered for medical management as first line therapy. In this Executive Summary, we only outline the specifics of the recommendations made in the six areas evaluated. The full text of these guidelines can be found on the on-line version of the Journal of Vascular Surgery at http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymva.

Carotid artery stenting: analysis of data for 105 patients at high risk.

OBJECTIVES Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by some clinicians. However, recently published clinical trials have reported 30-day stroke and death rates of 10% to 12%. This prompted review of our experience with CAS in patients at high risk, to document our results and guide further use of CAS. METHODS From September 1996 to the present, we performed 114 consecutive CAS procedures in 105 patients. Sixty-three patients were men (60%) and 42 patients were women (40%), with mean age of 70 years (range, 45-93 years). Indications for CAS included recurrent stenosis after previous CEA in 74 patients (65%), primary lesions in 32 patients at high risk (28%), and carotid stenosis with previous ipsilateral radiation therapy in 8 patients (7%). Asymptomatic stenosis (>80%) was managed in 70 patients (61%), and symptomatic lesions (>50%) were treated in 44 patients (39%). RESULTS CAS was technically successful in all patients. Mean severity of stenosis before CAS was 87% +/- 6%, compared with 9% +/- 4% after CAS. Two patients (1.9%) died, 1 of reperfusion-intracerebral hemorrhage and 1 of myocardial infarction 10 days after discharge; and 1 patient (0.95%) had a stroke (retinal infarction), for a 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85%. Two patients (1.9%) had transient neurologic events. No cranial nerve deficits were noted. No neurologic complications have been noted in the last 27 patients (26%). CONCLUSIONS A 30-day stroke and death rate of 2.85% in our experience demonstrates acceptability of CAS as an alternative to repeat operation or primary CEA in patients at high risk or in patients with radiation-induced stenosis. We recommend further clinical investigation of CAS and participation in clinical trials by vascular surgeons.

Stroke After Carotid Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Background— Stroke occurs more commonly after carotid artery stenting than after carotid endarterectomy. Details regarding stroke type, severity, and characteristics have not been reported previously. We describe the strokes that have occurred in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods and Results— CREST is a randomized, open-allocation, controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Stroke was a component of the primary composite outcome. Patients who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization were included. Stroke was adjudicated by a panel of board-certified vascular neurologists with secondary central review of clinically obtained brain images. Stroke type, laterality, timing, and outcome were reported. A periprocedural stroke occurred among 81 of the 2502 patients randomized and among 69 of the 2272 in the present analysis. Strokes were predominantly minor (81%, n=56), ischemic (90%, n=62), in the anterior circulation (94%, n=65), and ipsilateral to the treated artery (88%, n=61). There were 7 hemorrhages, which occurred 3 to 21 days after the procedure, and 5 were fatal. Major stroke occurred in 13 (0.6%) of the 2272 patients. The estimated 4-year mortality after stroke was 21.1% compared with 11.6% for those without stroke. The adjusted risk of death at 4 years was higher after periprocedural stroke (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–4.76). Conclusions— Stroke, particularly severe stroke, was uncommon after carotid intervention in CREST, but stroke was associated with significant morbidity and was independently associated with a nearly 3-fold increased future mortality. The delayed timing of major and hemorrhagic stroke after revascularization suggests that these strokes may be preventable. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.