Leo H. Bonati

Short-term outcome after stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND Results from randomised controlled trials have shown a higher short-term risk of stroke associated with carotid stenting than with carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, these trials were underpowered for investigation of whether carotid artery stenting might be a safe alternative to endarterectomy in specific patient subgroups. We therefore did a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data from three randomised controlled trials. METHODS Data from all 3433 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomly assigned and analysed in the Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial, the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial, and the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) were pooled and analysed with fixed-effect binomial regression models adjusted for source trial. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all patients and outcome events occurring between randomisation and 120 days thereafter. The per-protocol (PP) analysis was restricted to patients receiving the allocated treatment and events occurring within 30 days after treatment. FINDINGS In the first 120 days after randomisation (ITT analysis), any stroke or death occurred significantly more often in the carotid stenting group (153 [8·9%] of 1725) than in the carotid endarterectomy group (99 [5·8%] of 1708, risk ratio [RR] 1·53, [95% CI 1·20-1·95], p=0·0006; absolute risk difference 3·2 [1·4-4·9]). Of all subgroup variables assessed, only age significantly modified the treatment effect: in patients younger than 70 years (median age), the estimated 120-day risk of stroke or death was 50 (5·8%) of 869 patients in the carotid stenting group and 48 (5·7%) of 843 in the carotid endarterectomy group (RR 1·00 [0·68-1·47]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimated risk with carotid stenting was twice that with carotid endarterectomy (103 [12·0%] of 856 vs 51 [5·9%] of 865, 2·04 [1·48-2·82], interaction p=0·0053, p=0·0014 for trend). In the PP analysis, risk estimates of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment among patients younger than 70 years were 43 (5·1%) of 851 patients in the stenting group and 37 (4·5%) of 821 in the endarterectomy group (1·11 [0·73-1·71]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimates were 87 (10·5%) of 828 patients and 36 (4·4%) of 824, respectively (2·41 [1·65-3·51]; categorical interaction p=0·0078, trend interaction p=0·0013]. INTERPRETATION Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis should be avoided in older patients (age ≥70 years), but might be as safe as endarterectomy in younger patients. FUNDING The Stroke Association.

Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis : the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial

Summary Background Stenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments. Methods Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. Findings 1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72–1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28–2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02–2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Funding Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Long-term risk of carotid restenosis in patients randomly assigned to endovascular treatment or endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial

Summary Background In the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS), early recurrent carotid stenosis was more common in patients assigned to endovascular treatment than it was in patients assigned to endarterectomy (CEA), raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of endovascular treatment. We aimed to investigate the long-term risks of restenosis in patients included in CAVATAS. Methods 413 patients who were randomly assigned in CAVATAS and completed treatment for carotid stenosis (200 patients had endovascular treatment and 213 patients had endarterectomy) had prospective clinical follow-up at a median of 5 years and carotid duplex ultrasound at a median of 4 years. We investigated the cumulative long-term incidence of carotid restenosis after endovascular treatment and endarterectomy, the effect of the use of stents on restenosis after endovascular treatment, risk factors for the development of restenosis, and the effect of carotid restenosis on the risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN01425573. Findings Severe carotid restenosis (≥70%) or occlusion occurred significantly more often in patients in the endovascular arm than in patients in the endarterectomy arm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3·17, 95% CI 1·89–5·32; p<0·0001). The estimated 5-year incidence of restenosis was 30·7% in the endovascular arm and 10·5% in the endarterectomy arm. Patients in the endovascular arm who were treated with a stent (n=50) had a significantly lower risk of developing restenosis of 70% or greater compared with those treated with balloon angioplasty alone (n=145; HR 0·43, 0·19–0·97; p=0·04). Current smoking or a history of smoking was a predictor of restenosis of 70% or more (2·32, 1·19–4·54; p=0·01) and the early finding of moderate stenosis (50–69%) up to 60 days after treatment was associated with the risk of progression to restenosis of 70% or more (3·76, 1·88–7·52; p=0·0002). The composite endpoint of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred more often in patients in whom restenosis of 70% or more was diagnosed in the first year after treatment compared with patients without restenosis of 70% or more (5-year incidence 23% vs 11%; HR 2·18, 1·04–4·54; p=0·04), but the increase in ipsilateral stroke alone was not significant (10% vs 5%; 1·67, 0·54–5·11). Interpretation Restenosis is about three times more common after endovascular treatment than after endarterectomy and is associated with recurrent ipsilateral cerebrovascular symptoms; however, the risk of recurrent ipsilateral stroke is low. Further data are required from on-going trials of stenting versus endarterectomy to ascertain whether long-term ultrasound follow-up is necessary after carotid revascularisation. Funding British Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.

Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid And Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial

Summary Background Endovascular treatment (angioplasty with or without stenting) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis but there are scarce long-term efficacy data showing that it prevents stroke. We therefore report the long-term results of the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS). Methods Between March, 1992, and July, 1997, patients who presented at a participating centre with a confirmed stenosis of the internal carotid artery that was deemed equally suitable for either carotid endarterectomy or endovascular treatment were randomly assigned to either treatment in equal proportions by telephone or fax from the randomisation service at the Oxford Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Patients were seen by an independent neurologist at 1 and 6 months after treatment and then every year after randomisation for as long as possible, up to a maximum of 11 years. Major outcome events were transient ischaemic attack, non-disabling, disabling, and fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and death from any other cause. Outcomes were adjudicated on by investigators who were masked to treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 01425573. Findings 504 patients with stenosis of the carotid artery (90% symptomatic) were randomly assigned to endovascular treatment (n=251) or surgery (n=253). Within 30 days of treatment, there were more minor strokes that lasted less than 7 days in the endovascular group (8 vs 1) but the number of other strokes in any territory or death was the same (25 vs 25). There were more cranial nerve palsies (22 vs 0) in the endarterectomy group than in the endovascular group. Median length of follow up in both groups was 5 years (IQR 2–6). By comparing endovascular treatment with endarterectomy after the 30-day post-treatment period, the 8-year incidence and hazard ratio (HR) at the end of follow-up for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was 11·3% versus 8·6% (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·59–2·54); for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or TIA was 19·3% versus 17·2% (1·29, 0·78–2·14); and for any non-perioperative stroke was 21·1% versus 15·4% (1·66, 0·99–2·80). Interpretation More patients had stroke during follow-up in the endovascular group than in the surgical group, but the rate of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was low in both groups and none of the differences in the stroke outcome measures was significant. However, the study was underpowered and the confidence intervals were wide. More long-term data are needed from the on going stenting versus endarterectomy trials. Funding British Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.

Safety and Functional Outcome of Thrombolysis in Dissection-Related Ischemic Stroke A Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data

Background and Purpose— The safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD) are controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to pool all individual patient data and provide a valid estimate of safety and outcome of thrombolysis in CAD. Methods— We performed a systematic literature search on intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis in CAD. We calculated the rates of pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality and indirectly compared them with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. We applied multivariate regression models to identify predictors of excellent (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 1) and favorable (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 2) outcome. Results— We obtained individual patient data of 180 patients from 14 retrospective series and 22 case reports. Patients were predominantly female (68%), with a mean±SD age of 46±11 years. Most patients presented with severe stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score=16). Treatment was intravenous thrombolysis in 67% and intra-arterial thrombolysis in 33%. Median follow-up was 3 months. The pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.2). Overall mortality was 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9 to 13.2), and 41.0% (95% CI, 31.4 to 51.4) had an excellent outcome. Stroke severity was a strong predictor of outcome. Overlapping confidence intervals of end points indicated no relevant differences with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. Conclusions— Safety and outcome of thrombolysis in patients with CAD-related stroke appear similar to those for stroke from all causes. Based on our findings, thrombolysis should not be withheld in patients with CAD.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of intracranial artery dissection

Spontaneous intracranial artery dissection is an uncommon and probably underdiagnosed cause of stroke that is defined by the occurrence of a haematoma in the wall of an intracranial artery. Patients can present with headache, ischaemic stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage, or symptoms associated with mass effect, mostly on the brainstem. Although intracranial artery dissection is less common than cervical artery dissection in adults of European ethnic origin, intracranial artery dissection is reportedly more common in children and in Asian populations. Risk factors and mechanisms are poorly understood, and diagnosis is challenging because characteristic imaging features can be difficult to detect in view of the small size of intracranial arteries. Therefore, multimodal follow-up imaging is often needed to confirm the diagnosis. Treatment of intracranial artery dissections is empirical in the absence of data from randomised controlled trials. Most patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage undergo surgical or endovascular treatment to prevent rebleeding, whereas patients with intracranial artery dissection and cerebral ischaemia are treated with antithrombotics. Prognosis seems worse in patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage than in those without.

Common variation in PHACTR1 is associated with susceptibility to cervical artery dissection

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), a mural hematoma in a carotid or vertebral artery, is a major cause of ischemic stroke in young adults although relatively uncommon in the general population (incidence of 2.6/100,000 per year). Minor cervical traumas, infection, migraine and hypertension are putative risk factors, and inverse associations with obesity and hypercholesterolemia are described. No confirmed genetic susceptibility factors have been identified using candidate gene approaches. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in 1,393 CeAD cases and 14,416 controls. The rs9349379[G] allele (PHACTR1) was associated with lower CeAD risk (odds ratio (OR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69–0.82; P = 4.46 × 10−10), with confirmation in independent follow-up samples (659 CeAD cases and 2,648 controls; P = 3.91 × 10−3; combined P = 1.00 × 10−11). The rs9349379[G] allele was previously shown to be associated with lower risk of migraine and increased risk of myocardial infarction. Deciphering the mechanisms underlying this pleiotropy might provide important information on the biological underpinnings of these disabling conditions.

