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

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

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

Antiplatelet Therapy in Carotid Artery Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy in the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2

OBJECTIVE: Strokes are infrequent but potentially serious complications following carotid intervention, but antiplatelet therapy can reduce these risks. There are currently no specific guidelines on dose or duration of peri-procedural antiplatelet treatment for patients undergoing carotid intervention. Within the ongoing Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2), this study aimed at assessing the current use of antiplatelet therapy before, during, and after CEA and CAS in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to ACST-2 collaborators seeking information about the use of antiplatelet therapy during the pre-, peri-, and post-operative periods in patients undergoing carotid intervention at 77 participating sites and also whether sites tested for antiplatelet therapy resistance. RESULTS: The response rate was 68/77 (88%). For CAS, 82% of sites used dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) pre-operatively and 86% post-operatively with a mean post-procedural duration of 3 months (range 1-12), while 9% continued DAPT life-long. For CEA only 31% used DAPT pre-operatively, 24% post-operatively with a mean post-procedural duration of 3 months (range 1-5), while 10% continued DAPT life-long. For those prescribing post-procedural mono antiplatelet (MAPT) therapy (76%), aspirin was more commonly prescribed (59%) than clopidogrel (6%) and 11% of centres did not show a preference for either aspirin or clopidogrel. Eleven centres (16%) tested for antiplatelet therapy resistance. CONCLUSION: There appears to be broad agreement on the use of antiplatelet therapy in ACST-2 patients undergoing carotid artery stenting and surgery. Although evidence to help guide the duration of peri-procedural antiplatelet therapy is limited, long-term treatment with DAPT appears similar between both treatment arms

Antiplatelet therapy in carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in the asymptomatic carotid surgery trial-2

Objective Strokes are infrequent but potentially serious complications following carotid intervention, but antiplatelet therapy can reduce these risks. There are currently no specific guidelines on dose or duration of periprocedural antiplatelet treatment for patients undergoing carotid intervention. Within the ongoing Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2), this study aimed at assessing the current use of antiplatelet therapy before, during, and after CEA and CAS in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods Questionnaires were sent to ACST-2 collaborators seeking information about the use of antiplatelet therapy during the pre-, peri-, and post-operative periods in patients undergoing carotid intervention at 77 participating sites and also whether sites tested for antiplatelet therapy resistance. Results The response rate was 68/77 (88%). For CAS, 82% of sites used dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) preoperatively and 86% post-operatively with a mean post-procedural duration of 3 months (range 1e12), while 9% continued DAPT life-long. For CEA only 31% used DAPT pre-operatively, 24% post-operatively with a mean postprocedural duration of 3 months (range 1e5), while 10% continued DAPT life-long. For those prescribing postprocedural mono antiplatelet (MAPT) therapy (76%), aspirin was more commonly prescribed (59%) than clopidogrel (6%) and 11% of centres did not show a preference for either aspirin or clopidogrel. Eleven centres (16%) tested for antiplatelet therapy resistance. Conclusion There appears to be broad agreement on the use of antiplatelet therapy in ACST-2 patients undergoing carotid artery stenting and surgery. Although evidence to help guide the duration of peri-procedural antiplatelet therapy is limited, long-term treatment with DAPT appears similar between both treatment arms.</p

Status update and interim results from the asymptomatic carotid surgery trial-2 (ACST-2)

OBJECTIVES: ACST-2 is currently the largest trial ever conducted to compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis requiring revascularization. METHODS: Patients are entered into ACST-2 when revascularization is felt to be clearly indicated, when CEA and CAS are both possible, but where there is substantial uncertainty as to which is most appropriate. Trial surgeons and interventionalists are expected to use their usual techniques and CE-approved devices. We report baseline characteristics and blinded combined interim results for 30-day mortality and major morbidity for 986 patients in the ongoing trial up to September 2012. RESULTS: A total of 986 patients (687 men, 299 women), mean age 68.7 years (SD \ub1 8.1) were randomized equally to CEA or CAS. Most (96%) had ipsilateral stenosis of 70-99% (median 80%) with contralateral stenoses of 50-99% in 30% and contralateral occlusion in 8%. Patients were on appropriate medical treatment. For 691 patients undergoing intervention with at least 1-month follow-up and Rankin scoring at 6 months for any stroke, the overall serious cardiovascular event rate of periprocedural (within 30 days) disabling stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and death at 30 days was 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Early ACST-2 results suggest contemporary carotid intervention for asymptomatic stenosis has a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, on par with other recent trials. The trial continues to recruit, to monitor periprocedural events and all types of stroke, aiming to randomize up to 5,000 patients to determine any differential outcomes between interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL: ISRCTN21144362

Choices of Stent and Cerebral Protection in the Ongoing ACST-2 Trial: A Descriptive Study

Objectives Several plaque and lesion characteristics have been associated with an increased risk for procedural stroke during or shortly after carotid artery stenting (CAS). While technical advancements in stent design and cerebral protection devices (CPD) may help reduce the procedural stroke risk, and anatomy remains important, tailoring stenting procedures according to plaque and lesion characteristics might be a useful strategy in reducing stroke associated with CAS. In this descriptive report of the ongoing Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2), it was assessed whether choice for stent and use or type of CPD was influenced by plaque and lesion characteristics. Materials and methods Trial patients who underwent CAS between 2008 and 2015 were included in this study. Chi-square statistics were used to study the effects of plaque echolucency, ipsilateral preocclusive disease (90–99%), and contralateral high-grade stenosis (>50%) or occlusion of the carotid artery on interventionalists' choice for stent and CPD. Differences in treatment preference between specialties were also analysed. Results In this study, 831 patients from 88 ACST-2 centres were included. Almost all procedures were performed by either interventional radiologists (50%) or vascular surgeons (45%). Plaque echolucency, ipsilateral preocclusive disease (90–99%), and significant contralateral stenosis (>50%) or occlusion did not affect the choice of stent or either the use of cerebral protection and type of CPD employed (i.e., filter/flow reversal). Vascular surgeons used a CPD significantly more often than interventional radiologists (98.6% vs. 76.3%; p Conclusions In ACST-2, plaque characteristics and severity of stenosis did not primarily determine interventionalists' choice of stent or use or type of CPD, suggesting that other factors, such as vascular anatomy or personal and centre preference, may be more important. Stent and CPD use was highly heterogeneous among participating European centres.</p