Absence of Consistent Sex Differences in Outcomes From Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial) reported a higher periprocedural risk for any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction for women randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with women randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). No difference in risk by treatment was detected for women relative to men in the 4-year primary outcome. We aimed to conduct a pooled analysis among symptomatic patients in large randomized trials to provide more precise estimates of sex differences in the CAS-to-CEA risk for any stroke or death during the 120-day periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. METHODS: Data from the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration included outcomes from symptomatic patients in EVA-3S (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis), SPACE (Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients), ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), and CREST. The primary outcome was any stroke or death within 120 days after randomization and ipsilateral stroke thereafter. Event rates and relative risks were estimated using Poisson regression; effect modification by sex was assessed with a sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term, with significant interaction defined a priori as P≤0.10. RESULTS: Over a median 2.7 years of follow-up, 433 outcomes occurred in 3317 men and 1437 women. The CAS-to-CEA relative risk of the primary outcome was significantly lower for women compared with men in 1 trial, nominally lower in another, and nominally higher in the other two. The sex-by-treatment-by-trial interaction term was significant (P=0.065), indicating heterogeneity among trials. Contributors to this heterogeneity are primarily differences in periprocedural period. When the trials are nevertheless pooled, there were no significant sex differences in risk in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between trials in the magnitude of sex differences in treatment effect (CAS-to-CEA relative risk), indicating pooling data from these trials to estimate sex differences might not be valid. Whether sex is acting as an effect modifier of the CAS-to-CEA treatment effect in symptomatic patients remains uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00190398 (EVA-3S) and NCT00004732 (CREST). URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028 (SPACE) and ISRCTN25337470 (ICSS)

Early Endarterectomy Carries a Lower Procedural Risk Than Early Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Results From 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0-7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 (P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732

Risk of Stroke before Revascularisation in Patients with Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Pooled Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommending rapid revascularisation of symptomatic carotid stenosis are largely based on data from clinical trials performed at a time when best medical therapy was potentially less effective than today. The risk of stroke and its predictors among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis awaiting revascularisation in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in medical arms of earlier RCTs was assessed. METHODS: The pooled data of individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in four recent RCTs, and of patients randomised to medical therapy in three earlier RCTs comparing CEA vs. medical therapy, were compared. The primary outcome event was any stroke occurring between randomisation and treatment by CAS or CEA, or within 120 days after randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 4 754 patients from recent trials and 1 227 from earlier trials were included. In recent trials, patients were randomised a median of 18 (IQR 7, 50) days after the qualifying event (QE). Twenty-three suffered a stroke while waiting for revascularisation (cumulative 120 day risk 1.97%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 - 3.17). Shorter time from QE until randomisation increased stroke risk after randomisation (χ2 = 6.58, p = .011). Sixty-one patients had a stroke within 120 days of randomisation in the medical arms of earlier trials (cumulative risk 5%, 95% CI 3.8 - 6.2). Stroke risk was lower in recent than earlier trials when adjusted for time between QE and randomisation, age, severity of QE, and degree of carotid stenosis (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.88, p = .019). CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis enrolled in recent large RCTs had a lower risk of stroke after randomisation than historical controls. The added benefit of carotid revascularisation to modern medical care needs to be revisited in future studies. Until then, adhering to current recommendations for early revascularisation of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis considered to require invasive treatment is advisable

