Objective This report presents the 30-day results of the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial and evaluates the safety ...and efficacy of ENROUTE Transcarotid NPS (Silk Road Medical Inc, Sunnyvale, Calif), a novel transcarotid neuroprotection system that provides direct surgical common carotid access and cerebral embolic protection via high-rate flow reversal during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods A prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial was performed to evaluate the use of the ENROUTE Transcarotid NPS during CAS procedures performed in patients considered to be at high risk for complications from carotid endarterectomy. Symptomatic patients with ≥50% stenosis and asymptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis were eligible to be treated with any U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved carotid artery stent. The primary end point was the composite of all stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death at 30 days postprocedure as defined in the Food and Drug Administration-approved study protocol. Secondary end points included cranial nerve injury; 30-day stroke, death, stroke/death, and MI; acute device, technical, and procedural success; and access site complications. All major adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Results Between November 2012 and July 2014, 208 patients were enrolled at 18 sites. Sixty-seven patients were enrolled as lead-in cases, and 141 were enrolled in the pivotal phase. In the pivotal cohort, 26% were symptomatic and 75% were asymptomatic. Acute device and technical success were 99% (140 of 141). By hierarchical analysis, the all-stroke rate in the pivotal group was 1.4% (2 of 141), stroke and death was 2.8% (4 of 141), and stroke, death and MI was 3.5% (5 of 141). One patient (0.7%) experienced postoperative hoarseness from potential Xth cranial nerve injury, which completely resolved at the 6-month follow-up visit. Conclusions The results of the ROADSTER trial demonstrate that the use of the ENROUTE Transcarotid NPS is safe and effective at preventing stroke during CAS. The overall stroke rate of 1.4% is the lowest reported to date for any prospective, multicenter clinical trial of CAS.
Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis is a cornerstone of stroke prevention and has been the subject of extensive clinical investigation, including multiple controlled randomized trials. The ...appropriate treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to the community of vascular surgeons. In 2008, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, only one randomized trial, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS), had been published. Since that publication, four major randomized trials comparing CEA and CAS have been published, and the role of medical management has been re-emphasized. The current publication updates and expands the 2008 guidelines with specific emphasis on six areas: imaging in identification and characterization of carotid stenosis, medical therapy (as stand-alone management and also in conjunction with intervention in patients with carotid bifurcation stenosis), risk stratification to select patients for appropriate interventional management (CEA or CAS), technical standards for performing CEA and CAS, the relative roles of CEA and CAS, and management of unusual conditions associated with extracranial carotid pathology. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, as has been done with other Society for Vascular Surgery guideline documents. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for most symptomatic patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 60% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. CAS should be reserved for symptomatic patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% at high risk for CEA for anatomic or medical reasons. CAS is not recommended for asymptomatic patients at this time. Asymptomatic patients at high risk for intervention or with <3 years life expectancy should be considered for medical management as the first-line therapy.
Objective To 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 methods Patients 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. Results Procedural 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. Conclusion Although 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.
In 2008, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid bifurcation stenosis. Since that time, a number of prospective randomized trials have been completed and ...have shed additional light on the best treastment of extracranial carotid disease. This has prompted the Society for Vascular Surgery to form a committee to update and expand guidelines in this area. The review was done using the GRADE methodology. The committee recommends carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as first line treatment for most symptomatic patients with stenosis 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis 60% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be below 3% to ensure benefit for the patient. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) should be reserved for symptomatic patients with stenosis 50% to 99% at high risk for CEA for anatomic or medical reasons. CAS is not recommended for asymptomatic patients at this time. Asymptomatic patients at high risk for intervention or with <3 years life expectancy should be considered for medical management as first line therapy. In this Executive Summary, we only outline the specifics of the recommendations made in the six areas evaluated. The full text of these guidelines can be found on the on-line version of the Journal of Vascular Surgery at http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymva.
Previous clinical trials have suggested that carotid-artery stenting with a device to capture and remove emboli ("embolic protection") is an effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy in ...patients at average or high risk for surgical complications.
In this trial, we compared carotid-artery stenting with embolic protection and carotid endarterectomy in patients 79 years of age or younger who had severe carotid stenosis and were asymptomatic (i.e., had not had a stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax in the 180 days before enrollment) and were not considered to be at high risk for surgical complications. The trial was designed to enroll 1658 patients but was halted early, after 1453 patients underwent randomization, because of slow enrollment. Patients were followed for up to 5 years. The primary composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year was tested at a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points.
Stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy with regard to the primary composite end point (event rate, 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The rate of stroke or death within 30 days was 2.9% in the stenting group and 1.7% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.33). From 30 days to 5 years after the procedure, the rate of freedom from ipsilateral stroke was 97.8% in the stenting group and 97.3% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.51), and the overall survival rates were 87.1% and 89.4%, respectively (P=0.21). The cumulative 5-year rate of stroke-free survival was 93.1% in the stenting group and 94.7% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.44).
