New Trial Proposed for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

SAN DIEGO – Citing vastly improved management of carotid stenosis, the principal investigator of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial has called for yet another trial, this one to clarify risks and benefits of surgery vs. aggressive medical management to prevent stroke in asymptomatic patients.

Every contemporary intervention to prevent strokes – endarterectomy, carotid stenting, and aggressive medical management of risk factors – is becoming safer and more efficacious, said Dr. Thomas G. Brott of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., at the opening symposium of the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

The dilemma, according to Dr. Brott: "We don’t know how they stack up."

"Unfortunately, the new opinions outweigh the new data."

Current clinical practice was shaped by results of the ACAS (Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study) and the ACST (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial), in which carotid endarterectomy (CEA) trumped medical management for prevention of stroke, Dr. Brott explained.

CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial), which began enrolling only symptomatic patients, added asymptomatic subjects after publication of ACST results in 2004. In the end, it concluded that perioperative stroke and death rates were "low and similar" for stenting (2.5%) and endarterectomy (1.4%).

Revascularization with carotid artery stenting has remained somewhat controversial, with the current body of evidence suggesting the need for better control of rare, but real, complications and mortality, particularly in certain populations, including Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, recent epidemiologic studies demonstrate profoundly lowered stroke rates without surgery or stenting, via intensive medical therapy to control risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and insulin resistance. For example, a population-based study in the United Kingdom found that the rate of ipsilateral stroke in medically treated patients who had carotid stenosis of 50% or greater was 0.3%.

Two new, randomized trials suggest that intensive medical therapy can indeed produce far more impressive results than anticipated in a prospective study of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (Arch. Neurol. 2010;67:180-6), and even in patients with severe intracranial artery stenosis in the SAMMPRIS (Stenting vs. Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis) trial (N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;365:993-1003), Dr. Brott noted.

Various groups, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Heart Association, and the American Stroke Association, have weighed in with opinions on the management of asymptomatic patients in the hopes of preventing an estimated 5%-10% of all strokes.

The problem, Dr. Brott said, is not a lack of guidance for current treatment decisions, but the lack of a direct comparison of carotid revascularization vs. contemporary medical therapy.

"We have evolving opinion without evolving data," he asserted.

Much is at stake, with carotid revascularization selected for 80,000-90,000 asymptomatic patients each year in the United States, and carotid artery stenting for another 40,000 patients.

Dr. Brott proposed a trial to enroll 950 patients at 70 centers, with the CREST team providing the interventional arm and the SAMMPRIS team providing the medical management arm in asymptomatic patients exhibiting at least 70% carotid stenosis by angiography or ultrasound.

The effect size proposed by Dr. Brott of 1.2% would be equal to the absolute difference in the primary end point (periprocedural stroke and death or subsequent ipsilateral stroke) in the ACAS trial, a difference substantial enough to alter clinical practice.

"We think such a trial can be done in a reasonable amount of time and provide us with ... contemporary data," he said.

Dr. Walter J. Koroshetz, deputy director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said by e-mail that a grant proposal for such a study has been received by the institute, but he would not elaborate on its feasibility or methodology, noting that the institute’s "leadership depends heavily on ... peer review study sections to provide advice."

Dr. Brott said that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Citing vastly improved management of carotid stenosis, the principal investigator of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial has called for yet another trial, this one to clarify risks and benefits of surgery vs. aggressive medical management to prevent stroke in asymptomatic patients.

Every contemporary intervention to prevent strokes – endarterectomy, carotid stenting, and aggressive medical management of risk factors – is becoming safer and more efficacious, said Dr. Thomas G. Brott of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., at the opening symposium of the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

The dilemma, according to Dr. Brott: "We don’t know how they stack up."

"Unfortunately, the new opinions outweigh the new data."

Current clinical practice was shaped by results of the ACAS (Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study) and the ACST (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial), in which carotid endarterectomy (CEA) trumped medical management for prevention of stroke, Dr. Brott explained.

CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial), which began enrolling only symptomatic patients, added asymptomatic subjects after publication of ACST results in 2004. In the end, it concluded that perioperative stroke and death rates were "low and similar" for stenting (2.5%) and endarterectomy (1.4%).

Revascularization with carotid artery stenting has remained somewhat controversial, with the current body of evidence suggesting the need for better control of rare, but real, complications and mortality, particularly in certain populations, including Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, recent epidemiologic studies demonstrate profoundly lowered stroke rates without surgery or stenting, via intensive medical therapy to control risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and insulin resistance. For example, a population-based study in the United Kingdom found that the rate of ipsilateral stroke in medically treated patients who had carotid stenosis of 50% or greater was 0.3%.

