Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a randomized trial in a community hospital. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Carotid endarterectomy with patch closure versus carotid eversion endarterectomy and reimplantation: a prospective randomized study. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. Randomized study of carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: a stopped trial. Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial.
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in individuals with more than 60% carotid stenosis. Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been proffered as effective and used in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis despite the absence of proven clinical equivalency. This randomized trial was designed to explore the hypothesis that CAS is equivalent to CEA for treating asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
                A total of 85 individuals presenting with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of more than 80% were selected randomly for CAS or CEA and followed up for 48 months.
                Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique, as determined by carotid ultrasonography. No major complications such as cerebral ischemia or death occurred. Procedural complications associated with CAS (n = 5) were hypotension and/or bradycardia; those concomitant with CEA (n = 3) were cervical nerve injury or complications related to general anesthesia (n = 4). Both procedures were well tolerated in the context of pain and discomfort. Hospital stay was similar in the two groups (mean, 1.1 versus 1.2 d). The occurrence of complications associated with CAS or CEA prolonged hospitalization by 3 days (mean, 4.0 versus 4.5 d). Return to full activity was achieved within 1 week by more than 85% of patients; all returned to their usual lifestyle by 2 weeks. Although hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS, costs were similar.
                CAS and CEA may be equally effective and safe in treating individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The efficacy of carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis has not been confirmed in randomized clinical trials, despite the widespread use of operative intervention in such patients.
                We conducted a multicenter clinical trial at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers to determine the effect of carotid endarterectomy on the combined incidence of transient ischemic attack, transient monocular blindness, and stroke. We studied 444 men with asymptomatic carotid stenosis shown arteriographically to reduce the diameter of the arterial lumen by 50 percent or more. The patients were randomly assigned to optimal medical treatment including antiplatelet medication (aspirin) plus carotid endarterectomy (the surgical group; 211 patients) or optimal medical treatment alone (the medical group; 233 patients). All the patients at each center were followed independently by a vascular surgeon and a neurologist for a mean of 47.9 months.
                The combined incidence of ipsilateral neurologic events was 8.0 percent in the surgical group and 20.6 percent in the medical group (P < 0.001), giving a relative risk (for the surgical group vs. the medical group) of 0.38 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.67). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke alone was 4.7 percent in the surgical group and 9.4 percent in the medical group. An analysis of stroke and death combined within the first 30 postoperative days showed no significant differences. Nor were there significant differences between groups in an analysis of all strokes and deaths (surgical, 41.2 percent; medical, 44.2 percent; relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.22). Overall mortality, including postoperative deaths, was primarily due to coronary atherosclerosis.
                Carotid endarterectomy reduced the overall incidence of ipsilateral neurologic events in a selected group of male patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We did not find a significant influence of carotid endarterectomy on the combined incidence of stroke and death, but because of the size of our sample, a modest effect could not be excluded. Although carotid eversion endarterectomy (CEE) has obtained consensus providing excellent early and late results, conventional carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with or without patching continues to be considered the gold standard surgical procedure. The few studies published to date comparing CEE with CEA in a small series of patients have failed to show substantial advantages of one technique over the other, and further randomized comparative studies are still required. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of CEA with routine patch closure (CEAP) with that of CEE and reimplantation (CEER) of the internal carotid artery in the common carotid artery.
                Three hundred thirty-six primary CEAs performed in 310 patients were randomized into 2 groups, 167 CEAPs and 169 CEERs. Surviving patients underwent duplex ultrasound scan control at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and every postoperative year thereafter. The mean follow-up was 34 months (range, 1 to 69 months). Demographic characteristics, risk factors, associated diseases, and indications for surgery were comparable in the 2 groups.
                Although the rate of intraoperative electroencephalogram changes was comparable in the 2 groups, the incidence of shunting was statistically higher in the CEAP group (28.1% vs 1.2%, P < .00001). The carotid cross-clamping time was significantly lower in the CEER group (P = .01). Although all deaths were in the CEAP group, the overall perioperative death and stroke-related death rates were comparable in the 2 groups. The perioperative stroke rate was statistically higher in the CEAP group (2.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Although the recurrent stenosis rate was comparable in the 2 groups (1.2% vs 0%), the CEAP group had a statistically higher rate of combined recurrent stenoses and occlusions (4.9% vs 0%, P = .003). The late mortality rate was similar in both groups.
                Although the outcome of CEAP in this series is consistent with that of the main reported trials, the CEER procedure is less likely than CEAP to cause perioperative stroke and death and seems superior in reducing the incidence of recurrent stenosis and late occlusive events. Among patients with substantial carotid artery narrowing but no recent neurological symptom (stroke or transient ischaemia), the balance of surgical risks and long-term benefits from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was unclear.
                During 1993-2003, 3120 asymptomatic patients with substantial carotid narrowing were randomised equally between immediate CEA (half got CEA by 1 month, 88% by 1 year) and indefinite deferral of any CEA (only 4% per year got CEA) and were followed for up to 5 years (mean 3.4 years). Kaplan-Meier analyses of 5-year risks are by allocated treatment.
