Summary Background Stenting 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. Methods Patients 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. Findings 1713 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. Interpretation Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Funding Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.
Summary Background The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) of stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis found a higher incidence of stroke within 30 days of stenting ...compared with endarterectomy. We aimed to compare the rate of ischaemic brain injury detectable on MRI between the two groups. Methods Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis enrolled in ICSS were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or endarterectomy. Of 50 centres in ICSS, seven took part in the MRI substudy. The protocol specified that MRI was done 1–7 days before treatment, 1–3 days after treatment (post-treatment scan), and 27–33 days after treatment. Scans were analysed by two or three investigators who were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the presence of at least one new ischaemic brain lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on the post-treatment scan. Analysis was per protocol. This is a substudy of a registered trial, ISRCTN 25337470. Findings 231 patients (124 in the stenting group and 107 in the endarterectomy group) had MRI before and after treatment. 62 (50%) of 124 patients in the stenting group and 18 (17%) of 107 patients in the endarterectomy group had at least one new DWI lesion detected on post-treatment scans done a median of 1 day after treatment (adjusted odds ratio OR 5·21, 95% CI 2·78–9·79; p<0·0001). At 1 month, there were changes on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences in 28 (33%) of 86 patients in the stenting group and six (8%) of 75 in the endarterectomy group (adjusted OR 5·93, 95% CI 2·25–15·62; p=0·0003). In patients treated at a centre with a policy of using cerebral protection devices, 37 (73%) of 51 in the stenting group and eight (17%) of 46 in the endarterectomy group had at least one new DWI lesion on post-treatment scans (adjusted OR 12·20, 95% CI 4·53–32·84), whereas in those treated at a centre with a policy of unprotected stenting, 25 (34%) of 73 patients in the stenting group and ten (16%) of 61 in the endarterectomy group had new lesions on DWI (adjusted OR 2·70, 1·16–6·24; interaction p=0·019). Interpretation About three times more patients in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group had new ischaemic lesions on DWI on post-treatment scans. The difference in clinical stroke risk in ICSS is therefore unlikely to have been caused by ascertainment bias. Protection devices did not seem to be effective in preventing cerebral ischaemia during stenting. DWI might serve as a surrogate outcome measure in future trials of carotid interventions. Funding UK Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union, Netherlands Heart Foundation, and Mach-Gaensslen Foundation.
Abstract Background Brain lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) are frequently found after carotid artery stenting (CAS), but their clinical relevance remains unclear. Objectives This study ...sought to investigate whether periprocedural ischemic DWI lesions after CAS or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are associated with an increased risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events. Methods In the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy of ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study), 231 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomized to undergo CAS (n = 124) or CEA (n = 107). MRIs were performed 1 to 7 days before and 1 to 3 days after treatment. The primary outcome event was stroke or transient ischemic attack in any territory occurring between the post-treatment MRI and the end of follow-up. Time to occurrence of the primary outcome event was compared between patients with (DWI+) and without (DWI–) new DWI lesions on the post-treatment scan in the CAS and CEA groups separately. Results Median time of follow-up was 4.1 years (interquartile range: 3.0 to 5.2). In the CAS group, recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack occurred more often among DWI+ patients (12 of 62) than among DWI– patients (6 of 62), with a cumulative 5-year incidence of 22.8% (standard error SE: 7.1%) and 8.8% (SE: 3.8%), respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio: 2.85; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 7.72; p = 0.04). In DWI+ and DWI– patients, 8 and 2 events, respectively, occurred within 6 months after treatment. In the CEA group, there was no difference in recurrent cerebrovascular events between DWI+ and DWI– patients. Conclusions Ischemic brain lesions discovered on DWI after CAS seem to be a marker of increased risk for recurrent cerebrovascular events. Patients with periprocedural DWI lesions might benefit from more aggressive and prolonged antiplatelet therapy after CAS. (A Randomised Comparison of the Risks, Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of Primary Carotid Stenting With Carotid Endarterectomy: International Carotid Stenting Study; ISRCTN25337470 )
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high risk for recurrent clinical events after an ischemic stroke. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are prescribed for secondary prevention. Adherence to ...DOAC is crucial mainly because of their short elimination half-life. Non-adherence to DOAC can negatively impact patients' outcomes. The relationship between (non-)adherence and recurrent clinical events is unknown in AF patients after initial stroke. We investigated adherence to DOAC in stroke survivors with AF who were included in the MAAESTRO study at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 2008 and 2022.
