Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Carotid endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral ischemia in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 309 Trialist Group. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Prospective, randomized study of external jugular vein patch versus polytetrafluoroethylene patch during carotid endarterectomy: perioperative and long-term results. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. [Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting: a prospective randomized trial].
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. 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. 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. To determine whether carotid endarterectomy provides protection against subsequent cerebral ischemia in men with ischemic symptoms in the distribution of significant (greater than 50%) ipsilateral internal carotid artery stenosis.
                Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.
                Sixteen university-affiliated Veterans Affairs medical centers.
                Men who presented within 120 days of onset of symptoms that were consistent with transient ischemic attacks, transient monocular blindness, or recent small completed strokes between July 1988 and February 1991. Among 5000 patients screened, 189 individuals were randomized with angiographic internal carotid artery stenosis greater than 50% ipsilateral to the presenting symptoms. Forty-eight eligible patients who refused entry were followed up outside of the trial.
                Cerebral infarction or crescendo transient ischemic attacks in the vascular distribution of the original symptoms or death within 30 days of randomization.
                Carotid endarterectomy plus the best medical care (n = 91) vs the best medical care alone (n = 98).
                At a mean follow-up of 11.9 months, there was a significant reduction in stroke or crescendo transient ischemic attacks in patients who received carotid endarterectomy (7.7%) compared with nonsurgical patients (19.4%), or an absolute risk reduction of 11.7% (P = .011). The benefit of surgery was more profound in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis greater than 70% (absolute risk reduction, 17.7%; P = .004). The benefit of surgery was apparent within 2 months after randomization, and only one stroke was noted in the surgical group beyond the 30-day perioperative period.
                For a selected cohort of men with symptoms of cerebral or retinal ischemia in the distribution of a high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis, carotid endarterectomy can effectively reduce the risk of subsequent ipsilateral cerebral ischemia. The risk of cerebral ischemia in this subgroup of patients is considerably higher than previously estimated. 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.
                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.
                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).
                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.
                Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.
                Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Carotid endarterectomy is effective in stroke prevention for patients with severe symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis, and carotid-artery stenting has been widely used as alternative treatment. Since equivalence or superiority has not been convincingly shown for either treatment, we aimed to compare the two.
                1200 patients with symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis were randomly assigned within 180 days of transient ischaemic attack or moderate stroke (modified Rankin scale score of < or =3) carotid-artery stenting (n=605) or carotid endarterectomy (n=595). The primary endpoint of this hospital-based study was ipsilateral ischaemic stroke or death from time of randomisation to 30 days after the procedure. The non-inferiority margin was defined as less than 2.5% on the basis of an expected event rate of 5%. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials with the international standard randomised controlled trial number ISRCTN57874028.
                1183 patients were included in the analysis. The rate of death or ipsilateral ischaemic stroke from randomisation to 30 days after the procedure was 6.84% with carotid-artery stenting and 6.34% with carotid endarterectomy (absolute difference 0.51%, 90% CI -1.89% to 2.91%). The one-sided p value for non-inferiority is 0.09.
                SPACE failed to prove non-inferiority of carotid-artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy for the periprocedural complication rate. The results of this trial do not justify the widespread use in the short-term of carotid-artery stenting for treatment of carotid-artery stenoses. Results at 6-24 months are awaited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks and advantages of using external jugular vein (EJV) patch, compared with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch, during carotid endarterectomy. The primary end point was the relevant neurologic complication rate (RNCR; fatal or disabling stroke) at any time during follow-up. Secondary end points included stroke-free survival, 30-day and long-term mortality, recurrent stenosis rate (> or =50%), occlusion, patch infection, aneurysm formation, and other local complications.
                The study, a prospective randomized clinical trial carried out at a single center, was divided into two 3-year phases: December 1996 to March 1999, when patients were enrolled, and March 1999 to March 2002, which was the follow-up period. Inclusion criteria included an external jugular vein suitable for patching, defined as vein diameter 3 mm or larger and absence of collateral vessels noted on preoperative color duplex ultrasound scans. Patients were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either the EJV (n = 80; group A) or synthetic (n = 80; group B) patch.
                Carotid endarterectomy and patching was performed by one surgeon. At 30 months the RNCR-free rate, analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method, was 98.7% for group A (1 ipsilateral lethal stroke) and 94.6% for group B (4 ipsilateral disabling strokes), and remained stable to 60 months. No statistical difference was observed with the log-rank test. Stroke-free survival rate was 100% for group A and 98.7% for group B at 1 year, 98.7% for group A and 93.6% for group B (1 ipsilateral minor stroke) at 30 months, and was unchanged at 60 months. Life table analysis demonstrated freedom from significant recurrent stenosis (> or =50%) of 97.5% for both groups at 6 months, 93.6% for group A and 92.2% for group B at 30 months, and 90.2% for group A and 86.7% for group B at 60 months. No statistical difference was observed with the log-rank test. In no patients was recurrent stenosis greater than 70%. No aneurysm formation was noted during follow-up.
                We can conclude, with the power limitation of the study, that carotid endarterectomy can be safely performed with either the EJV or PTFE patch. Advantages of the EJV for carotid angioplasty include no cost for material, low risk for graft infection, and preservation of the saphenous vein. Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease.
                We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year--a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy.
                The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, -7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04).
                Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared with carotid stenting (CAS) in patients with carotid artery stenosis.
                A prospective randomized single-center clinical trail to compare with endarterectomy and stenting in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 50% and asymptomatic stenosis of at least 70%. From May 2004 to December 2006, there were 40 patients who agreed with the treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either CEA or CAS. The primary end point was any stroke or death within 30 d after treatment and the secondary end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction and any complications of the treatment, or death or ipsilateral stroke and carotid restenosis between 1 month and 18 months, and the cost-effectiveness of both groups were analyzed retrospectively as well.
                There were no significant differences of the characteristics in the two groups. Twenty cases in CEA group underwent 23 endarterectomies (3 cases had bilateral CEA, respectively), in which 9 carotid shunt (39.1%) and 12 patching (52.2%) were used. Twenty cases in CAS group underwent 23 stents (3 cases had bilateral CSA, respectively), in which 21 emboli-protection devices (91.3%) were used. There was no significant difference in 30 d neurological complications (4.3% vs. 8.7%), acute myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 0), and wound hematoma (8.7% vs. 0) between CEA and CAS, respectively. There was no ipsilateral transient ischemic attack or carotid restenosis at 18 months in each group. The average cost of hospitalization was (16 450.95 +/- 6188.76) vs. (70 130.15 +/- 11 999.02) RMB in CEA and CAS, respectively, with significant difference (P < 0.01).
                The early and midterm outcomes are no significant difference between CEA and CAS, but in China, the cost of hospitalization in CAS is much higher than that of CEA.
Endarterectomy is of some benefit for 50% to 69% symptomatic stenosis and highly beneficial for 70% to 99% stenosis without near-occlusion. Benefit in patients with carotid near-occlusion is marginal in the short-term and uncertain in the long-term. These results are generalisable only to surgically-fit patients operated on by surgeons with low complication rates (less than 7% risk of stroke and death). Benefit from endarterectomy depends not only on the degree of carotid stenosis, but also on several other factors, including the delay to surgery after the presenting event.