Cervical artery dissection: trauma and other potential mechanical trigger events.

Objective: To examine the import of prior cervical trauma (PCT) in patients with cervical artery dissection (CeAD). Methods: In this observational study, the presence of and the type of PCT were systematically ascertained in CeAD patients using 2 different populations for comparisons: 1) age- and sex-matched patients with ischemic stroke attributable to a cause other than CeAD (non–CeAD-IS), and 2) healthy subjects participating in the Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients Study. The presence of PCT within 1 month was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Crude odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and ORs adjusted for age, sex, and center were calculated. Results: We analyzed 1,897 participants (n = 966 with CeAD, n = 651 with non–CeAD-IS, n = 280 healthy subjects). CeAD patients had PCT in 40.5% (38.2%–44.5%) of cases, with 88% (344 of 392) classified as mild. PCT was more common in CeAD patients than in non–CeAD-IS patients (ORcrude 5.6 [95% CI 4.20–7.37], p < 0.001; ORadjusted 7.6 [95% CI 5.60–10.20], p < 0.001) or healthy subjects (ORcrude 2.8 [95% CI 2.03–3.68], p < 0.001; ORadjusted 3.7 [95% CI 2.40–5.56], p < 0.001). CeAD patients with PCT were younger and presented more often with neck pain and less often with stroke than CeAD patients without PCT. PCT was not associated with functional 3-month outcome after adjustment for age, sex, and stroke severity. Conclusion: PCT seems to be an important environmental determinant of CeAD, but was not an independent outcome predictor. Because of the characteristics of most PCTs, the term mechanical trigger event rather than trauma may be more appropriate.

The risk of carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy is greatest in patients treated within 7 days of symptoms.

OBJECTIVE Among patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting (CAS) is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Uncertainty remains whether the balance of risk changes with time since the most recent ischemic event. METHODS We investigated the association of time between the qualifying ischemic event and treatment (0-7 days, 8-14 days, and >14 days) with the risk of stroke or death within 30 days after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of data from individual patients randomized in the Endarterectomy vs Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial, the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial, and the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Data were analyzed with a fixed-effect binomial regression model adjusted for source trial. RESULTS Information on time of qualifying event was available for 2839 patients. In the first 30 days after intervention, any stroke or death occurred significantly more often in the CAS group (110/1434 [7.7%]) compared with the CEA group (54/1405 [3.8%]; crude risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.7). Patients undergoing CEA within the first 7 days of the qualifying event had the lowest periprocedural stroke or death rate (3/106 [2.8%]). Patients treated with CAS in the same period had a 9.4% risk of periprocedural stroke or death (13/138; risk ratio CAS vs CEA: 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-11.8; adjusted for age, sex, and type of qualifying event). Patients treated between 8 and 14 days showed a periprocedural stroke or death rate of 3.4% (7/208) and 8.1% (19/234), respectively, for CEA and CAS. The latest treatment group had 4% complications in the CEA group (44/1091) and 7.3% in the CAS group (78/1062). CONCLUSIONS The increase in risk of CAS compared with CEA appears to be greatest in patients treated within 7 days of symptoms. Early surgery might remain most effective in stroke prevention in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Cognition after carotid endarterectomy or stenting A randomized comparison

Objective: To compare the effect on cognition of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods: Patients randomized to CAS or CEA in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS; ISRCTN25337470) at 2 participating centers underwent detailed neuropsychological examinations (NPE) before and 6 months after revascularization. Ischemic brain lesions were assessed with diffusion-weighted imaging before and within 3 days after revascularization. Cognitive test results were standardized into z scores, from which a cognitive sumscore was calculated. The primary outcome was the change in cognitive sumscore between baseline and follow-up. Results: Of the 1,713 patients included in ICSS, 177 were enrolled in the 2 centers during the substudy period, of whom 140 had an NPE at baseline and 120 at follow-up. One patient with an unreliable baseline NPE was excluded. CAS was associated with a larger decrease in cognition than CEA, but the between-group difference was not statistically significant: −0.17 (95% CI −0.38 to 0.03; p = 0.092). Eighty-nine patients had a pretreatment MRI and 64 within 3 days after revascularization. New ischemic lesions were found twice as often after CAS than after CEA (relative risk 2.1; 95% CI 1.0 to 4.4; p = 0.041). Conclusions: Differences between CAS and CEA in effect on cognition were not statistically significant, despite a substantially higher rate of new ischemic lesions after CAS than after CEA. Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that any difference between the effects of CAS and CEA on cognition at 6 months after revascularization is small.