SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

BackgroundClinical outcomes reported after treatment of infrapopliteal lesions with drug‐eluting stents (DESs) have been more favorable compared with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with a bailout bare metal stent (PTA‐BMS) through midterm follow‐up in patients with critical limb ischemia. In the present study, long‐term results of treatment of infrapopliteal lesions with DESs are presented.Methods and ResultsAdults with critical limb ischemia (Rutherford category ≥4) and infrapopliteal lesions were randomized to receive PTA‐BMS or DESs with paclitaxel. Long‐term follow‐up consisted of annual assessments up to 5 years after treatment or until a clinical end point was reached. Clinical end points were major amputation (above ankle level), infrapopliteal surgical or endovascular reintervention, and death. Preserved primary patency (≤50% restenosis) of treated lesions was an additional morphological end point, assessed by duplex sonography. In total, 74 limbs (73 patients) were treated with DESs and 66 limbs (64 patients) were treated with PTA‐BMS. The estimated 5‐year major amputation rate was lower in the DES arm (19.3% versus 34.0% for PTA‐BMS; P=0.091). The 5‐year rates of amputation‐ and event‐free survival (survival free from major amputation or reintervention) were significantly higher in the DES arm compared with PTA‐BMS (31.8% versus 20.4%, P=0.043; and 26.2% versus 15.3%, P=0.041, respectively). Survival rates were comparable. The limited available morphological results showed higher preserved patency rates after DESs than after PTA‐BMS at 1, 3, and 4 years of follow‐up.ConclusionsBoth clinical and morphological long‐term results after treatment of infrapopliteal lesions in patients with critical limb ischemia are improved with DES compared with PTA‐BMS.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00471289.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The data demonstrate that sheath size, in particular, combined with CFA diameter predicts failure of closure in P-EVAR using the Prostar XL device. This ratio can be utilized to help in decision making with regard to the EVAR approach. A ratio of >0.75 would favor a primary open groin approach.