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.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundStenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments.MethodsPatients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.Findings1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72–1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28–2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02–2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationLong-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.FundingMedical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Conclusions: In patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, Evolocumab administered either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly is well tolerated and yields similar and rapid 60% reductions in LDL cholesterol.Summary: Familial hypercholesterolemia is the most common dominantly inherited disorder in human beings worldwide (Watts GF, et al Int J Card 2014; 171:309-325). Likely more than 3 million people have the disorder in the United States and Europe alone. Familial hypercholesterolemia results from mutations in genes involving key proteins in LDL cholesterol metabolism leading to reduced cellular uptake of LDL cholesterol and increased LDL cholesterol concentrations with premature development of cardiovascular disease. The LDL receptor gene is the site of most mutations and more than 1700 such mutations have been described (Leigh SE, et al Ann Human Gene 2008; 72:485-498). Mutations in the apolipoprotein B gene account for a further 5% of familial hypercholesterolemia cases. Less than 1% of cases involve proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) mutations (Abifadel M, et al Genetics 2003; 34:154-156). Twenty percent of patients with a clinical diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia have no identified mutation. Statins have improved the treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia but many patients do not achieve desirable LDL cholesterol concentrations despite intensive statin therapy. However, phase 1 and 2 trials have now shown that further LDL reductions of 55-60% can be achieved when PCSK9 inhibitors are added to existing lipid lowering treatments. Actions are similar for LDL cholesterol to those reported in patients without familial hypercholesterolemia. The current study is a phase 3 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of Evolocumab (ANG145) in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia who, despite intensive lipid lowering therapy, have LDL concentrations $2.6 mmol/l. This was a multi-center randomized double blind-placebo controlled trial undertaken at 39 sites worldwide utilizing primarily specialized lipid clinics generally attached to academic institutions. The trial was conducted between February 7 and December 19, 2013. 331 eligible patients 18-80 years of age who met clinical criteria for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and who were on stable lipid lowering therapy for at least 4 weeks with a fasting LDL concentration of 2.6 mmol/L or higher were randomly allocated in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous Evolucomab 140 mg every 2 weeks, Evolucomab 420 mg monthly, or subcutaneous placebo every 2 weeks or monthly for 12 weeks. Randomization was computer generated and stratified by LDL cholesterol concentration at screening (higher or lower than 4.1 mmol/L) and baseline ezetimibe use (yes/no). Patients, study personnel, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment assignments within dose and frequency groups. The co-primary end points were percent change from baseline and LDL cholesterol at week 12 and...

Background and Purpose-Endovascular treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis may be an alternative to surgical endarterectomy. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovascular techniques, we conducted a systematic review of randomized studies that compared endovascular treatment with surgery for carotid stenosis. Methods-We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index for randomized trials of carotid angioplasty and/or stenting compared with surgery. We also contacted researchers in the field and balloon catheter and stent manufacturers.

SummaryBackgroundIn the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS), early recurrent carotid stenosis was more common in patients assigned to endovascular treatment than it was in patients assigned to endarterectomy (CEA), raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of endovascular treatment. We aimed to investigate the long-term risks of restenosis in patients included in CAVATAS.Methods413 patients who were randomly assigned in CAVATAS and completed treatment for carotid stenosis (200 patients had endovascular treatment and 213 patients had endarterectomy) had prospective clinical follow-up at a median of 5 years and carotid duplex ultrasound at a median of 4 years. We investigated the cumulative long-term incidence of carotid restenosis after endovascular treatment and endarterectomy, the effect of the use of stents on restenosis after endovascular treatment, risk factors for the development of restenosis, and the effect of carotid restenosis on the risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN01425573.FindingsSevere carotid restenosis (≥70%) or occlusion occurred significantly more often in patients in the endovascular arm than in patients in the endarterectomy arm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3·17, 95% CI 1·89–5·32; p<0·0001). The estimated 5-year incidence of restenosis was 30·7% in the endovascular arm and 10·5% in the endarterectomy arm. Patients in the endovascular arm who were treated with a stent (n=50) had a significantly lower risk of developing restenosis of 70% or greater compared with those treated with balloon angioplasty alone (n=145; HR 0·43, 0·19–0·97; p=0·04). Current smoking or a history of smoking was a predictor of restenosis of 70% or more (2·32, 1·19–4·54; p=0·01) and the early finding of moderate stenosis (50–69%) up to 60 days after treatment was associated with the risk of progression to restenosis of 70% or more (3·76, 1·88–7·52; p=0·0002). The composite endpoint of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred more often in patients in whom restenosis of 70% or more was diagnosed in the first year after treatment compared with patients without restenosis of 70% or more (5-year incidence 23% vs 11%; HR 2·18, 1·04–4·54; p=0·04), but the increase in ipsilateral stroke alone was not significant (10% vs 5%; 1·67, 0·54–5·11).InterpretationRestenosis is about three times more common after endovascular treatment than after endarterectomy and is associated with recurrent ipsilateral cerebrovascular symptoms; however, the risk of recurrent ipsilateral stroke is low. Further data are required from on-going trials of stenting versus endarterectomy to ascertain whether long-term ultrasound follow-up is necessary after carotid revascularisation.FundingBritish Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.

