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 and Purpose— Intra-arterial treatment (IAT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) can be performed with or without general anesthesia (GA). Previous studies suggested that IAT without the use of GA (non-GA) is associated with better clinical outcome. Nevertheless, no consensus exists about the anesthetic management during IAT of AIS patients. This study investigates the association between type of anesthesia and clinical outcome in a large cohort of patients with AIS treated with IAT. Methods— All consecutive patients with AIS of the anterior circulation who received IAT between 2002 and 2013 in 16 Dutch hospitals were included in the study. Primary outcome was functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale at discharge. Difference in primary outcome between GA and non-GA was estimated using multiple ordinal regression analysis, adjusting for age, stroke severity, occlusion of the internal carotid artery terminus, previous stroke, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus. Results— Three hundred forty-eight patients were included in the analysis; 70 patients received GA and 278 patients did not receive GA. Non-GA was significantly associated with good clinical outcome (odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.02–4.31). After adjusting for prespecified prognostic factors, the point estimate remained similar; statistical significance, however, was lost (odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 0.89–4.24). Conclusions— Our study suggests that patients with AIS of the anterior circulation undergoing IAT without GA have a higher probability of good clinical outcome compared with patients treated with general anesthesia.

Background: Despite evidence of a quite large beneficial effect of endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke caused by anterior circulation large vessel occlusion, many patients do not recover even after complete recanalization. To some extent, this may be attributable to incomplete microvascular reperfusion, which can possibly be improved by antiplatelet agents and heparin. It is unknown whether periprocedural antithrombotic medication in patients treated with EVT improves functional outcome. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and unfractionated heparin (UFH), alone, or in combination, given to patients with an ischemic stroke caused by an intracranial large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation during EVT.

No abstract