Stroke

MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.

More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.

The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.

During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.

The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.

A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).

RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.

MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.

More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.

The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.

During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.

The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.

A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).

RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.

MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.

More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.

The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.

During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.

The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.

A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).

RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.

CHICAGO – High-risk hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) whose doctors monitored them with a computerized alert system were more than twice as likely to be on anticoagulation and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.

“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”

The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.

Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).

“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.

The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).

One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.

Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.

Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.

“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”

Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.

CHICAGO – High-risk hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) whose doctors monitored them with a computerized alert system were more than twice as likely to be on anticoagulation and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.

“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”

The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.

Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).

“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.

The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).

One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.

Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.

Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.

“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”

Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.

CHICAGO – High-risk hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) whose doctors monitored them with a computerized alert system were more than twice as likely to be on anticoagulation and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.

“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”

The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.

Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).

“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.

The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).

One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.

Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.

Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.

“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”

Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.

 

MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.

Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.

FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.

The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).

The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.

During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.

FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.

 

MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.

Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.

FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.

The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).

The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.

During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.

FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.

 

MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.

Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.

FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.

The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).

The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.

During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.

FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.

 

Around one-half of women and one-third of men will develop dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism during their lifetime, according to a study published online ahead of print October 2 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

The population-based Rotterdam study involved 12,102 individuals (57.7% women) who were ages 45 or older and free of neurologic disease at baseline. This cohort was followed for 26 years. Silvan Licher, a PhD student in the Department of Epidemiology at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and colleagues found that a 45-year-old woman had a 48.2% overall remaining lifetime risk of developing dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism, while a 45-year-old man had a 36.3% lifetime risk.

“There are currently no disease-modifying drugs available for dementia and most causes of parkinsonism, and prevention of stroke is hampered by suboptimal adherence to effective preventive strategies or unmet guideline thresholds,” the authors wrote. “Yet a delay in onset of these common neurologic diseases by merely a few years could reduce the population burden of these diseases substantially.”

Women age 45 had a significantly higher lifetime risk than men of developing dementia (31.4% vs 18.6%, respectively) and stroke (21.6% vs 19.3%), but the risk of parkinsonism was similar between the sexes. Women also had a significantly greater lifetime risk of developing more than one neurologic disease, compared with men (4% vs 3.1%), largely because of the overlap between dementia and stroke.

At age 45, women had the greatest risk of dementia, but as men and women aged, their remaining lifetime risk of dementia increased relative to other neurologic diseases. After age 85, 66.6% of first diagnoses in women and 55.6% in men were dementia. By comparison, first manifestation of stroke was the greatest threat to men age 45. Men also were at a significantly higher risk for stroke at a younger age—before age 75—than were women (8.4% vs 5.8%, respectively). In the case of parkinsonism, the lifetime risk peaked earlier than it did for dementia and stroke and was relatively low after age 85, with no significant differences in risk between men and women.

The authors considered what effect a delay in disease onset and occurrence might have on remaining lifetime risk for neurologic disease. They found that a one-, two-, or three-year delay in the onset of all neurologic disease was associated with a 20% reduction in lifetime risk in individuals age 45 or older, and a greater than 50% reduction in risk in the oldest. A three-year delay in the onset of dementia reduced the lifetime risk by 15% for men and women age 45 and conveyed a 30% reduction in risk to those age 45 or older.

The Rotterdam study is supported by Erasmus MC and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; the European Commission and the Municipality of Rotterdam; the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and the Dutch Heart Foundation.

 

—Bianca Nogrady

Suggested Reading

Licher S, Darweesh SKL, Wolters FJ, et al. Lifetime risk of common neurological diseases in the elderly population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 2 [Epub ahead of print].

 

Around one-half of women and one-third of men will develop dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism during their lifetime, according to a study published online ahead of print October 2 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

The population-based Rotterdam study involved 12,102 individuals (57.7% women) who were ages 45 or older and free of neurologic disease at baseline. This cohort was followed for 26 years. Silvan Licher, a PhD student in the Department of Epidemiology at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and colleagues found that a 45-year-old woman had a 48.2% overall remaining lifetime risk of developing dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism, while a 45-year-old man had a 36.3% lifetime risk.

“There are currently no disease-modifying drugs available for dementia and most causes of parkinsonism, and prevention of stroke is hampered by suboptimal adherence to effective preventive strategies or unmet guideline thresholds,” the authors wrote. “Yet a delay in onset of these common neurologic diseases by merely a few years could reduce the population burden of these diseases substantially.”

