Search

Objective: Current guidelines recommending rapid revascularisation of symptomatic carotid stenosis are largely based on data from clinical trials performed at a time when best medical therapy was potentially less effective than today. The risk of stroke and its predictors among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis awaiting revascularisation in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in medical arms of earlier RCTs was assessed., Methods: The pooled data of individual patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis randomised to stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) in four recent RCTs, and of patients randomised to medical therapy in three earlier RCTs comparing CEA vs. medical therapy, were compared. The primary outcome event was any stroke occurring between randomisation and treatment by CAS or CEA, or within 120 days after randomisation., Results: A total of 4 754 patients from recent trials and 1 227 from earlier trials were included. In recent trials, patients were randomised a median of 18 (IQR 7, 50) days after the qualifying event (QE). Twenty-three suffered a stroke while waiting for revascularisation (cumulative 120 day risk 1.97%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 - 3.17). Shorter time from QE until randomisation increased stroke risk after randomisation (χ 2  = 6.58, p = .011). Sixty-one patients had a stroke within 120 days of randomisation in the medical arms of earlier trials (cumulative risk 5%, 95% CI 3.8 - 6.2). Stroke risk was lower in recent than earlier trials when adjusted for time between QE and randomisation, age, severity of QE, and degree of carotid stenosis (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.88, p = .019)., Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis enrolled in recent large RCTs had a lower risk of stroke after randomisation than historical controls. The added benefit of carotid revascularisation to modern medical care needs to be revisited in future studies. Until then, adhering to current recommendations for early revascularisation of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis considered to require invasive treatment is advisable., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Whether ischaemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) on MRI can be safely anticoagulated is a hotly debated topic. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published aggregate data, to investigate the risk of subsequent intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) based on CMBs presence in this stroke population, generally considered for oral anticoagulation. We also suggest a decision-making schema for anticoagulation use in this setting., Methods: We searched PubMed for relevant observational studies. Random effects models with DerSimonian-Laird weights were used to investigated the association between CMBs presence at baseline MRI and ICH or ischaemic stroke during follow-up., Results: Four studies, with slightly heterogeneous design, including 990 ischaemic stroke patients were pooled in a meta-analysis (crude CMBs prevalence: 25%; 95%CI: 17%-33%). The median follow-up ranged between 17 and 37months. The future symptomatic ICH rate was 1.6% (16/990), while recurrent ischaemic stroke rate was 5.9% (58/990). Baseline CMB presence was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH during follow-up compared to patients without CMBs (OR: 4.16; 95%CI: 1.54-11.25; p=0.005). There was no association between CMBs presence and recurrent ischaemic stroke risk., Conclusion: We have shown that the presence of CMBs in cohorts of ischaemic stroke patients, most with AF on warfarin, is associated with a 4-fold increase in subsequent ICH (but not ischaemic stroke) risk (Class III evidence). These pooled estimates are useful for future trials design. We propose a simple data-driven anticoagulation schema which awaits validation and refinement as new prospective data are accumulated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age was reported to be an effect-modifier in four randomised controlled trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with better CEA outcomes than CAS outcomes noted in the more elderly patients. We aimed to describe the association of age with treatment differences in symptomatic patients and provide age-specific estimates of the risk of stroke and death within narrow (5 year) age groups., Methods: In this meta-analysis, we analysed individual patient-level data from four randomised controlled trials within the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration (CSTC) involving patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. We included only trials that randomly assigned patients to CAS or CEA and only patients with symptomatic stenosis. We assessed rates of stroke or death in 5-year age groups in the periprocedural period (between randomisation and 120 days) and ipsilateral stroke during long-term follow-up for patients assigned to CAS or CEA. We also assessed differences between CAS and CEA. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis., Findings: Collectively, 4754 patients were randomly assigned to either CEA or CAS treatment in the four studies. 433 events occurred over a median follow-up of 2·7 years. For patients assigned to CAS, the periprocedural hazard ratio (HR) for stroke and death in patients aged 65-69 years compared with patients younger than 60 years was 2·16 (95% CI 1·13-4·13), with HRs of roughly 4·0 for patients aged 70 years or older. We noted no evidence of an increased periprocedural risk by age group in the CEA group (p=0·34). These changes underpinned a CAS-versus CEA periprocedural HR of 1·61 (95% CI 0·90-2·88) for patients aged 65-69 years and an HR of 2·09 (1·32-3·32) for patients aged 70-74 years. Age was not associated with the postprocedural stroke risk either within treatment group (p≥0·09 for CAS and 0·83 for CEA), or between treatment groups (p=0·84)., Interpretation: In these RCTs, CEA was clearly superior to CAS in patients aged 70-74 years and older. The difference in older patients was almost wholly attributable to increasing periprocedural stroke risk in patients treated with CAS. Age had little effect on CEA periprocedural risk or on postprocedural risk after either procedure., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)