In this trial involving asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis who were not at high risk for surgical complications, stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy with regard to the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year. In analyses that included up to 5 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the study groups in the rates of non-procedure-related stroke, all stroke, and survival. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ACT I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106938.).
Recent evidence from the Safety and Efficacy Study for Reverse Flow Used During Carotid Artery Stenting Procedure (ROADSTER) multicenter trial in high-risk patients undergoing transcarotid artery ...stenting with dynamic flow reversal reported the lowest stroke rate compared with any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, clinical trials have selection criteria that exclude many patients from enrollment and are highly selective of operators performing the procedures, which limit generalizability. The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) as reported in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).
The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI TCAR Surveillance Project (TSP) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCAR in real-world practice. Data from the initial 646 patients enrolled in the TSP from March 2016 to December 2017 were analyzed and compared with those of patients who underwent TFCAS between 2005 and 2017. Patients with tandem, traumatic, or dissection lesions were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 coarsened exact matching were used to analyze neurologic adverse events (stroke and transient ischemic attacks TIAs) and in-hospital mortality. Patients in the two procedures were matched on age, ethnicity, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention, chronic kidney disease, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, symptomatic status, restenosis, anatomic and medical risk, and urgency of the procedure.
Compared with patients undergoing TFCAS (n = 10,136), those undergoing TCAR (n = 638) were significantly older, had more cardiac comorbidities, were more likely to be asymptomatic, and were less likely to have a recurrent stenosis. The rates of in-hospital TIA/stroke as well as of TIA/stroke/death were significantly higher in TFCAS compared with TCAR (3.3% vs 1.9% P = .04 and 3.8% vs 2.2% P = .04, respectively). In both procedures, symptomatic patients had higher rates of TIA/stroke/death compared with asymptomatic patients (TCAR, 3.7% vs 1.4% P = .06; TFCAS, 5.3% vs 2.7% P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, there was a trend of increased stroke or death rates in TFCAS compared with TCAR, but it was not statistically significant (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = .25; odds ratio, 1.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.62). However, TFCAS was associated with twice the odds of in-hospital adverse neurologic events and TIA/stroke/death compared with TCAR (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.08; P = .03), independent of symptom status. Coarsened exact matching showed similar results.
Compared with patients undergoing TFCAS, patients undergoing TCAR had significantly more medical comorbidities but similar stroke/death rates and half the risk of in-hospital TIA/stroke/death. These results persisted despite rigorous adjustment and matching of potential confounders. This initial evaluation of the VQI TSP demonstrates the ability to rapidly monitor new devices and procedures using the VQI. Although it is preliminary, this is the first study to demonstrate the benefit of TCAR compared with TFCAS in real-world practice. These results need to be confirmed by a clinical trial.
Display omitted
Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients ...with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease.
A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience.
Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for ...any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers.
We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death.
A total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes.
Despite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.
Medical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced ...asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal.
We reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017.
Randomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention.
Medical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure.
The results of current prospective trials comparing the effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs standard medical therapy for long-term stroke prevention in patients with asymptomatic carotid ...stenosis (ACS) will not be available for several years. In this study, we compared the observed effectiveness of CEA and standard medical therapy vs standard medical therapy alone to prevent ipsilateral stroke in a contemporary cohort of patients with ACS.
This cohort study was conducted in a large integrated health system in adult subjects with 70% to 99% ACS (no neurologic symptom within 6 months) with no prior ipsilateral carotid artery intervention. Causal inference methods were used to emulate a conceptual randomized trial using data from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2017, for comparing the event-free survival over 96 months between two treatment strategies: (1) CEA within 12 months from cohort entry vs (2) no CEA (standard medical therapy alone). To account for both baseline and time-dependent confounding, inverse probability weighting estimation was used to derive adjusted hazard ratios, and cumulative risk differences were assessed based on two logistic marginal structural models for counterfactual hazards. Propensity scores were data-adaptively estimated using super learning. The primary outcome was ipsilateral anterior ischemic stroke.
The cohort included 3824 eligible patients with ACS (mean age: 73.7 years, 57.9% male, 12.3% active smokers), of whom 1467 underwent CEA in the first year, whereas 2297 never underwent CEA. The median follow-up was 68 months. A total of 1760 participants (46%) died, 445 (12%) were lost to follow-up, and 158 (4%) experienced ipsilateral stroke. The cumulative risk differences for each year of follow-up showed a protective effect of CEA starting in year 2 (risk difference = 1.1%, 95% confidence interval: 0.5%-1.6%) and persisting to year 8 (2.6%, 95% confidence interval: 0.3%-4.8%) compared with patients not receiving CEA.
In this contemporary cohort study of patients with ACS using rigorous analytic methodology, CEA appears to have a small but statistically significant effect on stroke prevention out to 8 years. Further study is needed to appropriately select the subset of patients most likely to benefit from intervention.
Display omitted
PDF