Women age 45 had a significantly higher lifetime risk than men of developing dementia (31.4% vs 18.6%, respectively) and stroke (21.6% vs 19.3%), but the risk of parkinsonism was similar between the sexes. Women also had a significantly greater lifetime risk of developing more than one neurologic disease, compared with men (4% vs 3.1%), largely because of the overlap between dementia and stroke.

At age 45, women had the greatest risk of dementia, but as men and women aged, their remaining lifetime risk of dementia increased relative to other neurologic diseases. After age 85, 66.6% of first diagnoses in women and 55.6% in men were dementia. By comparison, first manifestation of stroke was the greatest threat to men age 45. Men also were at a significantly higher risk for stroke at a younger age—before age 75—than were women (8.4% vs 5.8%, respectively). In the case of parkinsonism, the lifetime risk peaked earlier than it did for dementia and stroke and was relatively low after age 85, with no significant differences in risk between men and women.

The authors considered what effect a delay in disease onset and occurrence might have on remaining lifetime risk for neurologic disease. They found that a one-, two-, or three-year delay in the onset of all neurologic disease was associated with a 20% reduction in lifetime risk in individuals age 45 or older, and a greater than 50% reduction in risk in the oldest. A three-year delay in the onset of dementia reduced the lifetime risk by 15% for men and women age 45 and conveyed a 30% reduction in risk to those age 45 or older.

The Rotterdam study is supported by Erasmus MC and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; the European Commission and the Municipality of Rotterdam; the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and the Dutch Heart Foundation.

 

—Bianca Nogrady

Suggested Reading

Licher S, Darweesh SKL, Wolters FJ, et al. Lifetime risk of common neurological diseases in the elderly population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 2 [Epub ahead of print].

 

Around one-half of women and one-third of men will develop dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism during their lifetime, according to a study published online ahead of print October 2 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

The population-based Rotterdam study involved 12,102 individuals (57.7% women) who were ages 45 or older and free of neurologic disease at baseline. This cohort was followed for 26 years. Silvan Licher, a PhD student in the Department of Epidemiology at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and colleagues found that a 45-year-old woman had a 48.2% overall remaining lifetime risk of developing dementia, stroke, or parkinsonism, while a 45-year-old man had a 36.3% lifetime risk.

“There are currently no disease-modifying drugs available for dementia and most causes of parkinsonism, and prevention of stroke is hampered by suboptimal adherence to effective preventive strategies or unmet guideline thresholds,” the authors wrote. “Yet a delay in onset of these common neurologic diseases by merely a few years could reduce the population burden of these diseases substantially.”

Women age 45 had a significantly higher lifetime risk than men of developing dementia (31.4% vs 18.6%, respectively) and stroke (21.6% vs 19.3%), but the risk of parkinsonism was similar between the sexes. Women also had a significantly greater lifetime risk of developing more than one neurologic disease, compared with men (4% vs 3.1%), largely because of the overlap between dementia and stroke.

At age 45, women had the greatest risk of dementia, but as men and women aged, their remaining lifetime risk of dementia increased relative to other neurologic diseases. After age 85, 66.6% of first diagnoses in women and 55.6% in men were dementia. By comparison, first manifestation of stroke was the greatest threat to men age 45. Men also were at a significantly higher risk for stroke at a younger age—before age 75—than were women (8.4% vs 5.8%, respectively). In the case of parkinsonism, the lifetime risk peaked earlier than it did for dementia and stroke and was relatively low after age 85, with no significant differences in risk between men and women.

The authors considered what effect a delay in disease onset and occurrence might have on remaining lifetime risk for neurologic disease. They found that a one-, two-, or three-year delay in the onset of all neurologic disease was associated with a 20% reduction in lifetime risk in individuals age 45 or older, and a greater than 50% reduction in risk in the oldest. A three-year delay in the onset of dementia reduced the lifetime risk by 15% for men and women age 45 and conveyed a 30% reduction in risk to those age 45 or older.

The Rotterdam study is supported by Erasmus MC and Erasmus University Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Netherlands Genomics Initiative; the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; the European Commission and the Municipality of Rotterdam; the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and the Dutch Heart Foundation.

 

—Bianca Nogrady

Suggested Reading

Licher S, Darweesh SKL, Wolters FJ, et al. Lifetime risk of common neurological diseases in the elderly population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 2 [Epub ahead of print].