                The risk of stroke or death within 30 days of CEA was 3.1% (95% CI 2.3-4.1). Comparing all patients allocated immediate CEA versus all allocated deferral, but excluding such perioperative events, the 5-year stroke risks were 3.8% versus 11% (gain 7.2% [95% CI 5.0-9.4], p<0.0001). This gain chiefly involved carotid territory ischaemic strokes (2.7% vs 9.5%; gain 6.8% [4.8-8.8], p<0.0001), of which half were disabling or fatal (1.6% vs 5.3%; gain 3.7% [2.1-5.2], p<0.0001), as were half the perioperative strokes. Combining the perioperative events and the non-perioperative strokes, net 5-year risks were 6.4% versus 11.8% for all strokes (net gain 5.4% [3.0-7.8], p<0.0001), 3.5% versus 6.1% for fatal or disabling strokes (net gain 2.5% [0.8-4.3], p=0.004), and 2.1% versus 4.2% just for fatal strokes (net gain 2.1% [0.6-3.6], p=0.006). Subgroup-specific analyses found no significant heterogeneity in the perioperative hazards or (apart from the importance of cholesterol) in the long-term postoperative benefits. These benefits were separately significant for males and females; for those with about 70%, 80%, and 90% carotid artery narrowing on ultrasound; and for those younger than 65 and 65-74 years of age (though not for older patients, half of whom die within 5 years from unrelated causes). Full compliance with allocation to immediate CEA or deferral would, in expectation, have produced slightly bigger differences in the numbers operated on, and hence in the net 5-year benefits. The 10-year benefits are not yet known.
                In asymptomatic patients younger than 75 years of age with carotid diameter reduction about 70% or more on ultrasound (many of whom were on aspirin, antihypertensive, and, in recent years, statin therapy), immediate CEA halved the net 5-year stroke risk from about 12% to about 6% (including the 3% perioperative hazard). Half this 5-year benefit involved disabling or fatal strokes. But, outside trials, inappropriate selection of patients or poor surgery could obviate such benefits. Without strong evidence of benefit, the use of carotid endarterectomy for prophylaxis against stroke rose dramatically until the mid-1980s, then declined. Our investigation sought to determine whether carotid endarterectomy reduces the risk of stroke among patients with a recent adverse cerebrovascular event and ipsilateral carotid stenosis.
                We conducted a randomized trial at 50 clinical centers throughout the United States and Canada, in patients in two predetermined strata based on the severity of carotid stenosis--30 to 69 percent and 70 to 99 percent. We report here the results in the 659 patients in the latter stratum, who had had a hemispheric or retinal transient ischemic attack or a nondisabling stroke within the 120 days before entry and had stenosis of 70 to 99 percent in the symptomatic carotid artery. All patients received optimal medical care, including antiplatelet therapy. Those assigned to surgical treatment underwent carotid endarterectomy performed by neurosurgeons or vascular surgeons. All patients were examined by neurologists 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after entry and then every 4 months. End points were assessed by blinded, independent case review. No patient was lost to follow-up.
                Life-table estimates of the cumulative risk of any ipsilateral stroke at two years were 26 percent in the 331 medical patients and 9 percent in the 328 surgical patients--an absolute risk reduction (+/- SE) 17 +/- 3.5 percent (P less than 0.001). For a major or fatal ipsilateral stroke, the corresponding estimates were 13.1 percent and 2.5 percent--an absolute risk reduction of 10.6 +/- 2.6 percent (P less than 0.001). Carotid endarterectomy was still found to be beneficial when all strokes and deaths were included in the analysis (P less than 0.001).
                Carotid endarterectomy is highly beneficial to patients with recent hemispheric and retinal transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling strokes and ipsilateral high-grade stenosis (70 to 99 percent) of the internal carotid artery. Carotid angioplasty (CA) has been suggested to be a safer and more cost-effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of symptomatic severe internal carotid artery (ICA) disease.
                The study was conducted as a prospective consecutive randomized trial of CEA versus CA for symptomatic severe ICA disease in a university teaching hospital. All patients were assessed before and after surgery by a neurologist. The study consisted of 23 patients with focal carotid territory symptoms and severe ICA stenosis (> 70%) who were randomized to either CEA or CA. However, only 17 had received their allocated treatment before trial suspension. CEA with patching or CA with stenting were used as interventions. The main outcome measures were death or disabling or nondisabling stroke within 30 days.
                All 10 CEA operations proceeded without complication, but 5 of the 7 patients who underwent CA had a stroke (P=.0034), 3 of which were disabling at 30 days.
