Carotid Stenting vs. Endarterectomy: Coming into.


Findings from a large clinical trial and magnetic resonance imaging substudy strengthen the case for endarterectomy as the preferred treatment for carotid artery stenosis.

Although the use of percutaneous stenting for carotid artery stenosis is increasing, the procedure is FDA-approved only in patients at high risk for surgical complications. In direct comparisons with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with increased rates of periprocedural stroke, but questions remain about surgical complications, patient selection, timing of intervention, and operator experience. To address these issues, investigators from 50 centers in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada randomized 1713 patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo stenting or endarterectomy. Planned follow-up is 3 years; we now have results of an interim safety analysis.

At 120 days after randomization, the rate of disabling stroke or death was 4.0% in the stenting group and 3.2% in the endarterectomy group, a nonsignificant difference. However, the incidence of the primary endpoint — any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI) — was 8.5% in the stenting group and 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–2.45; P=0·006). Cranial nerve palsy occurred in 1 patient in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group, and significantly fewer hematomas occurred in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group.

In a substudy, 231 patients underwent preprocedural and postprocedural diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) to detect ischemic brain lesions. New postprocedural lesions were found in 50% of patients randomized to stenting and in 17% of those randomized to endarterectomy (odds ratio, 5.21; 95% CI, 2.78–9.79; P<0.001). Increasing DWI lesion volume was associated with subsequent symptomatic stroke. Moreover, DWI lesion rates were higher in centers where filter-based cerebral protection devices were used routinely during stenting than in centers where these devices were not routinely used.

COMMENT

Although longer-term follow-up results of this trial are yet to come, the evidence increasingly supports endarterectomy as the first choice for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who are suitable candidates for surgery. The elevated stroke risk associated with stenting is underlined by the striking increase in new ischemic lesions on DWI that appeared to be somewhat related to the use of cerebral protection devices. Whether periprocedural strokes have a greater impact on a patient’s quality of life than periprocedural MIs remains to be seen. Investigators from a U.S. trial (CREST) reported at a recent stroke meeting that stenting and endarterectomy were comparable in their trial, but we reserve judgment until their full published analysis is available.

Source: http://www.jwatch.org

 

Effects of carotid artery stenosis treatment on blood pressure.


The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term effects of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) on blood pressure (BP).

Methods

Between January 2003 and December 2009, 134 patients underwent 145 procedures for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Patients with at least 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up after treatment were included in this study. A total of 102 patients met this criterion and were placed in the CEA group (n = 59) or the CAS group (n = 43) according to their treatment. The percentage change in BP decrement and the number of patients with a normotensive BP were evaluated and compared between the groups.

Results

There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to baseline characteristics. Compared with the pretreatment BP, the follow-up BPs were significantly decreased in both groups. At the 1-year followup, the percentage change in the BP decrement was greater in the CAS group (percentage change: systolic BP 9.6% and diastolic BP 12.8%) than in the CEA group (percentage change: systolic BP 5.9% [p = 0.035] and diastolic BP = 8.1% [p = 0.049]), and there were more patients with a normotensive BP in the CAS group (46.5%) than in the CEA group (22.0%, p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Both CEA and CAS have BP-lowering effects. Carotid artery stenting seems to have a better effect than CEA on BP at the 1-year follow-up.

Source: Journal of Neurosurgery.

 

 

Annual rupture risk of growing unruptured cerebral aneurysms detected by magnetic resonance angiography.


In this paper, the authors’ goals were to clarify the characteristics of growing unruptured cerebral aneurysms detected by serial MR angiography and to establish the recommended follow-up interval.

Methods

A total of 1002 patients with 1325 unruptured cerebral aneurysms were retrospectively identified. These patients had undergone follow-up evaluation at least twice. Aneurysm growth was defined as an increase in maximum aneurysm diameter by 1.5 times or the appearance of a bleb.

Results

Aneurysm growth was observed in 18 patients during the period of this study (1.8%/person-year). The annual rupture risk after growth was 18.5%/person-year. The proportion of females among patients with growing aneurysms was significantly larger than those without growing aneurysms (p = 0.0281). The aneurysm wall was reddish, thin, and fragile on intraoperative findings. Frequent follow-up examination is recommended to detect aneurysm growth before rupture.

Conclusions

Despite the relatively short period, the annual rupture risk of growing unruptured cerebral aneurysms detected by MR angiography was not as low as previously reported. Surgical or endovascular treatment can be considered if aneurysm growth is detected during the follow-up period.

Source: Journal of neurosurgery.

cerebral aneurysm, magnetic resonance angiography, rupture, vascular disorders

 

 

Cost-effectiveness of carotid artery stent placement versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated that the risk of the primary composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death did not differ significantly in patients with an average surgical risk undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and those undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the cost associated with CAS may limit its broad applicability. The authors’ goal in this paper was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CAS with an embolic-protection device versus CEA in patients with moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis who are at average surgical risk.

Methods

The probability of the primary outcome was obtained from the results of the CREST trial. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each treatment modality were estimated by adjusting for the incidence of each quality-adjusted outcome (QALY weights of ipsilateral stroke, MI, death, and postprocedure QALYs). The total cost associated with each intervention was derived from hospitalization cost and cost associated with primary outcomes including stroke, MI, and death in each group. Costs are expressed in US dollars accounting for inflation up to October 2010. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for the 4-year period after the procedure. All values are expressed as means and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The estimated net costs for patients after treatment with CAS and CEA after consideration of the primary outcome were $18,335 and $13,276, respectively, from the definitive presimulation analysis. Postsimulation values were $19,210 (range $18,264–$20,156) and $14,080 (range $13,076–$15,084), respectively. Overall, QALYs for the CAS and CEA groups were 0.712 and 0.702, respectively (ranging from 0.0 [death] to 0.815 [no adverse events]). The estimated ICER for CAS versus CEA treatment was $229,429.

Conclusions

Although the CREST demonstrated equivalent results with CAS (compared with CEA) in patients at average surgical risk with severe carotid artery stenosis, broad applicability of CAS might be limited by the higher cost associated with this procedure.

Source: Journal of neurosurgery.

 

Cost-effectiveness of carotid artery stent placement versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis.


The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated that the risk of the primary composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death did not differ significantly in patients with an average surgical risk undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and those undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the cost associated with CAS may limit its broad applicability. The authors’ goal in this paper was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CAS with an embolic-protection device versus CEA in patients with moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis who are at average surgical risk.

Methods

The probability of the primary outcome was obtained from the results of the CREST trial. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each treatment modality were estimated by adjusting for the incidence of each quality-adjusted outcome (QALY weights of ipsilateral stroke, MI, death, and postprocedure QALYs). The total cost associated with each intervention was derived from hospitalization cost and cost associated with primary outcomes including stroke, MI, and death in each group. Costs are expressed in US dollars accounting for inflation up to October 2010. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for the 4-year period after the procedure. All values are expressed as means and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The estimated net costs for patients after treatment with CAS and CEA after consideration of the primary outcome were $18,335 and $13,276, respectively, from the definitive presimulation analysis. Postsimulation values were $19,210 (range $18,264–$20,156) and $14,080 (range $13,076–$15,084), respectively. Overall, QALYs for the CAS and CEA groups were 0.712 and 0.702, respectively (ranging from 0.0 [death] to 0.815 [no adverse events]). The estimated ICER for CAS versus CEA treatment was $229,429.

Conclusions

Although the CREST demonstrated equivalent results with CAS (compared with CEA) in patients at average surgical risk with severe carotid artery stenosis, broad applicability of CAS might be limited by the higher cost associated with this procedure.

Source: Journal of neurosurgery.