Two new, randomized trials suggest that intensive medical therapy can indeed produce far more impressive results than anticipated in a prospective study of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (Arch. Neurol. 2010;67:180-6), and even in patients with severe intracranial artery stenosis in the SAMMPRIS (Stenting vs. Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis) trial (N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;365:993-1003), Dr. Brott noted.

Various groups, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Heart Association, and the American Stroke Association, have weighed in with opinions on the management of asymptomatic patients in the hopes of preventing an estimated 5%-10% of all strokes.

The problem, Dr. Brott said, is not a lack of guidance for current treatment decisions, but the lack of a direct comparison of carotid revascularization vs. contemporary medical therapy.

"We have evolving opinion without evolving data," he asserted.

Much is at stake, with carotid revascularization selected for 80,000-90,000 asymptomatic patients each year in the United States, and carotid artery stenting for another 40,000 patients.

Dr. Brott proposed a trial to enroll 950 patients at 70 centers, with the CREST team providing the interventional arm and the SAMMPRIS team providing the medical management arm in asymptomatic patients exhibiting at least 70% carotid stenosis by angiography or ultrasound.

The effect size proposed by Dr. Brott of 1.2% would be equal to the absolute difference in the primary end point (periprocedural stroke and death or subsequent ipsilateral stroke) in the ACAS trial, a difference substantial enough to alter clinical practice.

"We think such a trial can be done in a reasonable amount of time and provide us with ... contemporary data," he said.

Dr. Walter J. Koroshetz, deputy director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said by e-mail that a grant proposal for such a study has been received by the institute, but he would not elaborate on its feasibility or methodology, noting that the institute’s "leadership depends heavily on ... peer review study sections to provide advice."

Dr. Brott said that he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Citing vastly improved management of carotid stenosis, the principal investigator of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial has called for yet another trial, this one to clarify risks and benefits of surgery vs. aggressive medical management to prevent stroke in asymptomatic patients.

Every contemporary intervention to prevent strokes – endarterectomy, carotid stenting, and aggressive medical management of risk factors – is becoming safer and more efficacious, said Dr. Thomas G. Brott of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., at the opening symposium of the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

The dilemma, according to Dr. Brott: "We don’t know how they stack up."

"Unfortunately, the new opinions outweigh the new data."

Current clinical practice was shaped by results of the ACAS (Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study) and the ACST (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial), in which carotid endarterectomy (CEA) trumped medical management for prevention of stroke, Dr. Brott explained.

CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial), which began enrolling only symptomatic patients, added asymptomatic subjects after publication of ACST results in 2004. In the end, it concluded that perioperative stroke and death rates were "low and similar" for stenting (2.5%) and endarterectomy (1.4%).

Revascularization with carotid artery stenting has remained somewhat controversial, with the current body of evidence suggesting the need for better control of rare, but real, complications and mortality, particularly in certain populations, including Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, recent epidemiologic studies demonstrate profoundly lowered stroke rates without surgery or stenting, via intensive medical therapy to control risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and insulin resistance. For example, a population-based study in the United Kingdom found that the rate of ipsilateral stroke in medically treated patients who had carotid stenosis of 50% or greater was 0.3%.

Two new, randomized trials suggest that intensive medical therapy can indeed produce far more impressive results than anticipated in a prospective study of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (Arch. Neurol. 2010;67:180-6), and even in patients with severe intracranial artery stenosis in the SAMMPRIS (Stenting vs. Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis) trial (N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;365:993-1003), Dr. Brott noted.

Various groups, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Heart Association, and the American Stroke Association, have weighed in with opinions on the management of asymptomatic patients in the hopes of preventing an estimated 5%-10% of all strokes.

The problem, Dr. Brott said, is not a lack of guidance for current treatment decisions, but the lack of a direct comparison of carotid revascularization vs. contemporary medical therapy.

"We have evolving opinion without evolving data," he asserted.

Much is at stake, with carotid revascularization selected for 80,000-90,000 asymptomatic patients each year in the United States, and carotid artery stenting for another 40,000 patients.

Dr. Brott proposed a trial to enroll 950 patients at 70 centers, with the CREST team providing the interventional arm and the SAMMPRIS team providing the medical management arm in asymptomatic patients exhibiting at least 70% carotid stenosis by angiography or ultrasound.

The effect size proposed by Dr. Brott of 1.2% would be equal to the absolute difference in the primary end point (periprocedural stroke and death or subsequent ipsilateral stroke) in the ACAS trial, a difference substantial enough to alter clinical practice.

"We think such a trial can be done in a reasonable amount of time and provide us with ... contemporary data," he said.

Dr. Walter J. Koroshetz, deputy director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said by e-mail that a grant proposal for such a study has been received by the institute, but he would not elaborate on its feasibility or methodology, noting that the institute’s "leadership depends heavily on ... peer review study sections to provide advice."

Dr. Brott said that he had no relevant financial disclosures.