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

Correlation of Color Doppler with Multidetector CT Angiography Findings in Carotid Artery Stenosis

The aim of this paper was to examine the correlation between the Color Doppler ultrasound (CD-US) and multidetector CT angiography (MDCTA) diagnostic methods, and to define the degree and extent of stenosis in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis. This was a cross-sectional study with a consecutive series of patients. All US examinations were always carried out by the same physician-angiologist, while all CT examinations were always carried out by the same physician-radiologist. Both worked independently from each other. The stenosis area was measured at the narrowest point by NASCET criteria for US/CT. Peak systolic velocity (PSV) over 210 cm/sec and end diastolic velocity (EDV) over 110 cm/sec criteria were applied for stenoses with lumen narrowed over 70%, while PSV under 130 cm/sec and EDV under 100 cm/sec criteria were applied for those with lumen narrowed under 70%. A total of 124 carotid arteries were observed; namely, 89 narrowed and 68 surgically treated. All patients were reviewed by US and then by MDCTA; patients with 70–99% stenosis underwent surgery. The correlation coefficient between stenosis degree measured by US and MDCTA was 0.922; p < 0.01. The average difference between US and MDCTA diagnostic methods was 3% (Z = -1.438, p > 0.05). The US and CT matching level for stenoses from 70 to 99% was very high (κ = 0.778, p < 0.01). In conclusion, there is a highly significant statistical correlation among both diagnostic methods when measuring stenosis degree and extent. US is more dependent on the physician, while MDCTA is more objective and independent from the physician. We think it would be appropriate to undertake an MDCTA exam for those patients who are candidates for carotid endarterectomy

Interference of drug-eluting stents with endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion: evidence for device-specific responses

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that endothelial coverage of drug-eluting stents might be delayed or absent, a risk factor for late thrombotic events. We studied the effects of different drug-polymer-device iterations on endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion. Systemic markers of endothelial inflammation were correlated with coronary vasomotor changes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=11), sirolimus-eluting stents (n=21), biolimus A9-eluting stents (n=28), zotarolimus-eluting stents (n=10), and bare-metal stents (n=13) were studied 10, 9, 9, 9, and 12 months after implantation, respectively. Endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion was tested proximally and distally to the stent and at a reference vessel segment during atrial pacing at increasing heart rates by quantitative coronary angiography. Indexes of platelet-monocyte binding and other biomarkers were studied in a subgroup of 19 patients. The baseline characteristics and hemodynamics of the patients in the different stent groups were comparable. Significant differences were observed across the 5 stent groups, concerning the vasomotion of segments proximal (P=0.006) and distal (P=0.003) to the stent. Normal vasomotion (vasodilatation) was maintained in the biolimus A9-eluting stent, zotarolimus-eluting stent, and bare-metal stent groups, whereas vasoconstriction was observed in the sirolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent groups. Platelet-monocyte binding in whole blood showed a significant inverse correlation with vasomotion in reference but not in segments adjacent to the stent (r=-0.57; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents seem to cause endothelial dysfunction of the implanted vessel, whereas biolimus A9-eluting stents and zotarolimus-eluting stents behave more closely to bare-metal stents, with preserved endothelial vasomotor response. Coronary vasoconstriction was not associated with detectable systemic endothelial activation

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

Post-anaesthesia pulmonary complications after use of muscle relaxants (POPULAR): a multicentre, prospective observational study

Background: Results from retrospective studies suggest that use of neuromuscular blocking agents during general anaesthesia might be linked to postoperative pulmonary complications. We therefore aimed to assess whether the use of neuromuscular blocking agents is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods: We did a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Patients were recruited from 211 hospitals in 28 European countries. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) who received general anaesthesia for any in-hospital procedure except cardiac surgery. Patient characteristics, surgical and anaesthetic details, and chart review at discharge were prospectively collected over 2 weeks. Additionally, each patient underwent postoperative physical examination within 3 days of surgery to check for adverse pulmonary events. The study outcome was the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications from the end of surgery up to postoperative day 28. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for surgical factors and patients' preoperative physical status, providing adjusted odds ratios (ORadj) and adjusted absolute risk reduction (ARRadj). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865513. Findings: Between June 16, 2014, and April 29, 2015, data from 22 803 patients were collected. The use of neuromuscular blocking agents was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who had undergone general anaesthesia (1658 [7·6%] of 21 694); ORadj 1·86, 95% CI 1·53–2·26; ARRadj −4·4%, 95% CI −5·5 to −3·2). Only 2·3% of high-risk surgical patients and those with adverse respiratory profiles were anaesthetised without neuromuscular blocking agents. The use of neuromuscular monitoring (ORadj 1·31, 95% CI 1·15–1·49; ARRadj −2·6%, 95% CI −3·9 to −1·4) and the administration of reversal agents (1·23, 1·07–1·41; −1·9%, −3·2 to −0·7) were not associated with a decreased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Neither the choice of sugammadex instead of neostigmine for reversal (ORadj 1·03, 95% CI 0·85–1·25; ARRadj −0·3%, 95% CI −2·4 to 1·5) nor extubation at a train-of-four ratio of 0·9 or more (1·03, 0·82–1·31; −0·4%, −3·5 to 2·2) was associated with better pulmonary outcomes. Interpretation: We showed that the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs in general anaesthesia is associated with an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Anaesthetists must balance the potential benefits of neuromuscular blockade against the increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Funding: European Society of Anaesthesiology