BETHESDA, MD. – The risk of brain damage from sickle cell disease (SCD) merits more attention, even with progress made in recent decades to prevent strokes, according to Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Whether we can see it or not, the same injury we’ve been talking about in the kidney and the liver and other places is occurring in the brain” with sickle cell disease, Dr. Jordan said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

The concern about long-term brain injury reflects major shifts in SCD treatment. Improved medical care has transformed SCD from a disease that often resulted in an early death to more of a chronic condition, Dr. Jordan said, citing research that shows a survival rate of roughly 99% to age 18 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jun;173[6]:927-37).

One of the major success stories in SCD treatment also has been using primary prevention steps to cut the risk of overt stroke at least 10-fold, Dr. Jordan said. Primary prevention includes annual scans with transcranial Doppler ultrasound to identify children with SCD at high risk of stroke.

“What’s not changing is that there is silent injury that accumulates” and can cause lifelong harm, she said. “We want to protect our patients long term so that they can have a successful adult life, not just a successful childhood.”

Research done by one of Dr. Jordan’s colleagues at Vanderbilt, Michael R. DeBaun, MD, showed that regular blood-transfusion therapy significantly reduced the incidence of the recurrence of brain infarct in children with sickle cell anemia. (N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 21;371[8]:699-710).


But the lessons from the work of Dr. DeBaun and his colleagues with their Silent Cerebral Infarct Multi-Center Clinical (SIT) Trial have not yet been fully adopted, Dr. Jordan said. That’s partly due to the inconvenience and cost of routinely administered blood transfusions to prevent silent cerebral infarcts, which, when used long term, cause side effects, she said.

Dr. Jordan said there’s growing interest in identifying patients at high risk for stroke and moving them toward stem cell transplant, though studies are ongoing. She urged greater attention to the high lifetime costs of strokes and other cerebrovascular complications, particularly in children and young adults.

While some of the brain infarcts are small and don’t result in focal weakness of the body, these “silent infarcts” do produce cognitive effects that reduce function, school performance, employment, and quality of life, she said.

“The injury to the brain is present, whether we can see it or not,” Dr. Jordan said. “In these precious patients, slow cognitive decline isn’t acceptable, frankly.”

Dr. Jordan reported having received funding from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health for stroke prevention studies in SCD.

BETHESDA, MD. – The risk of brain damage from sickle cell disease (SCD) merits more attention, even with progress made in recent decades to prevent strokes, according to Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Whether we can see it or not, the same injury we’ve been talking about in the kidney and the liver and other places is occurring in the brain” with sickle cell disease, Dr. Jordan said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

The concern about long-term brain injury reflects major shifts in SCD treatment. Improved medical care has transformed SCD from a disease that often resulted in an early death to more of a chronic condition, Dr. Jordan said, citing research that shows a survival rate of roughly 99% to age 18 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jun;173[6]:927-37).

One of the major success stories in SCD treatment also has been using primary prevention steps to cut the risk of overt stroke at least 10-fold, Dr. Jordan said. Primary prevention includes annual scans with transcranial Doppler ultrasound to identify children with SCD at high risk of stroke.

“What’s not changing is that there is silent injury that accumulates” and can cause lifelong harm, she said. “We want to protect our patients long term so that they can have a successful adult life, not just a successful childhood.”

Research done by one of Dr. Jordan’s colleagues at Vanderbilt, Michael R. DeBaun, MD, showed that regular blood-transfusion therapy significantly reduced the incidence of the recurrence of brain infarct in children with sickle cell anemia. (N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 21;371[8]:699-710).


But the lessons from the work of Dr. DeBaun and his colleagues with their Silent Cerebral Infarct Multi-Center Clinical (SIT) Trial have not yet been fully adopted, Dr. Jordan said. That’s partly due to the inconvenience and cost of routinely administered blood transfusions to prevent silent cerebral infarcts, which, when used long term, cause side effects, she said.

Dr. Jordan said there’s growing interest in identifying patients at high risk for stroke and moving them toward stem cell transplant, though studies are ongoing. She urged greater attention to the high lifetime costs of strokes and other cerebrovascular complications, particularly in children and young adults.

While some of the brain infarcts are small and don’t result in focal weakness of the body, these “silent infarcts” do produce cognitive effects that reduce function, school performance, employment, and quality of life, she said.