This study is a secondary analysis of data from MAAESTRO with a matched nested case-control design and 1:2 ratio. DOAC intake was measured with a small electronic device (Time4MedTM). We defined two arbitrary intervals of 17 days and 95 days as the longest time spans with electronic monitoring data per patient to maximize the number of participants with adequate amount of observation time available for analysis. Taking and timing adherence were calculated retrospectively i.e., prior to the recurrent event for cases. Trendline analysis of adherence over 95 days was calculated. Linear regression analysis was performed after adjusting for the co-variables age and daily pill burden. Sensitivity analysis was performed with controls for intervals in the reverse direction (prospectively).
We analyzed 11 cases and 22 matched controls (mean age: 75.9 ± 9.2 years vs. 73.1 ± 8.4 years; n.s.) with similar stroke characteristics (NIHSS, mRS, MoCA) and 36.4% women in each group. Mean adherence values were high and similar between cases and controls (95 days taking: 87.0 ± 18.9% (cases) vs. 90.8 ± 9.8% (controls), n.s.; similar values for timing adherence). Six hemorrhagic and five ischemic events had occurred. Compared to controls, a significantly higher 95 days taking adherence was observed for hemorrhagic events (96.0 ± 5.0% (cases) vs. 88.1 ± 11.5% (controls); p<0.01) and a significantly lower 95 days taking adherence was observed for ischemic events (75.7 ± 24.8% (cases) vs. 94.2 ± 6.2% (controls), p = 0.024). Values for timing adherence were similar. A non-significant downward linear trend of adherence was observed over 95 days independently of the clinical events. The sensitivity analysis showed that the direction of the interval had negligible impact on the 95 days adherence.
Because recurrent ischemic events after an AF-related stroke were associated with low adherence to DOAC <76%, adherence enhancing interventions seem crucial in anticoagulated AF-patients. However, AF-patients with high adherence might benefit from a regular re-assessment of the bleeding risk as hemorrhagic complications were associated with adherence to DOAC >96%.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03344146.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
Extracranial internal carotid artery dissection (eICAD) is a leading cause of stroke in younger patients.
Objectives
1. To determine whether, in patients with eICAD, treatment with ...anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents or control was associated with a better functional outcome.
2. To compare, among patients treated with either anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents, the risk of ischaemic strokes and major bleeding episodes.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 3 October 2009). In addition, we performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2009) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2009), checked all relevant papers for additional eligible studies and contacted authors and researchers in the field.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and non‐randomised studies (if they reported on outcome stratified by antithrombotic treatment and included at least four patients) of anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents for the treatment of extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. Two review authors independently extracted data.
Data collection and analysis
Primary outcomes were death (all causes) and death or disability. Secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and major extracranial haemorrhage during the reported follow‐up period. The first choice treatment was taken for analyses.
Main results
We did not find any completed randomised trials. Comparing antiplatelets with anticoagulants across 36 observational studies (1285 patients), there were no significant differences in the odds of death (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.60), or the occurrence of ischaemic stroke (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86) (34 studies, 1262 patients). For the outcome of death or disability, there was a non‐significant trend in favour of anticoagulants (OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.22; P = 0.06) (26 studies, 463 patients). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages (5/627; 0.8%) and major extracranial haemorrhages (7/425; 1.6%) occurred only in the anticoagulation group; however, for both these outcomes, the estimates were imprecise and indicated no significant difference between the two treatment modalities.
Authors' conclusions
There were no randomised trials comparing either anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs with control, thus there is no evidence to support their routine use for the treatment of extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. There were also no randomised trials that directly compared anticoagulants with antiplatelet drugs and the reported non‐randomised studies did not show any evidence of a significant difference between the two.
Objective:
A study was undertaken to develop a score for assessing risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) in ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous (IV) thrombolysis.
Methods:
...The derivation cohort comprised 974 ischemic stroke patients treated (1995–2008) with IV thrombolysis at the Helsinki University Central Hospital. The predictive value of parameters associated with sICH (European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study II) was evaluated, and we developed our score according to the magnitude of logistic regression coefficients. We calculated absolute risks and likelihood ratios of sICH per increasing score points. The score was validated in 828 patients from 3 Swiss cohorts (Lausanne, Basel, and Geneva). Performance of the score was tested with area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC‐ROC).
