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: Most studies that have reported on the progression of ipsilateral and/or contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis are restricted to a few years. Methods: Based on a single-center carotid endarterectomy (CEA) registry, we sought all patients with CEA for symptomatic high-grade ICA stenosis between 1970 and 2002. 361 CEA patients (mean age 66 years, 73% male) with annual carotid ultrasound and clinical follow-up were identified. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the occurrence of (i) progressive ICA stenosis or restenosis of either the operated or contralateral side, and (ii) cerebrovascular events over time of either the operated or contralateral side. Results: Progressive ICA disease was more likely on the contralateral than on the ipsilateral ICA (hazard ratio 2.71; CI 1.8–4.1, p < 0.001). After 5 years, the probability for progressive ICA disease was 5.2% for the ipsilateral versus 15.8% for the contralateral ICA. After 15 years, the likelihood was 37% for both sides. In the presence of progressive restenosis of the ipsilateral ICA, the 20-year probability of further ischemic cerebrovascular events was 50% compared to 18% in patients without ICA disease progression. For the contralateral ICA, the probability of further ischemic events was 24.5% in patients with ICA disease progression compared to 9.6% without ICA disease progression (15 years). Conclusion: 15 years after CEA, one third of the patients can be expected to develop progressive ICA disease. While ICA disease progression seems to be more prominent on the contralateral ICA within the first years, this difference fades out after 15 years. One out of 2 patients with ipsilateral ICA disease progression can be expected to have a recurrent cerebral ischemic event within 15 years. It remains to be determined whether consequent application of high-dose statins, optimal blood pressure management and antithrombotic therapy can reduce this rate.

NCT02078830.

No abstract