Dataset Information

Staged angioplasty versus regular carotid artery stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis at high risk of hyperperfusion: a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Hyperperfusion (HP) is a devastating complication associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy. The efficacy and safety of staged angioplasty (SAP) in patients with CAS at high risk of HP remains unclear. We sought to determine whether SAP is superior to regular CAS in patients with high risk of HP.

Methods

A randomised, multicentre open-label clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment (STEP) was conducted. Patients with severe carotid stenosis at high risk of HP were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SAP or regular CAS group. The primary endpoint was hyperperfusion syndrome (HPS) and intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) within 30 days after the procedure.

Results

From November 2014 to January 2017, a total of 64 patients were enrolled in 11 centres. 33 patients were allocated to the SAP group and 31 to the regular CAS group. At 30 days, the rate of primary endpoint was 0.0% (0/33) in the SAP group and 9.7% (3/31) in the regular CAS group (absolute risk reduction (ARR), 9.7%; 95% CI -20.1% to 0.7%; p=0.11). As one of the secondary endpoints, the incidence of HP phenomenon (HPP) was lower in the SAP group than the regular CAS group (0.0% vs 22.6%, ARR,-22.6%; 95% CI -36.8% to -10.2%; p=0.04).

Conclusion

The rate of HPS and ICH was not significantly lower in SAP group; the extended secondary endpoint of HPP, however, significantly reduced, which suggested that SAP may be a safe and effective carotid revascularisation procedure to prevent HP.

Trial registration number

NCT02224209.

SUBMITTER: Mo D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005890 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.ResultsFor 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85).ConclusionsAmong patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)

Project description:BackgroundIn the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial, we found no significant difference between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group with respect to the primary composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any subsequent ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up. We now extend the results to 10 years.MethodsAmong patients with carotid-artery stenosis who had been randomly assigned to stenting or endarterectomy, we evaluated outcomes every 6 months for up to 10 years at 117 centers. In addition to assessing the primary composite end point, we assessed the primary end point for the long-term extension study, which was ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period.ResultsAmong 2502 patients, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite end point between the stenting group (11.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1 to 14.8) and the endarterectomy group (9.9%; 95% CI, 7.9 to 12.2) over 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44). With respect to the primary long-term end point, postprocedural ipsilateral stroke over the 10-year follow-up occurred in 6.9% (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.7) of the patients in the stenting group and in 5.6% (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.6) of those in the endarterectomy group; the rates did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.52). No significant between-group differences with respect to either end point were detected when symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients were analyzed separately.ConclusionsOver 10 years of follow-up, we did not find a significant difference between patients who underwent stenting and those who underwent endarterectomy with respect to the risk of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, or death and subsequent ipsilateral stroke. The rate of postprocedural ipsilateral stroke also did not differ between groups. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott Vascular Solutions; CREST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.).

Project description:BackgroundVertebral artery stenosis (narrowing of the vertebral artery) is an important cause of posterior circulation ischaemic stroke. Medical treatment (MT) e.g. controlling risk-factors and drug treatment, surgery, and endovascular treatment (ET) are the prevailing treatment strategies for symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis. ET consist s of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (balloon catheter through the skin), with or without stenting. However, optimal management of people with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis has not yet been established.ObjectivesTo assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, with or without stenting, combined with MT, compared to MT alone, in people with episodes of cerebral ischaemia due to vertebral artery stenosis.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, and two other indexes in Web of Science, China Biological Medicine Database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov trials register and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 23 July 2021.Selection criteriaWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ET plus MT with MT alone in treating people aged 18 years or over with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis. We included all types of ET modalities (e.g. angioplasty alone, balloon-mounted stenting, and angioplasty followed by placement of a self-expanding stent). MT included risk factor control, antiplatelet therapy, lipid-lowering therapy, and individualised management for people with hypertension or diabetes.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes were 30-day post-randomisation death/stroke (short-term outcome) and fatal/non-fatal stroke after 30 days post-randomisation to completion of follow-up (long-term outcome). MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 349 participants with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis with a mean age of 64.4 years. The included RCTs were at low risk of bias overall. However, all included studies had a high risk of performance bias because blinding of the ET was not feasible. There was no significant difference in 30-day post-randomisation deaths/strokes between ET plus MT and MT alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 7.07; 3 studies, 349 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no significant differences between ET plus MT and MT alone in fatal/non-fatal strokes in the territory of the treated vertebral artery stenosis after 30 days post-randomisation to completion of follow-up (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke during the entire follow-up period (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.32; 3 studies, 349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), death during the entire follow-up period (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.62; 3 studies, 349 participants; low-certainty evidence), and stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) during the entire follow-up period (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 2 studies, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsThis Cochrane Review provides low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicating that there are no significant differences in either short- or long-term risks of stroke, death, or TIA between people with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis treated with ET plus MT and those treated with MT alone.

Project description:BackgroundStenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments.MethodsPatients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.Findings1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72-1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28-2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02-2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationLong-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.FundingMedical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

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.