Results:
Our SEDAN score (0 to 6 points) comprises baseline blood Sugar (glucose; 8.1–12.0mmol/l 145–216mg/dl = 1; >12.0mmol/l >216 mg/dl = 2), Early infarct signs (yes = 1) and (hyper)Dense cerebral artery sign (yes = 1) on admission computed tomography scan, Age (>75 years = 1), and NIH Stroke Scale on admission (≥10 = 1). Absolute risk for sICH in the derivation cohort was: 1.4%, 2.9%, 8.5%, 12.2%, 21.7%, and 33.3% for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 score points, respectively. In the validation cohort, absolute risks were similar (1.0%, 3.5%, 5.1%, 9.2%, 16.9%, and 27.8%, respectively). AUC‐ROC was 0.77 (0.71–0.83; p < 0.001).
Interpretation:
Our SEDAN score reliably assessed risk for sICH in IV thrombolysis‐treated patients with anterior‐ and posterior circulation ischemic stroke, and it can support clinical decision making in high‐risk patients. External validation of the score supports its generalization. ANN NEUROL 2012;
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—Open-cell carotid artery stents are associated with a higher peri-procedural stroke risk than closed-cell stents. However, the effect of stent design on long-term durability of ...carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unknown. We compared the medium- to long-term risk of restenosis and ipsilateral stroke between patients treated with open-cell stents versus closed-cell stents in the ICSS (International Carotid Stenting Study).
METHODS—Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomized to CAS or endarterectomy and followed with duplex ultrasound for a median of 4.0 years. We analyzed data from patients with completed CAS procedures, known stent design, and available ultrasound follow-up. The primary outcome, moderate or higher restenosis (≥50%) was defined as a peak systolic velocity of >1.3 m/s on ultrasound or occlusion of the treated internal carotid artery and analyzed with interval-censored models.
RESULTS—Eight hundred fifty-five patients were allocated to CAS. Seven hundred fourteen patients with completed CAS and known stent design were included in the current analysis. Of these, 352 were treated with open-cell and 362 with closed-cell stents. Moderate or higher restenosis occurred significantly less frequently in patients treated with open-cell (n=113) than closed-cell stents (n=154; 5-year risks were 35.5% versus 46.0%; unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53–0.88). There was no significant difference in the risk of severe restenosis (≥70%) after open-cell stenting (n=27) versus closed-cell stenting (n=43; 5-year risks, 8.6% versus 12.7%; unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37–1.05). The risk of ipsilateral stroke beyond 30 days after treatment was similar with open-cell and closed-cell stents (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.35–1.75).
CONCLUSIONS—Moderate or higher restenosis after CAS occurred less frequently in patients treated with open-cell stents than closed-cell stents. However, both stent designs were equally effective at preventing recurrent stroke during follow-up.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION—URLhttp://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifierISRCTN25337470.
Background Prehospital delay reduces the proportion of patients with stroke treated with recanalization therapies. We aimed to identify novel and modifiable risk factors for prehospital delay. ...Methods and Results We included patients with an ischemic stroke confirmed by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, symptom onset within 24 hours and hospitalized in the Stroke Center of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. Trained study nurses interviewed patients and proxies along a standardized questionnaire. Prehospital delay was defined as >4.5 hours between stroke onset-or time point of wake-up-and admission. Overall, 336 patients were enrolled. Prehospital delay was observed in 140 patients (42%). The first healthcare professionals to be alarmed were family doctors for 29% of patients (97/336), and a quarter of these patients had a baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 or higher. The main modifiable risk factor for prehospital delay was a face-to-face visit to the family doctor (adjusted odds ratio, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.85-9.46). Despite transport by emergency medical services being associated with less prehospital delay (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71), a minority of patients (39%) who first called their family doctor were transported by emergency medical services to the hospital. The second risk factor was lack of awareness of stroke symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.36-7.24). Conclusions Almost 1 in 3 patients with a diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed ischemic stroke first called the family doctor practice. Face-to-face visits to the family doctor quadrupled the odds of prehospital delay. Efforts to reduce prehospital delay should address family doctors and their staffs as important partners in the prehospital pathway. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02798770.
PDF
