Wesley S Moore1, Jenifer H Voeks2, Gary S Roubin3, Wayne M Clark4, Virginia J Howard5, Michael R Jones6, Thomas G Brott7. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif. 2. Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. Cardiovascular Associates of the Southeast, Birmingham, Ala. 4. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, Ore. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala. 6. Cardiology Associates, Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington, Ky. 7. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla; Department of Surgery, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ. Electronic address: brott.thomas@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most carotid revascularization studies define asymptomatic as symptom-free for more than 180 days; however, it is unknown if intervention carries similar risk among those currently asymptomatic but with previous symptoms (PS) vs those who were always asymptomatic (AA). METHODS: We compared the periprocedural and 4-year risks of PS vs AA patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotidartery stenting (CAS)/angioplasty. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and treatment were used to assess the risk of periprocedural stroke and/or death (S+D; any S+D during periprocedural period), stroke and death at 4 years (any S+D within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years) and the primary end point at 4 years (any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years). Analysis was performed pooling the CEA-treated and CAS-treated patients, and separately for each treatment. RESULTS: Of 1181 asymptomatic patients randomized in CREST, 1104 (93%) were AA and 77 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in risk when comparing the AA and PS cohorts in the pooled CAS+CEA population for periprocedural S+D (2.0% vs 1.3%), S+D at 4 years (3.6% vs 3.2%), or the primary end point (5.2% vs 5.8%). There were also no differences among those assigned to CEA (periprocedural S+D, 1.5% vs 0%; S+D at 4 years, 2.7% vs 0%; or primary end point, 5.1% vs 2.4%) or CAS (periprocedural S+D, 2.5% vs 2.8%; S+D at 4 years, 4.4% vs 6.9%; or primary end point, 5.3% vs 9.8%) when analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: In CREST, only a small minority of asymptomatic patients had previous ipsilateral symptoms. The outcomes of periprocedural S+D, periprocedural S+D, and ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years, and the primary end point did not differ for AA patients compared with PS patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Most carotid revascularization studies define asymptomatic as symptom-free for more than 180 days; however, it is unknown if intervention carries similar risk among those currently asymptomatic but with previous symptoms (PS) vs those who were always asymptomatic (AA). METHODS: We compared the periprocedural and 4-year risks of PS vs AA patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) randomized to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS)/angioplasty. Proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and treatment were used to assess the risk of periprocedural stroke and/or death (S+D; any S+D during periprocedural period), stroke and death at 4 years (any S+D within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years) and the primary end point at 4 years (any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction within the periprocedural period and ipsilateral stroke out to 4 years). Analysis was performed pooling the CEA-treated and CAS-treated patients, and separately for each treatment. RESULTS: Of 1181 asymptomatic patients randomized in CREST, 1104 (93%) were AA and 77 (7%) were PS. There was no difference in risk when comparing the AA and PS cohorts in the pooled CAS+CEA population for periprocedural S+D (2.0% vs 1.3%), S+D at 4 years (3.6% vs 3.2%), or the primary end point (5.2% vs 5.8%). There were also no differences among those assigned to CEA (periprocedural S+D, 1.5% vs 0%; S+D at 4 years, 2.7% vs 0%; or primary end point, 5.1% vs 2.4%) or CAS (periprocedural S+D, 2.5% vs 2.8%; S+D at 4 years, 4.4% vs 6.9%; or primary end point, 5.3% vs 9.8%) when analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: In CREST, only a small minority of asymptomatic patients had previous ipsilateral symptoms. The outcomes of periprocedural S+D, periprocedural S+D, and ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years, and the primary end point did not differ for AA patients compared with PS patients.
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Robert W Hobson; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Ariane Mackey; Michael D Hill; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Wesley S Moore; Jenifer H Voeks; L Nelson Hopkins; Donald E Cutlip; David J Cohen; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert D Ferguson; Stanley N Cohen; Joseph L Blackshear; Frank L Silver; J P Mohr; Brajesh K Lal; James F Meschia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick J Geraghty; Thomas E Brothers; David L Gillespie; Gilbert R Upchurch; Michael C Stoner; Flora S Siami; Christopher T Kenwood; Philip P Goodney Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Jonathan L Halperin; Suhny Abbara; J Michael Bacharach; John D Barr; Ruth L Bush; Christopher U Cates; Mark A Creager; Susan B Fowler; Gary Friday; Vicki S Hertzberg; E Bruce McIff; Wesley S Moore; Peter D Panagos; Thomas S Riles; Robert H Rosenwasser; Allen J Taylor; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith; Jeffery L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Nancy Albert; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; Robert A Guyton; Jonathan L Halperin; Judith S Hochman; Sharon Ann Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; E Magnus Ohman; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; William G Stevenson; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Thomas G Brott; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; James F Meschia; Ariane Mackey; William Brooks; Wesley S Moore; Michael D Hill; Vito A Mantese; Wayne M Clark; Carlos H Timaran; Donald Heck; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Seemant Chaturvedi; Brajesh K Lal; Jenifer H Voeks; Robert W Hobson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Sheffet; G Roubin; G Howard; V Howard; W Moore; J F Meschia; R W Hobson; T G Brott Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Ethan A Halm; Stanley Tuhrim; Jason J Wang; Caron Rockman; Thomas S Riles; Mark R Chassin Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H J Barnett; D W Taylor; M Eliasziw; A J Fox; G G Ferguson; R B Haynes; R N Rankin; G P Clagett; V C Hachinski; D L Sackett; K E Thorpe; H E Meldrum; J D Spence Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-11-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoel Solomon; Rens R B Varkevisser; Nicholas J Swerdlow; Chun Li; Patric Liang; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Gert J de Borst; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Adam Mazurek; Krzysztof Malinowski; Kenneth Rosenfield; Laura Capoccia; Francesco Speziale; Gianmarco de Donato; Carlo Setacci; Christian Wissgott; Pasqualino Sirignano; Lukasz Tekieli; Andrey Karpenko; Waclaw Kuczmik; Eugenio Stabile; David Christopher Metzger; Max Amor; Adnan H Siddiqui; Antonio Micari; Piotr Pieniążek; Alberto Cremonesi; Joachim Schofer; Andrej Schmidt; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.964