                After referral, the Data Monitoring Committee invoked the stopping rule and the trial was suspended. The investigators and the Ethics Committee subsequently concluded that the trial could not be restarted--even in an amended format-primarily because of problems with informed consent. We review many of the ethical dilemmas encountered in the performance of this study. If future trials do suggest a selected role for CA, it is essential that both the inclusion and the exclusion criteria are fully documented. The goal of this study was to determine whether carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is equivalent to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis >70% by a randomized, controlled trial in a community hospital.
                Carotid angioplasty and stenting has been suggested to be as effective as CEA for treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.
                A total of 104 patients presenting with cerebrovascular ischemia ipsilateral to carotid stenosis were selected randomly for CEA or carotid stenting and followed for two years.
                Stenosis decreased to an average of 5% after CAS. The patency of the reconstructed artery remained satisfactory regardless of the technique as determined by sequential ultrasound. One death occurred in the CEA group (1/51); one transient ischemic attack occurred in the CAS group (1/53); no individual sustained a stroke. The perception of procedurally related pain/discomfort was similar. Hospital stay was similar, although the CAS group tended to be discharged earlier (mean = 1.8 days vs. 2.7 days). Complications associated with CAS prolonged hospitalization when compared with those sustaining a CEA-related complication (mean = 5.6 days vs. 3.8 days). Return to full activity was achieved within one week by 80% of the CAS group and 67% of the patients receiving CEA. Hospital charges were slightly higher for CAS.
                Carotid stenting is equivalent to CEA in reducing carotid stenosis without increased risk for major complications of death/stroke. Because of shortened hospitalization and convalescence, CAS challenges CEA as the preferred treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis if a reduction in costs can be achieved. Our objective was to assess the risks and benefits of carotid endarterectomy, primarily in terms of stroke prevention, in patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis.
                This multicentre, randomised controlled trial enrolled 3024 patients. We enrolled men and women of any age, with some degree of carotid stenosis, who within the previous 6 months had had at least one transient or mild symptomatic ischaemic vascular event in the distribution of one or both carotid arteries. Between 1981 and 1994, we allocated 1811 (60%) patients to surgery and 1213 (40%) to control (surgery to be avoided for as long as possible). Follow-up was until the end of 1995 (mean 6.1 years), and the main analyses were by intention to treat.
                The overall outcome (major stroke or death) occurred in 669 (37.0%) surgery-group patients and 442 (36.5%) control-group patients. The risk of major stroke or death complicating surgery (7.0%) did not vary substantially with severity of stenosis. On the other hand, the risk of major ischaemic stroke ipsilateral to the unoperated symptomatic carotid artery increased with severity of stenosis, particularly above about 70-80% of the original luminal diameter, but only for 2-3 years after randomisation. On average, the immediate risk of surgery was worth trading off against the long-term risk of stroke without surgery when the stenosis was greater than about 80% diameter; the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the frequency of a major stroke or death at 3 years was 26.5% for the control group and 14.9% for the surgery group, an absolute benefit from surgery of 11.6%. However, consideration of variations in risk with age and sex modified this simple rule based on stenosis severity. We present a graphical procedure that should improve the selection of patients for surgery.
                Carotid endarterectomy is indicated for most patients with a recent non-disabling carotid-territory ischaemic event when the symptomatic stenosis is greater than about 80%. Age and sex should also be taken into account in decisions on whether to operate. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (endovascular treatment) can be used to treat carotid stenosis, but risks and benefits are uncertain. We therefore compared endovascular treatment with conventional carotid surgery.
                In a multicentre clinical trial, we randomly assigned 504 patients with carotid stenosis to endovascular treatment (n=251) or carotid endarterectomy (n=253). For endovascular patients treated successfully, we used stents in 55 (26%) and balloon angioplasty alone in 158 (74%). An independent neurologist followed up patients. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                The rates of major outcome events within 30 days of first treatment did not differ significantly between endovascular treatment and surgery (6.4% vs 5.9%, respectively, for disabling stroke or death; 10.0% vs 9.9% for any stroke lasting more than 7 days, or death). Cranial neuropathy was reported in 22 (8.7%) surgery patients, but not after endovascular treatment (p<0.0001). Major groin or neck haematoma occurred less often after endovascular treatment than after surgery (three [1.2%] vs 17 [6.7%], p<0.0015). At 1 year after treatment, severe (70-99%) ipsilateral carotid stenosis was more usual after endovascular treatment (25 [14%] vs seven [4%], p<0.001). However, no substantial difference in the rate of ipsilateral stroke was noted with survival analysis up to 3 years after randomisation (adjusted hazard ratio=1.04, 95% CI 0.63-1.70, p=0.9).
                Endovascular treatment had similar major risks and effectiveness at prevention of stroke during 3 years compared with carotid surgery, but with wide CIs. Endovascular treatment had the advantage of avoiding minor complications.
Despite about a 3% perioperative stroke or death rate, CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis reduces the risk of ipsilateral stroke, and any stroke, by approximately 30% over three years. However, the absolute risk reduction is small (approximately 1% per annum over the first few years of follow up in the two largest and most recent trials) but it could be higher with longer follow up.