“The injury to the brain is present, whether we can see it or not,” Dr. Jordan said. “In these precious patients, slow cognitive decline isn’t acceptable, frankly.”

Dr. Jordan reported having received funding from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health for stroke prevention studies in SCD.

BETHESDA, MD. – The risk of brain damage from sickle cell disease (SCD) merits more attention, even with progress made in recent decades to prevent strokes, according to Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Whether we can see it or not, the same injury we’ve been talking about in the kidney and the liver and other places is occurring in the brain” with sickle cell disease, Dr. Jordan said at Sickle Cell in Focus, a conference held by the National Institutes of Health.

The concern about long-term brain injury reflects major shifts in SCD treatment. Improved medical care has transformed SCD from a disease that often resulted in an early death to more of a chronic condition, Dr. Jordan said, citing research that shows a survival rate of roughly 99% to age 18 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jun;173[6]:927-37).

One of the major success stories in SCD treatment also has been using primary prevention steps to cut the risk of overt stroke at least 10-fold, Dr. Jordan said. Primary prevention includes annual scans with transcranial Doppler ultrasound to identify children with SCD at high risk of stroke.

“What’s not changing is that there is silent injury that accumulates” and can cause lifelong harm, she said. “We want to protect our patients long term so that they can have a successful adult life, not just a successful childhood.”

Research done by one of Dr. Jordan’s colleagues at Vanderbilt, Michael R. DeBaun, MD, showed that regular blood-transfusion therapy significantly reduced the incidence of the recurrence of brain infarct in children with sickle cell anemia. (N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 21;371[8]:699-710).


But the lessons from the work of Dr. DeBaun and his colleagues with their Silent Cerebral Infarct Multi-Center Clinical (SIT) Trial have not yet been fully adopted, Dr. Jordan said. That’s partly due to the inconvenience and cost of routinely administered blood transfusions to prevent silent cerebral infarcts, which, when used long term, cause side effects, she said.

Dr. Jordan said there’s growing interest in identifying patients at high risk for stroke and moving them toward stem cell transplant, though studies are ongoing. She urged greater attention to the high lifetime costs of strokes and other cerebrovascular complications, particularly in children and young adults.

While some of the brain infarcts are small and don’t result in focal weakness of the body, these “silent infarcts” do produce cognitive effects that reduce function, school performance, employment, and quality of life, she said.

“The injury to the brain is present, whether we can see it or not,” Dr. Jordan said. “In these precious patients, slow cognitive decline isn’t acceptable, frankly.”

Dr. Jordan reported having received funding from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health for stroke prevention studies in SCD.

SAN DIEGO – A retrospective study and combined meta-analysis of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) confirms the protective effect of the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device, regardless of the valve type used, on periprocedural stroke and mortality.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“The only significant predictor for being stroke free was use of the protective device. If you look at different valve types, you have an effect with use of the protection device with each of them,” Julia Seeger, MD, said in an interview at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.The finding just reinforces a decision that the institution made several years ago, to uniformly use embolic protection in TAVR procedures. Asked if she was convinced by the latest data on the utility of the device, she replied “Yes, definitely.”

Use of the device adds only a couple of minutes to the procedure time, and there haven’t been any adverse events associated with it, and no additional imaging agent was required, said Dr. Seeger, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Ulm (Germany).

The studies included patients being treated with the Medtronic CoreValve/Evolut, the mechanically implantable Boston Scientific Lotus, and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien. Subanalyses for all three valve types showed strong trends for reduction of strokes and mortality. Sentinel is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved device for reduction of strokes during TAVR procedures.

The Sentinel and Clean-TAVI trials showed the efficacy of the Sentinel device in reducing the number and volume of periprocedural cerebral lesions, but there were insufficient randomized data to draw conclusions about its relative efficacy among valve types. Dr. Seeger’s team analyzed data from 984 consecutive TAVR patients. The Sentinel device was used in 548, and not used in 436 consecutive patients. Self-expandable valves were used significantly more often in patients who underwent the procedure with CEP (22% vs. 6.0%). In the study population, 590 balloon-expandable valves, 246 mechanically implantable valves, and 148 self-expandable valves were used.

In the 72 hours after the procedure, mortality or stroke was lower in the CEP group (1.5% versus 4.4%, P less than .01), as was disabling stroke (0.6% versus 3.2%, P less than .01). When results were analyzed by valve types, the researchers found a relative risk reduction for all stroke of 76% with the use of CEP with balloon-expandable devices, 68% with mechanically expandable devices, and 57% with self-expandable devices.

