Search

Background: Patients who have suffered from cerebral ischemia have a high risk of recurrent vascular events. Predictive models based on classical risk factors typically have limited prognostic value. Given that cerebral ischemia has a heritable component, genetic information might improve performance of these risk models. Our aim was to develop and compare two models: one containing traditional vascular risk factors, the other also including genetic information. Methods and Results: We studied 1020 patients with cerebral ischemia and genotyped them with the Illumina Immunochip. Median follow-up time was 6.5 years; the annual incidence of new ischemic events (primary outcome, n=198) was 3.0%. The prognostic model based on classical vascular risk factors had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.69). When we added a genetic risk score based on prioritized SNPs from a genome-wide association study of ischemic stroke (using summary statistics from the METASTROKE study which included 12389 cases and 62004 controls), the AUC-ROC remained the same. Similar results were found for the secondary outcome ischemic stroke. Conclusions: We found no additional value of genetic information in a prognostic model for the risk of ischemic events in patients with cerebral ischemia of arterial origin. This is consistent with a complex, polygenic architecture, where many genes of weak effect likely act in concert to influence the heritable risk of an individual to develop (recurrent) vascular events. At present, genetic information cannot help clinicians to distinguish patients at high risk for recurrent vascular events.

Background Several genetic markers are related to incidence of cardiovascular events. We evaluated whether a genetic risk score (GRS) based on 30 single-nucleotide-polymorphisms associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) can improve prediction of 10-year risk of new cardiovascular events in patients with clinical manifest vascular disease. Methods In 5742 patients with symptomatic vascular disease enrolled in the SMART study, we developed Cox regression models based on the SMART Risk Score (SRS) and based on the SRS plus the GRS in all patients, in patients with a history of acute arterial thrombotic events and in patients with a history of more stable atherosclerosis and without CAD. The discriminatory ability was expressed by the c-statistic. Model calibration was evaluated by calibration plots. The incremental value of adding the GRS was assessed by net reclassification index (NRI) and decision curve analysis. Results During a median follow-up of 6.5 years (IQR4.0–9.5), the composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death occurred in 933 patients. Hazard ratios of GRS ranging from 0.86 to 1.35 were observed. The discriminatory capacity of the SRS for prediction of 10-year risk of cardiovascular events was fairly good (c-statistic 0.70, 95%CI 0.68–0.72), similar to the model based on the SRS plus the GRS. Calibration of the models based on SRS and SRS plus GRS was adequate. No increase in c-statistics, categorical NRIs and decision curves was observed when adding the GRS. The continuous NRI improved only in patients with stable atherosclerosis (0.14, 95%CI 0.03–0.25), increasing further excluding patients with a history of CAD (0.21, 95%CI 0.06–0.36). Conclusions In patients with symptomatic vascular disease, a GRS did not improve risk prediction of 10-year risk of cardiovascular events beyond clinical characteristics. The GRS might improve risk prediction of first vascular events in the subgroup of patients with a history of stable atherosclerosis.

Contains fulltext : 152675.PDF (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Lobar and non-lobar non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are presumably caused by different types of small vessel diseases. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for ICH according to location. METHODS: In two large prospective studies, SMART (n = 9088) and ESPRIT (n = 2625), including patients with manifest cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease or with vascular risk factors, we investigated potential risk factors for ICH during follow-up according to lobar or non-lobar location by Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: During 65,156 patient years of follow up 19 patients had lobar ICH (incidence rate 29, 95% CI 19-42 per 100,000 person-years) and 24 non-lobar ICH (incidence rate 37, 95% CI 26-51 per 100,000 person-years). Age significantly increased the risk of lobar ICH (HR per 10 years increase 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.10) in the multivariable analysis, but not of non-lobar hemorrhage. Anticoagulant medication (HR 3.49; 95% CI 1.20-10.2) and male sex (HR 3.79; 95% CI 1.13-12.8) increased the risk of non-lobar but not lobar ICH. CONCLUSION: This study shows an elevated risk of future ICH in patients with manifestations of, or risk factors for, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease. Our data suggest that risk factors for ICH vary according to location, supporting the hypothesis of a differential pathophysiology of lobar and non-lobar ICH.

Contains fulltext : 88112.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Stents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. FINDINGS: The trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3.2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.77-2.11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8.5% in the stenting group compared with 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1.69, 1.16-2.45, p=0.006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1.92, 1.27-2.89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2.76, 1.16-6.56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0.0197). INTERPRETATION: Completion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthelabo, European Union.