Background: Carotid stenting avoids general anaesthesia, cranial nerve injury and the discomforts of surgical treatment of carotid stenosis. A systematic review of the randomised trials showed no overall difference in the major risks of endovascular treatment for carotid stenosis compared with surgery, but the confidence intervals were wide and both methods carried a significant risk of stroke. The use of protection devices appears to improve the safety of endovascular treatment, but there are little randomised data available about long-term outcomes. We have therefore set up an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, prospective clinical trial, namely the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS), also known as CAVATAS-2. The objectives of the ICSS are to compare the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of a treatment policy of referral for carotid stenting compared with referral for carotid endarterectomy. Methods: Centres are required to have a team with audited expertise in carotid endarterectomy and stenting procedures, including at least one neurologist or stroke physician, a surgeon and an interventionalist. Attendance at a carotid stenting training course is required. Centres with more limited experience can join the trial as probationary centres, but stenting must then be proctored by an experienced interventionalist. Symptomatic patients are included over the age of 40 years with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis, suitable for both stenting and surgery, and are randomised in equal proportions between carotid endarterectomy and stenting. Stents and other devices are chosen for use at the discretion of the interventionalists but must be approved by the devices committee. The protocol recommends that a cerebral protection system should be used whenever the operator thinks one can be safely deployed. The combination of aspirin and clopidogrel is recommended to cover stenting procedures. Standard or eversion endarterectomy is allowed using local or general anaesthesia, shunts or patches. All patients will receive best medical care. Patients will be followed up by neurologists at 30 days after treatment, 6 months after randomisation and then annually up to 5 years after randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the difference in the long-term rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory between patients randomised to stenting or surgery. Secondary outcome measures include any stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 30 days of treatment, treatment- related cranial nerve palsy or haematoma. Restenosis (>70%) on ultrasound follow-up, economic measures and quality of life will also be analysed. The sample size is estimated at 1,500 patients, which will provide 95% confidence intervals of ± 3.0 percentage points for the outcome measure of 30-day disabling stroke and death rate and ± 3.3 percentage points for the outcome measure of death or stroke during follow-up. The trial office monitors outcome events at individual centres and a rate of events above a given threshold trigger...

SummaryBackgroundEndovascular treatment (angioplasty with or without stenting) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis but there are scarce long-term efficacy data showing that it prevents stroke. We therefore report the long-term results of the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS).MethodsBetween March, 1992, and July, 1997, patients who presented at a participating centre with a confirmed stenosis of the internal carotid artery that was deemed equally suitable for either carotid endarterectomy or endovascular treatment were randomly assigned to either treatment in equal proportions by telephone or fax from the randomisation service at the Oxford Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Patients were seen by an independent neurologist at 1 and 6 months after treatment and then every year after randomisation for as long as possible, up to a maximum of 11 years. Major outcome events were transient ischaemic attack, non-disabling, disabling, and fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and death from any other cause. Outcomes were adjudicated on by investigators who were masked to treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 01425573.Findings504 patients with stenosis of the carotid artery (90% symptomatic) were randomly assigned to endovascular treatment (n=251) or surgery (n=253). Within 30 days of treatment, there were more minor strokes that lasted less than 7 days in the endovascular group (8 vs 1) but the number of other strokes in any territory or death was the same (25 vs 25). There were more cranial nerve palsies (22 vs 0) in the endarterectomy group than in the endovascular group. Median length of follow up in both groups was 5 years (IQR 2–6). By comparing endovascular treatment with endarterectomy after the 30-day post-treatment period, the 8-year incidence and hazard ratio (HR) at the end of follow-up for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was 11·3% versus 8·6% (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·59–2·54); for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or TIA was 19·3% versus 17·2% (1·29, 0·78–2·14); and for any non-perioperative stroke was 21·1% versus 15·4% (1·66, 0·99–2·80).InterpretationMore patients had stroke during follow-up in the endovascular group than in the surgical group, but the rate of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was low in both groups and none of the differences in the stroke outcome measures was significant. However, the study was underpowered and the confidence intervals were wide. More long-term data are needed from the on going stenting versus endarterectomy trials.FundingBritish Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.