The researchers also conducted a patient-level meta-analysis, incorporating data on 1,306 subjects with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, including 363 from the Sentinel trial (243 with CEP), 100 patients from the CLEAN-TAVI trial (1:1 randomization to CEP), and 843 patients from the Sentinel-Ulm study (423 with CEP).

They matched patients for valve type, Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ risk score, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, sex, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease. The all-procedural stroke rate was 5.4% in patients who did not receive CEP, and 1.9% in those who did, for a risk reduction of 65%. Similarly, 72-hour mortality stroke risk was reduced by 66% with the CEP device. It occurred in 6.0% of non-CEP patients, compared to 2.1% of the CEP patients.

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO – A retrospective study and combined meta-analysis of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) confirms the protective effect of the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device, regardless of the valve type used, on periprocedural stroke and mortality.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“The only significant predictor for being stroke free was use of the protective device. If you look at different valve types, you have an effect with use of the protection device with each of them,” Julia Seeger, MD, said in an interview at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.The finding just reinforces a decision that the institution made several years ago, to uniformly use embolic protection in TAVR procedures. Asked if she was convinced by the latest data on the utility of the device, she replied “Yes, definitely.”

Use of the device adds only a couple of minutes to the procedure time, and there haven’t been any adverse events associated with it, and no additional imaging agent was required, said Dr. Seeger, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Ulm (Germany).

The studies included patients being treated with the Medtronic CoreValve/Evolut, the mechanically implantable Boston Scientific Lotus, and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien. Subanalyses for all three valve types showed strong trends for reduction of strokes and mortality. Sentinel is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved device for reduction of strokes during TAVR procedures.

The Sentinel and Clean-TAVI trials showed the efficacy of the Sentinel device in reducing the number and volume of periprocedural cerebral lesions, but there were insufficient randomized data to draw conclusions about its relative efficacy among valve types. Dr. Seeger’s team analyzed data from 984 consecutive TAVR patients. The Sentinel device was used in 548, and not used in 436 consecutive patients. Self-expandable valves were used significantly more often in patients who underwent the procedure with CEP (22% vs. 6.0%). In the study population, 590 balloon-expandable valves, 246 mechanically implantable valves, and 148 self-expandable valves were used.

In the 72 hours after the procedure, mortality or stroke was lower in the CEP group (1.5% versus 4.4%, P less than .01), as was disabling stroke (0.6% versus 3.2%, P less than .01). When results were analyzed by valve types, the researchers found a relative risk reduction for all stroke of 76% with the use of CEP with balloon-expandable devices, 68% with mechanically expandable devices, and 57% with self-expandable devices.

The researchers also conducted a patient-level meta-analysis, incorporating data on 1,306 subjects with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, including 363 from the Sentinel trial (243 with CEP), 100 patients from the CLEAN-TAVI trial (1:1 randomization to CEP), and 843 patients from the Sentinel-Ulm study (423 with CEP).

They matched patients for valve type, Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ risk score, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, sex, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease. The all-procedural stroke rate was 5.4% in patients who did not receive CEP, and 1.9% in those who did, for a risk reduction of 65%. Similarly, 72-hour mortality stroke risk was reduced by 66% with the CEP device. It occurred in 6.0% of non-CEP patients, compared to 2.1% of the CEP patients.

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO – A retrospective study and combined meta-analysis of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) confirms the protective effect of the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device, regardless of the valve type used, on periprocedural stroke and mortality.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“The only significant predictor for being stroke free was use of the protective device. If you look at different valve types, you have an effect with use of the protection device with each of them,” Julia Seeger, MD, said in an interview at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.The finding just reinforces a decision that the institution made several years ago, to uniformly use embolic protection in TAVR procedures. Asked if she was convinced by the latest data on the utility of the device, she replied “Yes, definitely.”

Use of the device adds only a couple of minutes to the procedure time, and there haven’t been any adverse events associated with it, and no additional imaging agent was required, said Dr. Seeger, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Ulm (Germany).

The studies included patients being treated with the Medtronic CoreValve/Evolut, the mechanically implantable Boston Scientific Lotus, and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien. Subanalyses for all three valve types showed strong trends for reduction of strokes and mortality. Sentinel is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved device for reduction of strokes during TAVR procedures.

