Carotid plaque surface echogenicity predicts cerebrovascular events: An Echographic Multicentric Swiss Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To determine the prognostic value for ischemic stroke or transitory ischemic attack (TIA) of plaque surface echogenicity alone or combined to degree of stenosis in a Swiss multicenter cohort METHODS: Patients with ≥60% asymptomatic or ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis were included. Grey-scale based colour mapping was obtained of the whole plaque and of its surface defined as the regions between the lumen and respectively 0-0.5, 0-1, 0-1.5, and 0-2 mm of the outer border of the plaque. Red, yellow and green colour represented low, intermediate or high echogenicity. Proportion of red color on surface (PRCS) reflecting low echogenictiy was considered alone or combined to degree of stenosis (Risk index, RI). RESULTS We included 205 asymptomatic and 54 symptomatic patients. During follow-up (median/mean 24/27.7 months) 27 patients experienced stroke or TIA. In the asymptomatic group, RI ≥0.25 and PRCS ≥79% predicted stroke or TIA with a hazard ratio (HR) of respectively 8.7 p = 0.0001 and 10.2 p < 0.0001. In the symptomatic group RI ≥0.25 and PRCS ≥81% predicted stroke or TIA occurrence with a HR of respectively 6.1 p = 0.006 and 8.9 p = 0.001. The best surface parameter was located at 0-0.5mm. Among variables including age, sex, degree of stenosis, stenosis progression, RI, PRCS, grey median scale values and clinical baseline status, only PRCS independently prognosticated stroke (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION In this pilot study including patients with at least moderate degree of carotid stenosis, PRCS (0-0.5mm) alone or combined to degree of stenosis strongly predicted occurrence of subsequent cerebrovascular events

Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. RESULTS We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. CONCLUSION Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. Methods: From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. Results: We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. Conclusion: Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (EVA-TRISP) registry: basis and methodology of a pan-European prospective ischaemic stroke revascularisation treatment registry.

PURPOSE The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry. PARTICIPANTS All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). FINDINGS TO DATE Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups. FUTURE PLANS This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findings may likewise be hypothesis generating for future research as well as for quality improvement (on EVT). The collaboration welcomes participation of further centres willing to fulfill the commitment and the outlined requirements

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 ± 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. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

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