Ultrasound screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis in subjects with calcifications in the area of the carotid arteries on panoramic radiographs: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Directed ultrasonic screening for carotid stenosis is cost-effective in populations with > 5% prevalence of the diagnosis. Occasionally, calcifications in the area of the carotid arteries are incidentally detected on odontological panoramic radiographs. We aimed to determine if directed screening for carotid stenosis with ultrasound is indicated in individuals with such calcifications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a cross-sectional study. Carotid ultrasound examinations were performed on consecutive persons, with findings of calcifications in the area of the carotid arteries on panoramic radiography that were otherwise eligible for asymptomatic carotid endarterectomy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Calcification in the area of the carotid arteries was seen in 176 of 1182 persons undergoing panoramic radiography. Of these, 117 fulfilled the inclusion criterion and were examined with carotid ultrasound. Eight persons (6.8%; 95% CI 2.2-11.5%) had a carotid stenosis - not significant over the 5% pre-specified threshold (p = 0.232, Binomial test). However, there was a significant sex difference (p = 0.008), as all stenoses were found in men. Among men, 12.5% (95%CI 4.2-20.8%) had carotid stenosis - significantly over the 5% pre-specified threshold (p = 0.014, Binomial test).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The incidental finding of calcification in the area of the carotid arteries on panoramic radiographs should be followed up with carotid screening in men that are otherwise eligible for asymptomatic carotid endarterectomy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The study was registered at <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</url>; <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00514644">NCT00514644</a></p

Inflammation and In-Stent Restenosis: The Role of Serum Markers and Stent Characteristics in Carotid Artery Stenting

BACKGROUND: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may currently be recommended especially in younger patients with a high-grade carotid artery stenosis. However, evidence is accumulating that in-stent restenosis (ISR) could be an important factor endangering the long-term efficacy of CAS. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of inflammatory serum markers and procedure-related factors on ISR as diagnosed with duplex sonography. METHODS: We analyzed 210 CAS procedures in 194 patients which were done at a single university hospital between May 2003 and June 2010. Periprocedural C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count as well as stent design and geometry, and other periprocedural factors were analyzed with respect to the occurrence of an ISR as diagnosed with serial carotid duplex ultrasound investigations during clinical long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Over a median of 33.4 months follow-up (IQR: 14.9-53.7) of 210 procedures (mean age of 67.9±9.7 years, 71.9% male, 71.0% symptomatic) an ISR of ≥70% was detected in 5.7% after a median of 8.6 months (IQR: 3.4-17.3). After multiple regression analysis, leukocyte count after CAS-intervention (odds ratio (OR): 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.69; p = 0.036), as well as stent length and width were associated with the development of an ISR during follow-up (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.65, p = 0.022 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09-0.84, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ISR during long-term follow-up after CAS occur within the first year. ISR is associated with periinterventional inflammation markers and influenced by certain stent characteristics such as stent length and width. Our findings support the assumption that stent geometry leading to vessel injury as well as periprocedural inflammation during CAS plays a pivotal role in the development of carotid artery ISR

Do nasogastric tubes worsen dysphagia in patients with acute stroke?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Early feeding via a nasogastric tube (NGT) is recommended as safe way of supplying nutrition in patients with acute dysphagic stroke. However, preliminary evidence suggests that NGTs themselves may interfere with swallowing physiology. In the present study we therefore investigated the impact of NGTs on swallowing function in acute stroke patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the first part of the study the incidence and consequences of pharyngeal misplacement of NGTs were examined in 100 stroke patients by fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). In the second part, the effect of correctly placed NGTs on swallowing function was evaluated by serially examining 25 individual patients with and without a NGT in place.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A correctly placed NGT did not cause a worsening of stroke-related dysphagia. Except for two cases, in which swallowing material got stuck to the NGT and penetrated into the laryngeal vestibule after the swallow, no changes of the amount of penetration and aspiration were noted with the NGT in place as compared to the no-tube condition. Pharyngeal misplacement of the NGT was identified in 5 of 100 patients. All these patients showed worsening of dysphagia caused by the malpositioned NGT with an increase of pre-, intra-, and postdeglutitive penetration.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on these findings, there are no principle obstacles to start limited and supervised oral feeding in stroke patients with a NGT in place.</p

Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting utilization trends over time

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been the standard in atherosclerotic stroke prevention for over 2 decades. More recently, carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative for revascularization. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether an increase in stenting parallels a decrease in endarterectomy, if there are specific patient factors that influence one intervention over the other, and how these factors may have changed over time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a nationally representative sample of US hospital discharge records, data on CEA and CAS procedures performed from 1998 to 2008 were obtained. In total, 253,651 cases of CEA and CAS were investigated for trends in utilization over time. The specific data elements of age, gender, payer source, and race were analyzed for change over the study period, and their association with type of intervention was examined by multiple logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Rates of intervention decreased from 1998 to 2008 (P < 0.0001). Throughout the study period, endarterectomy was the much more widely employed procedure. Its use displayed a significant downward trend (P < 0.0001), with the lowest rates of intervention occurring in 2007. In contrast, carotid artery stenting displayed a significant increase in use over the study period (P < 0.0001), with the highest intervention rates occurring in 2006. Among the specific patient factors analyzed that may have altered utilization of CEA and CAS over time, the proportion of white patients who received intervention decreased significantly (P < 0.0001). In multivariate modeling, increased age, male gender, white race, and earlier in the study period were significant positive predictors of CEA use.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Rates of carotid revascularization have decreased over time, although this has been the result of a reduction in CEA despite an overall increase in CAS. Among the specific patient factors analyzed, age, gender, race, and time were significantly associated with the utilization of these two interventions.</p

Immediate and Delayed Procedural Stroke or Death in Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Background and Purpose- Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis (carotid artery stenting [CAS]) carries a higher risk of procedural stroke or death than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It is unclear whether this extra risk is present both on the day of procedure and within 1 to 30 days thereafter and whether clinical risk factors differ between these periods. Methods- We analyzed the risk of stroke or death occurring on the day of procedure (immediate procedural events) and within 1 to 30 days thereafter (delayed procedural events) in 4597 individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CAS (n=2326) or CEA (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials. Results- Compared with CEA, patients treated with CAS were at greater risk for immediate procedural events (110 versus 42; 4.7% versus 1.9%; odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8) but not for delayed procedural events (59 versus 46; 2.5% versus 2.0%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.9; interaction P=0.006). In patients treated with CAS, age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed events while qualifying event severity only increased the risk of delayed events. In patients treated with CEA, we found no risk factors for immediate events while a higher level of disability at baseline and known history of hypertension were associated with delayed procedural events. Conclusions- The increased procedural stroke or death risk associated with CAS compared with CEA was caused by an excess of events occurring on the day of procedure. This finding demonstrates the need to enhance the procedural safety of CAS by technical improvements of the procedure and increased operator skill. Higher age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed procedural events in CAS, mechanisms of which remain to be elucidated. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732

Body mass index and outcome after revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

To determine whether the obesity paradox exists in patients who undergo carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We combined individual patient data from 2 randomized trials (Endarterectomy vs Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis and Stent-Protected Angioplasty vs Carotid Endarterectomy) and 3 centers in a third trial (International Carotid Stenting Study). Baseline body mass index (BMI) was available for 1,969 patients and classified into 4 groups: &lt;20, 20-&lt;25, 25-&lt;30, and ≥30 kg/m(2). Primary outcome was stroke or death, investigated separately for the periprocedural and postprocedural period (≤120 days/&gt;120 days after randomization). This outcome was compared between different BMI strata in CAS and CEA patients separately, and in the total group. We performed intention-to-treat multivariable Cox regression analyses. Median follow-up was 2.0 years. Stroke or death occurred in 159 patients in the periprocedural (cumulative risk 8.1%) and in 270 patients in the postprocedural period (rate 4.8/100 person-years). BMI did not affect periprocedural risk of stroke or death for patients assigned to CAS (ptrend = 0.39) or CEA (ptrend = 0.77) or for the total group (ptrend = 0.48). Within the total group, patients with BMI 25-&lt;30 had lower postprocedural risk of stroke or death than patients with BMI 20-&lt;25 (BMI 25-&lt;30 vs BMI 20-&lt;25; hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.94). BMI is not associated with periprocedural risk of stroke or death; however, BMI 25-&lt;30 is associated with lower postprocedural risk than BMI 20-&lt;25. These observations were similar for CAS and CEA