The Sentinel and Clean-TAVI trials showed the efficacy of the Sentinel device in reducing the number and volume of periprocedural cerebral lesions, but there were insufficient randomized data to draw conclusions about its relative efficacy among valve types. Dr. Seeger’s team analyzed data from 984 consecutive TAVR patients. The Sentinel device was used in 548, and not used in 436 consecutive patients. Self-expandable valves were used significantly more often in patients who underwent the procedure with CEP (22% vs. 6.0%). In the study population, 590 balloon-expandable valves, 246 mechanically implantable valves, and 148 self-expandable valves were used.

In the 72 hours after the procedure, mortality or stroke was lower in the CEP group (1.5% versus 4.4%, P less than .01), as was disabling stroke (0.6% versus 3.2%, P less than .01). When results were analyzed by valve types, the researchers found a relative risk reduction for all stroke of 76% with the use of CEP with balloon-expandable devices, 68% with mechanically expandable devices, and 57% with self-expandable devices.

The researchers also conducted a patient-level meta-analysis, incorporating data on 1,306 subjects with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, including 363 from the Sentinel trial (243 with CEP), 100 patients from the CLEAN-TAVI trial (1:1 randomization to CEP), and 843 patients from the Sentinel-Ulm study (423 with CEP).

They matched patients for valve type, Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ risk score, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, sex, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease. The all-procedural stroke rate was 5.4% in patients who did not receive CEP, and 1.9% in those who did, for a risk reduction of 65%. Similarly, 72-hour mortality stroke risk was reduced by 66% with the CEP device. It occurred in 6.0% of non-CEP patients, compared to 2.1% of the CEP patients.

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

 

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

 

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

 

NEW YORK – The rates of carotid artery revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting declined precipitously over a recent 15-year period, at least among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A reduction in carotid endarterectomies (CEA) largely accounted for the decline during 1999-2014 although there was a cumulative decline in all carotid revascularization procedures when rates of CEA and stenting were combined, according to Brajesh K. Lal, MD, professor of surgery, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore.

In 1999, when enthusiasm for CEA appears to have peaked, 81,306 patients received this procedure, but a steady decline was observed until 2014, when 36,325 patients were being treated annually in the Medicare database. When calculated as endarterectomies per 100,000 beneficiaries, the rate declined from 298 to 128 (57%; P less than .001) over this 15-year period.

The number of stenting procedures had not reached its peak in 1999, when 10,416 were performed. Rather, the number performed annually nearly doubled to, 22.865 by 2006. However, it then began to decline and reached 10,208 by 2014, which was slightly fewer than in 1999, according to Dr. Lal.

These trends have been observed even though outcomes are getting better, at least for CEA, according to Dr. Lal. From the same pool of data, there was a 31% (1.1% vs. 1.6%) reduction from 1999 to 2014 in mortality at 30 days following CEA. For a composite of ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality, the rate fell 29.5% (3.1% vs. 4.4%). Both reductions were called statistically significant by Dr. Lal.

The improvements in CEA outcomes were observed even though “the treated patients got sicker when looking at comorbidities and risk factors, particularly hypertension, renal insufficiency, and diabetes,” Dr. Lal said.

Outcomes also improved among patients undergoing carotid stenting in general, although the patterns were described as “more complex.” In general, there was steady improvement on outcomes during 1999-2006, but there was no further gain and some lost ground during 2006-2014. For example, ischemic stroke or death fell from 7.0% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2006, but it had climbed back to 7.0% by 2014 with no net change when the first and last year were compared.

However, with risk adjustment, there was a reduction in in-hospital mortality (1.13% vs. 2.78%) over the study period for patients undergoing carotid stenting, according to Dr. Lal, who said this reached statistical significance. Like the CEA group, there was more comorbidity among those treated with stenting at the end, relative to the early part of the study period.

In the stenting group, patients with symptomatic carotid disease rose from 14.4% in 1999 to 25.9% in 2014. This tracks with Medicare policy, which required patients after 2005 to have symptomatic disease for reimbursement, according to Dr. Lal. Prior to 2005, reimbursement was granted for patients participating in clinical trials only.

The rates of carotid revascularization are not evenly distributed geographically in the United States, according to the Medicare data. Endarterectomy in particular has been more common in the south and Midwest than on either coast. This was true in 1999 and remained so in 2014. The distribution was similar for stenting, although it was also relatively common in the southwest in the early part of the study period.

In the beginning of the study, the increased rate of stenting might have contributed to the decline in endarterectomy, but there are several other factors that are implicated in the observed trends, according to Dr. Lal. He suggested that decreasing reimbursement for the performance of these procedures, better clinical management of risk factors, and advances in medical therapy. He cited a physician survey that showed a growing preference for medical management over invasive procedures in patients with high-grade stenosis and indicated that this last factor might be a particularly important driver of the decline in revascularization referrals for asymptomatic carotid disease.

The degree to which these Medicare data are representative of overall trends in the United States is unclear, but Dr. Lal called for further work to understand the forces that these data suggest are driving the changing patterns of carotid revascularization.

NEW YORK – It is well known that reoperative carotid endarterectomy can be technically challenging because of the scarring left from the initial procedure, but an analysis of a large database presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation also revealed that the risk of complications, particularly stroke, is greater.

When “redo” carotid endarterectomies were compared with the index primary procedure collected in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, the odds ratio for stroke was several times greater (odds ratio, 3.71; P = .002) on univariate analysis, reported Jeffrey J. Siracuse, MD, associate professor of surgery and radiology at Boston University.

Previous single-center reports of redo endarterectomies “showed terrific results, really no perioperative stroke or morbidity, but this is older data from a different era,” said Dr. Siracuse, who undertook this study to determine whether “real-world” data would tell a different story.

In this study, 75,943 primary carotid endarterectomies and 140 redo procedures were identified in the ACS NSQIP database and compared. The redo population had a significantly higher incidence of end-stage renal disease (3.6% vs. 1.1%; P = .004), but history of stroke, whether with deficit (20.8% vs. 15.4%) or without (11.5% vs. 9.1%), was numerically higher among those undergoing a primary procedure even though these differences did not reach statistical significance. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were otherwise similar.

Presumably because of the difficulty of recanalizing scarred tissue, the mean procedure time for redos was longer than that for the primary procedures (137 vs. 49 minutes; P less than .001), but there were no significant differences in the rate of surgical site infections (0.7% vs. 0.3%; P = .482), return to the operating room (3.6% vs. 4%; P = .853), or 30-day readmissions (2.1% vs. 6.9%; P = .810) for the redo and index procedures, respectively.

Although perioperative MI rates were higher in the redo group (2.1%) than in the primary endarterectomy group (0.9%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .125). However, a multivariate analysis associated redo carotid endarterectomy procedures with a nearly threefold increase in risk of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events when compared on a multivariate analysis (OR, 2.76; P = .007), Dr. Siracuse reported.

For the surgeons considering a redo carotid endarterectomy, these data “inform a risk-benefit analysis,” according to Dr. Siracuse, but he also said that redo procedures still should be considered a viable strategy when considered in the context of other options.

Presenting a case he performed just prior to the VEITHsymposium, Dr. Siracuse displayed CT images that showed internal and common carotids with more than 75% stenosis in an 80-year-old women 7 years after a primary carotid endarterectomy. The tight stenoses and the evidence of substantial intra-arterial debris were concerns, but a decision to perform a redo endarterectomy was reached after other options, including stenting, were considered.

“She did great. She went home and has had no more symptoms,” Dr. Siracuse reported. “The point is you still have to take these [potential redo endarterectomies] on a case-by case basis.”

Dr. Siracuse reported he had no financial relationships relevant to this study.

NEW YORK – It is well known that reoperative carotid endarterectomy can be technically challenging because of the scarring left from the initial procedure, but an analysis of a large database presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation also revealed that the risk of complications, particularly stroke, is greater.

When “redo” carotid endarterectomies were compared with the index primary procedure collected in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, the odds ratio for stroke was several times greater (odds ratio, 3.71; P = .002) on univariate analysis, reported Jeffrey J. Siracuse, MD, associate professor of surgery and radiology at Boston University.

Previous single-center reports of redo endarterectomies “showed terrific results, really no perioperative stroke or morbidity, but this is older data from a different era,” said Dr. Siracuse, who undertook this study to determine whether “real-world” data would tell a different story.

In this study, 75,943 primary carotid endarterectomies and 140 redo procedures were identified in the ACS NSQIP database and compared. The redo population had a significantly higher incidence of end-stage renal disease (3.6% vs. 1.1%; P = .004), but history of stroke, whether with deficit (20.8% vs. 15.4%) or without (11.5% vs. 9.1%), was numerically higher among those undergoing a primary procedure even though these differences did not reach statistical significance. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were otherwise similar.

Presumably because of the difficulty of recanalizing scarred tissue, the mean procedure time for redos was longer than that for the primary procedures (137 vs. 49 minutes; P less than .001), but there were no significant differences in the rate of surgical site infections (0.7% vs. 0.3%; P = .482), return to the operating room (3.6% vs. 4%; P = .853), or 30-day readmissions (2.1% vs. 6.9%; P = .810) for the redo and index procedures, respectively.

Although perioperative MI rates were higher in the redo group (2.1%) than in the primary endarterectomy group (0.9%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .125). However, a multivariate analysis associated redo carotid endarterectomy procedures with a nearly threefold increase in risk of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events when compared on a multivariate analysis (OR, 2.76; P = .007), Dr. Siracuse reported.

For the surgeons considering a redo carotid endarterectomy, these data “inform a risk-benefit analysis,” according to Dr. Siracuse, but he also said that redo procedures still should be considered a viable strategy when considered in the context of other options.

Presenting a case he performed just prior to the VEITHsymposium, Dr. Siracuse displayed CT images that showed internal and common carotids with more than 75% stenosis in an 80-year-old women 7 years after a primary carotid endarterectomy. The tight stenoses and the evidence of substantial intra-arterial debris were concerns, but a decision to perform a redo endarterectomy was reached after other options, including stenting, were considered.

“She did great. She went home and has had no more symptoms,” Dr. Siracuse reported. “The point is you still have to take these [potential redo endarterectomies] on a case-by case basis.”

Dr. Siracuse reported he had no financial relationships relevant to this study.

NEW YORK – It is well known that reoperative carotid endarterectomy can be technically challenging because of the scarring left from the initial procedure, but an analysis of a large database presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation also revealed that the risk of complications, particularly stroke, is greater.

When “redo” carotid endarterectomies were compared with the index primary procedure collected in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, the odds ratio for stroke was several times greater (odds ratio, 3.71; P = .002) on univariate analysis, reported Jeffrey J. Siracuse, MD, associate professor of surgery and radiology at Boston University.

Previous single-center reports of redo endarterectomies “showed terrific results, really no perioperative stroke or morbidity, but this is older data from a different era,” said Dr. Siracuse, who undertook this study to determine whether “real-world” data would tell a different story.

In this study, 75,943 primary carotid endarterectomies and 140 redo procedures were identified in the ACS NSQIP database and compared. The redo population had a significantly higher incidence of end-stage renal disease (3.6% vs. 1.1%; P = .004), but history of stroke, whether with deficit (20.8% vs. 15.4%) or without (11.5% vs. 9.1%), was numerically higher among those undergoing a primary procedure even though these differences did not reach statistical significance. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were otherwise similar.

Presumably because of the difficulty of recanalizing scarred tissue, the mean procedure time for redos was longer than that for the primary procedures (137 vs. 49 minutes; P less than .001), but there were no significant differences in the rate of surgical site infections (0.7% vs. 0.3%; P = .482), return to the operating room (3.6% vs. 4%; P = .853), or 30-day readmissions (2.1% vs. 6.9%; P = .810) for the redo and index procedures, respectively.

Although perioperative MI rates were higher in the redo group (2.1%) than in the primary endarterectomy group (0.9%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .125). However, a multivariate analysis associated redo carotid endarterectomy procedures with a nearly threefold increase in risk of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events when compared on a multivariate analysis (OR, 2.76; P = .007), Dr. Siracuse reported.

For the surgeons considering a redo carotid endarterectomy, these data “inform a risk-benefit analysis,” according to Dr. Siracuse, but he also said that redo procedures still should be considered a viable strategy when considered in the context of other options.

Presenting a case he performed just prior to the VEITHsymposium, Dr. Siracuse displayed CT images that showed internal and common carotids with more than 75% stenosis in an 80-year-old women 7 years after a primary carotid endarterectomy. The tight stenoses and the evidence of substantial intra-arterial debris were concerns, but a decision to perform a redo endarterectomy was reached after other options, including stenting, were considered.

“She did great. She went home and has had no more symptoms,” Dr. Siracuse reported. “The point is you still have to take these [potential redo endarterectomies] on a case-by case basis.”

Dr. Siracuse reported he had no financial relationships relevant to this study.

 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.