Dataset Information

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), the composite primary endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke thereafter did not differ between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A secondary aim of this randomised trial was to compare the composite endpoint of restenosis or occlusion.Patients with stenosis of the carotid artery who were asymptomatic or had had a transient ischaemic attack, amaurosis fugax, or a minor stroke were eligible for CREST and were enrolled at 117 clinical centres in the USA and Canada between Dec 21, 2000, and July 18, 2008. In this secondary analysis, the main endpoint was a composite of restenosis or occlusion at 2 years. Restenosis and occlusion were assessed by duplex ultrasonography at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 months and were defined as a reduction in diameter of the target artery of at least 70%, diagnosed by a peak systolic velocity of at least 3·0 m/s. Studies were done in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted at the Ultrasound Core Laboratory (University of Washington). The frequency of restenosis was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and was compared during a 2-year follow-up period. We used proportional hazards models to assess the association between baseline characteristics and risk of restenosis. Analyses were per protocol. CREST is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00004732.2191 patients received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomisation and had eligible ultrasonography (1086 who had carotid artery stenting, 1105 who had carotid endarterectomy). In 2 years, 58 patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (Kaplan-Meier rate 6·0%) and 62 who had carotid endarterectomy (6·3%) had restenosis or occlusion (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·63-1·29; p=0·58). Female sex (1·79, 1·25-2·56), diabetes (2·31, 1·61-3·31), and dyslipidaemia (2·07, 1·01-4·26) were independent predictors of restenosis or occlusion after the two procedures. Smoking predicted an increased rate of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (2·26, 1·34-3·77) but not after carotid artery stenting (0·77, 0·41-1·42).Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and rates were similar up to 2 years after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting. Subsets of patients could benefit from early and frequent monitoring after revascularisation.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Abbott Vascular Solutions.

SUBMITTER: Lal BK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3912998 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial.

Lal Brajesh K BK Beach Kirk W KW Roubin Gary S GS Lutsep Helmi L HL Moore Wesley S WS Malas Mahmoud B MB Chiu David D Gonzales Nicole R NR Burke J Lee JL Rinaldi Michael M Elmore James R JR Weaver Fred A FA Narins Craig R CR Foster Malcolm M Hodgson Kim J KJ Shepard Alexander D AD Meschia James F JF Bergelin Robert O RO Voeks Jenifer H JH Howard George G Brott Thomas G TG

The Lancet. Neurology 20120802 9

<h4>Background</h4>In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), the composite primary endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke thereafter did not differ between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A secondary aim of this randomised trial was to compare the composite endpoint of restenosis or occlusion.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with st ...[more]

PMID: 22857850

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study (2001-2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8-72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0-76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics.ResultsNeurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.60; P = 0.070).ConclusionIntra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.

