Search

Background: We aimed to assess whether the effect of intravenous alteplase treatment (IVT) before endovascular treatment (EVT) on outcome is modified by first-line technique during EVT in IVT eligible patients. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis from MR CLEAN-NO IV (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands - Intravenous Treatment Followed by Intra-Arterial Treatment Versus Direct Intra-Arterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke Caused by a Proximal Intracranial Occlusion), a randomized trial of IVT followed by EVT versus EVT alone in patients presenting directly to EVT-capable centers. We included data from all patients who underwent EVT with a thrombectomy attempt. We compared patients treated with stent retriever (with or without aspiration) to aspiration alone as first-line EVT technique and assessed the interaction of first-line EVT technique with IVT treatment. Primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, analyzed with mixed model ordinal regression for a shift towards better outcome. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b–3). Results: Of 473 included patients, 102 (21.6%) were treated with aspiration alone as first-line technique. In the full population, functional outcome was similar for patients treated with stent retriever versus aspiration only (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR]‚ 1.07 [95% CI, 0.69–1.66]). We observed a significant interaction between IVT and first-line EVT technique ( P =0.03). In the aspiration-only group, patients treated with EVT alone had worse functional outcome compared to those treated with IVT and EVT (acOR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21–0.90]). In the stent retriever group, functional outcome did not differ between patients treated with or without IVT (acOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.74–1.57]). There was no statistically significant interaction for successful reperfusion. Conclusions: In MR CLEAN-NO IV, the treatment effect of IVT was modified by first-line EVT technique. Patients treated with aspiration only as first-line technique had worse clinical outcomes if they did not receive IVT. No such difference was observed in patients treated with stent retrievers. Confirmation by pooling with results from other trials is needed to confirm these findings.

Background: In patients at elevated cardiovascular risk, statins reduce the occurrence of ischemic stroke. However, residual stroke risk persists. Methods: REDUCE-IT, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, and risk for, or evidence of, atherosclerosis to icosapent ethyl (IPE), a purified, stable ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid (4 grams/day), or placebo. IPE reduced the primary composite endpoint (CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina) and the key secondary composite endpoint (CV death, MI, stroke) by 25% and 26%, respectively, (each ppost hoc stroke endpoints. Results: Event rates for time to first fatal or nonfatal stroke were 2.4% vs. 3.3% for IPE vs. placebo; hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.55-0.93); P=0.01; the relative risk reduction (RRR) was 28%, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.9%, and number needed to treat (NNT) 114. For every 1,000 patients treated for 5 years with IPE, approximately 14 strokes (fatal or nonfatal) were averted; rate ratio (RR) (95%CI) = 0.68 (0.52-0.91); P=0.008 (Figure). Ischemic stroke time to first event rates were 2.0% vs 3.0% for IPE vs placebo a 36% reduction [HR=0.64 (0.49-0.85); P=0.002]. Hemorrhagic stroke occurred at low rates with no significant difference for IPE vs. placebo (0.3% vs 0.2%; P=0.55). Conclusions: In REDUCE-IT, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of ischemic stroke, with no excess in hemorrhagic stroke, in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides and atherosclerosis or diabetes.

Background and Purpose— Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. Methods— We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0–7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. Results— Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 ( P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). Conclusions— In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Introduction: A 3.4% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.7%) higher peri-procedural stroke and death risk has been previously documented for those treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) relative to those treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the CAS versus CEA treatment differences in long-term outcomes and the post-procedure durability have not been described. Methods: Data from the 4 largest CAS-versus-CEA randomized trials for treatment of symptomatic carotid atherosclerosis (EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS, and CREST) were pooled, and treatment differences assessed for the outcome of any stroke or death during a 120-day peri-procedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke afterward. Results: Long-term follow-up was analysed for 4754 patients. Median length of follow-up across the studies ranged from 2.0 to 6.9 years, with 88 peri-procedural and 55 post-procedural events among those CEA-treated, and 169 and 64 for those CAS-treated. After the peri-procedural period, the annual rates of stroke following CAS was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8) and following CEA 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8), resulting in non-significant durability differences of less than 1% over the period extending up to 9 years (see Table). The previously-documented 3.4% higher peri-procedural event rate in the CAS group contributed to a significant 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6% to 4.7%) treatment difference at 1-year, and the aforementioned similar durability implied that this significant difference remained relatively constant over the period extending up to 9 years (see table). Conclusions: The post-procedure durability of CAS and CEA were similar, both with event rates below 1%. The similarity of post-procedure events rates implies that the previously-documented higher peri-procedural in the CAS group is “carried forward” with a higher risk of outcomes extending to 9-years.

Background and Purpose— Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods— From a literature review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2184 carotid artery stenting and 2261 carotid endarterectomy patients from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated 7 long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with C statistics and calibration plots. Results— Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after carotid artery stenting and in 84 (3.7%) patients after carotid endarterectomy. Most models for short-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (n=4) or carotid endarterectomy (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (C statistics ranging from 0.49–0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had a slightly better performance with C statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions— Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome seemed to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background and Purpose— We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods— We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (

Background and Purpose— Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis (carotid artery stenting [CAS]) carries a higher risk of procedural stroke or death than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It is unclear whether this extra risk is present both on the day of procedure and within 1 to 30 days thereafter and whether clinical risk factors differ between these periods. Methods— We analyzed the risk of stroke or death occurring on the day of procedure (immediate procedural events) and within 1 to 30 days thereafter (delayed procedural events) in 4597 individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CAS (n=2326) or CEA (n=2271) in 4 randomized trials. Results— Compared with CEA, patients treated with CAS were at greater risk for immediate procedural events (110 versus 42; 4.7% versus 1.9%; odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9–3.8) but not for delayed procedural events (59 versus 46; 2.5% versus 2.0%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9–1.9; interaction P =0.006). In patients treated with CAS, age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed events while qualifying event severity only increased the risk of delayed events. In patients treated with CEA, we found no risk factors for immediate events while a higher level of disability at baseline and known history of hypertension were associated with delayed procedural events. Conclusions— The increased procedural stroke or death risk associated with CAS compared with CEA was caused by an excess of events occurring on the day of procedure. This finding demonstrates the need to enhance the procedural safety of CAS by technical improvements of the procedure and increased operator skill. Higher age increased the risk for both immediate and delayed procedural events in CAS, mechanisms of which remain to be elucidated. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00190398. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028. URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.