Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. Long-term outcome of endovascular treatment versus medical care for carotid artery stenosis in patients not suitable for surgery and randomised in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty study (CAVATAS). Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial. Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital. Randomized study of carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: a stopped trial. [Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting: a prospective randomized trial]. Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. 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. Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a randomized trial in a community hospital.
Carotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke.
                We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.
                For 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85).
                Among patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)
                2010 Massachusetts Medical Society Optimal treatment of carotid stenosis in patients not suitable for surgery is unclear. The Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty study contained a trial comparing medical and endovascular treatment in patients not suitable for surgery.
                Forty patients were randomised to medical or endovascular treatment in equal numbers, and patients were followed up for up to 10 years. The primary outcome measure was defined as stroke or death during follow-up, analysed by intention-to-treat. Secondary analyses included disabling stroke, death, any stroke, any stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), all during follow-up.
                Baseline characteristics were similar. The risk of stroke, retinal infarction or death within 30 days of endovascular treatment was 5% (95% CI: 0.1-24.9%). By the study end, >50% of patients had suffered a recurrent TIA, stroke or died. One third of events were non-stroke deaths. Overall, there was no significant difference between medical and endovascular treatment in the primary outcome rate of stroke or death after randomisation (hazard ratio: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.39-2.48) or the rate of any stroke or TIA (hazard ratio: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.54-3.75).
                We failed to show superiority of endovascular treatment above medical care alone for carotid stenosis in a very small group of patients not suitable for surgical treatment. However, the trial randomised only 40 patients, and was therefore severely underpowered to detect clinically relevant treatment differences. Ongoing trials of carotid stenting will need to demonstrate improved safety and efficacy before endovascular treatment should enter routine practice.
                (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to be effective in stroke prevention for patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Although several prospective randomized trials indicate that carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative but not superior treatment modality, there is still a significant lack of long-term data comparing CAS with CEA. This study presents long-term results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial.
                Between August 1999 and April 2002, 87 patients with a symptomatic high-grade internal carotid artery stenosis (>70%) were randomized to CAS or CEA. After a median observation time of 66 +/- 14.2 months (CAS) and 64 +/- 12.1 months (CEA), 42 patients in each group were re-evaluated retrospectively by clinical examination and documentation of neurologic events. Duplex ultrasound imaging was performed in 61 patients (32 CAS, 29 CEA), and patients with restenosis >70% were re-evaluated by angiography.
                During the observation period, 23 patients (25.2%) died (10 CAS, 13 CEA), and three were lost to follow up. The incidence of strokes was higher after CAS, with four strokes in 42 CAS patients vs none in 42 CEA patients. One transient ischemic attack occurred in each group. A significantly higher rate of restenosis >70% (6 of 32 vs 0 of 29) occurred after CAS compared with CEA. Five of 32 CAS patients (15.6%) presented with high-grade (>70%) restenosis as an indication for secondary intervention or surgical stent removal, and three presented with neurologic symptoms. No CEA patients required reintervention (P < .05 vs CAS). A medium-grade (<70%) restenosis was detected in eight of 32 CAS patients (25%) and in one of 29 CEA patients (3.4%). In five of 32 CAS (15.6%) and three of 29 CEA patients (10.3%), a high-grade stenosis of the contralateral carotid artery was observed and treated during the observation period.
                The long-term results of this prospective, randomized, single-center study revealed a high incidence of relevant restenosis and neurologic symptoms after CAS. CEA seems to be superior to CAS concerning the development of restenosis and significant prevention of stroke. However, the long-term results of the ongoing multicenter trials have to be awaited for a final conclusion. Carotid stenting is less invasive than endarterectomy, but it is unclear whether it is as safe in patients with symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis.
                We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare stenting with endarterectomy in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 60%. The primary end point was the incidence of any stroke or death within 30 days after treatment.
                The trial was stopped prematurely after the inclusion of 527 patients for reasons of both safety and futility. The 30-day incidence of any stroke or death was 3.9% after endarterectomy (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0 to 7.2) and 9.6% after stenting (95% CI, 6.4 to 14.0); the relative risk of any stroke or death after stenting as compared with endarterectomy was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.1). The 30-day incidence of disabling stroke or death was 1.5% after endarterectomy (95% CI, 0.5 to 4.2) and 3.4% after stenting (95% CI, 1.7 to 6.7); the relative risk was 2.2 (95% CI, 0.7 to 7.2). At 6 months, the incidence of any stroke or death was 6.1% after endarterectomy and 11.7% after stenting (P=0.02). There were more major local complications after stenting and more systemic complications (mainly pulmonary) after endarterectomy, but the differences were not significant. Cranial-nerve injury was more common after endarterectomy than after stenting.
                In this study of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 60% or more, the rates of death and stroke at 1 and 6 months were lower with endarterectomy than with stenting. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00190398 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society. 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. 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.
Endovascular treatment is associated with an increased risk of peri-procedural stroke or death compared with endarterectomy. However, this excess risk appears to be limited to older patients. The longer term efficacy of endovascular treatment and the risk of restenosis are unclear and require further follow-up of existing trials. Further trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.