Project description:BackgroundThe risk of stroke associated with carotid artery restenosis after stenting or endarterectomy is unclear. We aimed to compare the long-term risk of restenosis after these treatments and to investigate if restenosis causes stroke in a secondary analysis of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS).MethodsICSS is a parallel-group randomised trial at 50 tertiary care centres in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Patients aged 40 years or older with symptomatic carotid stenosis measuring 50% or more were randomly assigned either stenting or endarterectomy in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was computer-generated and done centrally, with allocation by telephone or fax, stratified by centre, and with minimisation for sex, age, side of stenosis, and occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery. Patients were followed up both clinically and with carotid duplex ultrasound at baseline, 30 days after treatment, 6 months after randomisation, then annually for up to 10 years. We included patients whose assigned treatment was completed and who had at least one ultrasound examination after treatment. Restenosis was defined as any narrowing of the treated artery measuring 50% or more (at least moderate) or 70% or more (severe), or occlusion of the artery. The degree of restenosis based on ultrasound velocities and clinical outcome events were adjudicated centrally; assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Restenosis was analysed using interval-censored models and its association with later ipsilateral stroke using Cox regression. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN25337470. This report presents a secondary analysis, and follow-up is complete.FindingsBetween May, 2001, and October, 2008, 1713 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated treatment (855 were assigned stenting and 858 endarterectomy), of whom 1530 individuals were followed up with ultrasound (737 assigned stenting and 793 endarterectomy) for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 2·3-5·0). At least moderate restenosis (≥50%) occurred in 274 patients after stenting (cumulative 5-year risk 40·7%) and in 217 after endarterectomy (29·6%; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·43, 95% CI 1·21-1·72; p<0·0001). Patients with at least moderate restenosis (≥50%) had a higher risk of ipsilateral stroke than did individuals without restenosis in the overall patient population (HR 3·18, 95% CI 1·52-6·67; p=0·002) and in the endarterectomy group alone (5·75, 1·80-18·33; p=0·003), but no significant increase in stroke risk after restenosis was recorded in the stenting group (2·03, 0·77-5·37; p=0·154; p=0·10 for interaction with treatment). No difference was noted in the risk of severe restenosis (≥70%) or subsequent stroke between the two treatment groups.InterpretationAt least moderate (≥50%) restenosis occurred more frequently after stenting than after endarterectomy and increased the risk for ipsilateral stroke in the overall population. Whether the restenosis-mediated risk of stroke differs between stenting and endarterectomy requires further research.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, and the European Union.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA).BackgroundIn CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial), the largest randomized trial of carotid revascularization to date, there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint, but rates of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) differed between CAS and CEA. To help guide individualized clinical decision making, we compared HRQOL among patients enrolled in the CREST study. We also performed exploratory analyses to evaluate the association between periprocedural complications and HRQOL.MethodsWe measured HRQOL at baseline, and after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 1 year among 2,502 patients randomly assigned to either CAS or CEA in the CREST study. The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-specific scales designed to study HRQOL in patients undergoing carotid revascularization.ResultsAt both 2 weeks and 1 month, CAS patients had better outcomes for multiple components of the SF-36, with large differences for role physical function, pain, and the physical component summary scale (all p < 0.01). On the disease-specific scales, CAS patients reported less difficulty with driving, eating/swallowing, neck pain, and headaches but more difficulty with walking and leg pain (all p < 0.05). However, by 1 year, there were no differences in any HRQOL measure between CAS and CEA. In the exploratory analyses, periprocedural stroke was associated with poorer 1-year HRQOL across all SF-36 domains, but periprocedural MI or cranial nerve palsy were not.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing carotid revascularization, CAS is associated with better HRQOL during the early recovery period as compared with CEA-particularly with regard to physical limitations and pain-but these differences diminish over time and are not evident after 1 year. Although CAS and CEA are associated with similar overall HRQOL at 1 year, event-specific analyses confirm that stroke has a greater and more sustained impact on HRQOL than MI. (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial [CREST]; NCT00004732)

Project description:ObjectiveTo decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Materials and methodsPatients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.ResultsProcedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.ConclusionAlthough the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.

Project description:BackgroundAmong 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.MethodsACST-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.FindingsBetween 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).InterpretationSerious 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.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:ObjectiveCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA), although some advocate regional anesthesia (RA) to reduce hemodynamic instability and allow neurologic monitoring and selective shunting. RA does not reduce risk of periprocedural stroke or death, although some series show a reduction in myocardial infarction (MI). We investigated the association of anesthesia type and periprocedural MI among patients receiving GA or RA for CEA and patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).MethodsBetween 2000 and 2008, 1151 patients underwent CEA (anesthetic type available for 1149 patients), and 1123 patients underwent CAS ≤30 days of randomization in CREST. CEA patients were categorized by anesthetic type (GA vs RA). CREST defined protocol MI as chest pain or electrocardiogram change plus biomarker evidence of MI, and total MI was defined as protocol MI plus biomarker-positive (+)-only MI. The incidence of protocol MI and total MI in patients undergoing CEA under GA and RA were compared with those undergoing CAS. Other study end points were similarly compared. Differences in baseline characteristics and periprocedural events were evaluated among the three groups. Logistic regression, adjusting for age and symptomatic status, was used to assess group differences.ResultsThe three groups had similar demographic risk factors, except for prevalence of symptomatic carotid stenosis, which was lowest in the CEA-RA group (P = .03). Of the 111 patients in the CEA-RA group, no protocol MIs occurred and only two biomarker+-only MIs, for an overall incidence of 1.8%, similar to the 1.7% overall incidence in patients undergoing CAS. In contrast, the combined incidence of protocol and biomarker+-only MIs in the 1038 patients in the CEA-GA group was significantly higher at 3.4% (P = .04), twice the risk of protocol MI and biomarker+-only MI compared with those undergoing CAS (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-3.54). Direct comparison of the MI incidence between CEA-RA and CEA-GA showed no statistical difference. Patients undergoing CEA-GA had lower odds of a periprocedural stroke (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79) and stroke or death (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76) compared with those undergoing CAS but were not significantly different from those undergoing CEA-RA.ConclusionsPatients in CREST undergoing CEA-RA had a similar risk of periprocedural MI as those undergoing CAS, whereas the risk for CEA-GA was twice that compared with patients undergoing CAS. Nevertheless, because periprocedural MI is one of the few variables favoring CAS over CEA and has been associated with decreased long-term survival, RA should be seriously considered for patients undergoing CEA.

Dataset Information

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets