Abstract-Significant advances in vascular disease medical intervention since large randomized trials for asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis were conducted have prompted doubt over current expectations of a surgical benefit. In this systematic review and analysis of published data it was found that rates of ipsilateral and any-territory stroke (ϩ/ϪTIA), with medical intervention alone, have fallen significantly since the mid-1980s, with recent estimates overlapping those of operated patients in randomized trials. However, current medical intervention alone was estimated at least 3 to 8 times more cost-effective. In conclusion, current vascular disease medical intervention alone is now best for stroke prevention associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis given this new evidence, other cardiovascular benefits, and because high-risk patients who benefit from additional carotid surgery or angioplasty/stenting cannot be identified. (Stroke. 2009;40:e573-e583.)Key Words: asymptomatic carotid stenosis Ⅲ carotid endarterectomy Ⅲ endovascular treatment Ⅲ health policy Ⅲ stroke preventionThe best intervention is prevention and the best prevention is noninvasive.A symptomatic severe carotid stenosis generally means atherosclerotic narrowing of the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA) exceeding Ϸ50% to 60% in the absence of previous referrable symptoms of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). This lesion, at least in Westernized communities, becomes increasingly prevalent from the fifth decade, affecting Ϸ10% of those aged over 80 years. 1 It accounts for Ϸ12% to 21% of all anterior circulation ischemic strokes, 1 Ϸ2 to 3 times higher than the risk for less severe asymptomatic stenosis. 2,3 In many countries surgery (or carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) for asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis is supported by best practice guidelines 4 -6 and commonly recommended 7 or performed 8,9 to prevent stroke. This is largely because of the results of 3 major randomized surgical trials: the Veterans' Affairs Cooperative Study (VACS), 10 the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS), 11 and the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) 12 conducted 1983 to 2003.Despite differing primary outcome measures, there was an overall reduction of Ϸ1% in average annual absolute stroke risk among patients who received CEA plus medical intervention. 13 However, for decades this expensive approach has been questioned because the estimated surgical benefit was marginal and highly dependent on patient selection, nature of the medical and surgical interventions used, and reporting methods. 1 Further, nonoperated patients with higher than average stroke risk who particularly benefit from CEA cannot be identified. 14 Now carotid angioplasty/stenting, with higher procedural costs 15 and similar major complication rates (at least for symptomatic patients 16 ) is being proposed as the best prophylactic intervention 17 without even randomized trial evidence of efficacy.Vascular disease medical intervention is the combination ...

The purpose of this study was to determine the cerebrovascular risk stratification potential of baseline degree of stenosis, clinical features, and ultrasonic plaque characteristics in patients with asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis

Background and Purpose-We systematically compared and appraised contemporary guidelines on management of asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods-We systematically searched for guideline recommendations on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS) published in any language between January 1, 2008, and January 28, 2015. Only the latest guideline per writing group was selected. Each guideline was analyzed independently by 2 to 6 authors to determine clinical scenarios covered, recommendations given, and scientific evidence used. Results-Thirty-four eligible guidelines were identified from 23 different regions/countries in 6 languages. Of 28 guidelines with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations, 24 (86%) endorsed CEA (recommended it should or may be provided) for ≈50% to 99% average-surgical-risk asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 17 (61%) endorsed CAS, 8 (29%) opposed CAS, and 1 (4%) endorsed medical treatment alone. For asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients considered high-CEA-risk because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 13 guidelines (46%). Thirty-one of 33 guidelines (94%) with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations endorsed CEA for patients with ≈50% to 99% average-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 19 (58%) endorsed CAS and 9 (27%) opposed CAS. For high-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 27 guidelines (82%). Guideline procedural recommendations were based only on results of trials in which patients were randomized 12 to 34 years ago, rarely reflected medical treatment improvements and often understated potential CAS hazards. Qualifying terminology summarizing recommendations or evidence lacked standardization, impeding guideline interpretation, and comparison. This systematic review of contemporary international guidelines was performed to compare and appraise recommendations for the management of patients with ACS and SCS (including accessibility, organization, clarity, and consistency) and the evidence used in making these recommendations. Conclusions-This Methods Guideline SearchesGuidelines with recommendations on the use of CEA or CAS or both patients with ACS or SCS or both were sought systematically using popular search engines, bibliographies, and author professional networks. PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched independently and synchronously by 2 authors on September 9, 2013 (A.L.A., K.I.P.). PubMed was searched using carotid guideline and then stroke guideline in the title, yielding 91 references after duplicate removal. ISI Web of Knowledge was searched using carotid and guideline and then stroke and guideline in the title, yielding 422 references after removal of duplicates, abstracts, reference materials, letters, corrections, meetings, news, and case reports. Wider searches using the words carotid or stroke and guideline in any ...

Progressive asymptomatic carotid stenosis identified a subgroup with about twice the risk of ipsilateral stroke compared with those without progression. However, the clinical value of screening for progression simply for selecting patients for carotid procedures is limited because of the low frequency of progression and its relatively low associated stroke rate. The cost effectiveness of screening for change in stenosis severity to better direct current optimal medical treatment needs testing.

Background: Medical intervention (risk factor identification, lifestyle coaching, and medication) for stroke prevention has improved significantly. It is likely that no more than 5.5% of persons with advanced asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will now benefit from a carotid procedure during their lifetime. However, some question the adequacy of medical intervention alone for such persons and propose using markers of high stroke risk to intervene with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and/or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS). Our aim was to examine the scientific validity and implications of this proposal.Methods: We reviewed the evidence for using medical intervention alone or with additional CEA or CAS in persons with ACS. We also reviewed the evidence regarding the validity of using commonly cited makers of high stroke risk to select such persons for CEA or CAS, including markers proposed by the European Society for Vascular Surgery in 2017.Results: Randomized trials of medical intervention alone versus additional CEA showed a definite statistically significant CEA stroke prevention benefit for ACS only for selected average surgical risk men aged less than 75 to 80 years with 60% or greater stenosis using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria. However, the most recent measurements of stroke rate with ACS using medical intervention alone are overall lower than for those who had CEA or CAS in randomized trials. Randomized trials of CEA versus CAS in persons with ACS were underpowered. However, the trend was for higher stroke and death rates with CAS. There are no randomized trial results related to comparing current optimal medical intervention with CEA or CAS. Commonly cited markers of high stroke risk in relation to ACS lack specificity, have not been assessed in conjunction with current optimal medical intervention, and have not been shown in randomized trials to identify those who benefit from a carotid procedure in addition to current optimal medical intervention.Conclusions: Medical intervention has an established role in the current routine management of persons with ACS. Stroke risk stratification studies using current optimal medical intervention alone are the highest research priority for identifying persons likely to benefit from adding a carotid procedure. (

Although there were more ipsilateral carotid cerebrovascular events among ES-positive arteries, this was not statistically significant. Less labor-intensive techniques are required to make further study and clinical application practical.

Background and purposeUntil now, stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) have been clinically based terms which describe the presence and duration of characteristic neurological deficits attributable to intrinsic disorders of particular arteries supplying the brain, retina, or (sometimes) the spinal cord. Further, infarction has been pathologically defined as death of neural tissue due to reduced blood supply. Recently, it has been proposed we shift to definitions of stroke and TIA determined by neuroimaging results alone and that neuroimaging findings be equated with infarction.MethodsWe examined the scientific validity and clinical implications of these proposals using the existing published literature and our own experience in research and clinical practice.ResultsWe found that the proposals to change to imaging-dominant definitions, as published, are ambiguous and inconsistent. Therefore, they cannot provide the standardization required in research or its application in clinical practice. Further, we found that the proposals are scientifically incorrect because neuroimaging findings do not always correlate with the clinical status or the presence of infarction. In addition, we found that attempts to use the proposals are disrupting research, are otherwise clinically unhelpful and do not solve the problems they were proposed to solve.ConclusionWe advise that the proposals must not be accepted. In particular, we explain why the clinical focus of the definitions of stroke and TIA should be retained with continued sub-classification of these syndromes depending neuroimaging results (with or without other information) and that infarction should remain a pathological term. We outline ways the established clinically based definitions of stroke and TIA, and use of them, may be improved to encourage better patient outcomes in the modern era.

The benefit of prophylactic carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis in the major randomised surgical studies was small, expensive and may now be absorbed by improvements in best practice medical intervention. Strategies to identify patients with high stroke risk are needed. If surgical intervention is to be considered the complication rates of individual surgeons should be available. Clinicians will differ in their interpretation of the same published data. Maintaining professional relationships with clinicians from different disciplines often involves compromise. As such, the management of a patient will, in part, depend on what kind of specialist the patient is referred to. The clinician's discussion with patients about this complex issue must be flexible to accommodate differing patient expectations. Ideally, patients prepared to undergo surgical procedures should be monitored in a trial setting or as part of an audited review process to increase our understanding of current practice outcomes.