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.

SummaryBackgroundThe risk of stroke associated with carotid artery restenosis after stenting or endarterectomy is unclear. We aimed to compare the long-term risk of restenosis after these treatments and to investigate if restenosis causes stroke in a secondary analysis of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS).MethodsICSS is a parallel-group randomised trial at 50 tertiary care centres in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Patients aged 40 years or older with symptomatic carotid stenosis measuring 50% or more were randomly assigned either stenting or endarterectomy in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was computer-generated and done centrally, with allocation by telephone or fax, stratified by centre, and with minimisation for sex, age, side of stenosis, and occlusion of the contralateral carotid artery. Patients were followed up both clinically and with carotid duplex ultrasound at baseline, 30 days after treatment, 6 months after randomisation, then annually for up to 10 years. We included patients whose assigned treatment was completed and who had at least one ultrasound examination after treatment. Restenosis was defined as any narrowing of the treated artery measuring 50% or more (at least moderate) or 70% or more (severe), or occlusion of the artery. The degree of restenosis based on ultrasound velocities and clinical outcome events were adjudicated centrally; assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Restenosis was analysed using interval-censored models and its association with later ipsilateral stroke using Cox regression. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN25337470. This report presents a secondary analysis, and follow-up is complete.FindingsBetween May, 2001, and October, 2008, 1713 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated treatment (855 were assigned stenting and 858 endarterectomy), of whom 1530 individuals were followed up with ultrasound (737 assigned stenting and 793 endarterectomy) for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 2·3–5·0). At least moderate restenosis (≥50%) occurred in 274 patients after stenting (cumulative 5-year risk 40·7%) and in 217 after endarterectomy (29·6%; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·43, 95% CI 1·21–1·72; p<0·0001). Patients with at least moderate restenosis (≥50%) had a higher risk of ipsilateral stroke than did individuals without restenosis in the overall patient population (HR 3·18, 95% CI 1·52–6·67; p=0·002) and in the endarterectomy group alone (5·75, 1·80–18·33; p=0·003), but no significant increase in stroke risk after restenosis was recorded in the stenting group (2·03, 0·77–5·37; p=0·154; p=0·10 for interaction with treatment). No difference was noted in the risk of severe restenosis (≥70%) or subsequent stroke between the two treatment groups.InterpretationAt least moderate (≥50%) restenosis occurred more frequently after stenting than after endarterectomy and increased the risk for ipsilateral stroke in the overall population. Whether the restenosis-mediated risk of stroke differs between stenting and endarterectomy requir...

The incidence of systemic/remote complications was similar for the two groups in spite of significantly less blood loss and shorter intensive care unit stay with endoluminal repair. The incidence of local/vascular complications had a tendency to be higher for endoluminal compared with standard open method (and was significantly greater if failed procedures were included). In this early experience with prototype devices, patients who were medically suitable for open surgical procedures did not derive benefit from the less invasive endoluminal technique with respect to duration of operation, length of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, because they also did not have worse outcome, a randomized study is now justified in this group.

Endoluminal repair of AAA in our experience has a low perioperative (< 30 days) mortality rate (3.7%) but a high morbidity rate (75%). It is recommended that complications be classified into three groups: systemic/remote and local/vascular (following successful endoluminal repair) plus those complications leading to failure of endoluminal repair. The first group is composed of medical complications while the latter two groups comprise those surgical complications directly related to the endoluminal technique.

MALS was more likely to respond to decompression if patients had postexertional pain. Patients who presented with vomiting and unprovoked pain were unlikely to respond to surgery. In contrast with previous studies, postprandial pain was not found to be predictive of outcome.

The failures of endoluminal grafting have been analyzed. Methods of avoiding access problems, balloon malfunction, and stent dislodgment have been defined and recommendations made.

No abstract

The initiation and progression of atherosclerosis, which is the main cause of cardiovascular diseases, correlate with local hemodynamic factors such as wall shear stress (WSS). Numerical simulations such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based on medical imaging have been employed to analyse blood flow in different arteries with and without luminal stenosis. Patient-specific CFD models, however, have assumptions on blood rheology. The differences in the calculated hemodynamic factors between different rheological models have not been fully evaluated. In this study, carotid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on 6 patients with different degrees of carotid stenosis and 2 healthy volunteers. Using the 3D reconstructed carotid geometries and the patient-specific boundary conditions, CFD simulations were performed by applying a Newtonian and four non-Newtonian models (Carreau, Cross, Quemada and Power-law). WSS descriptors and pressure gradient were analysed and compared between the models. The differences in the maximum and the average oscillatory shear index (OSI) between the Newtonian and the non-Newtonian models were lower than 12.7% and 12%, respectively. The differences in pressure gradient were also within 15%. The differences in the mean time-averaged WSS (TAWSS) between the Newtonian and Cross, Carreau, and Power-law models were lower than 6%. In contrast, a higher difference (26%) was found in Quemada. For the low TAWSS, the differences from the Newtonian to the non-Newtonian models were much larger, in the range of 0.4% -31% for Carreau, 3% -22% for Cross, 5% -51% for Quemada and 10% -41% for Power-law. The study suggests that the assumption of a Newtonian model is reasonable when the overall flow pattern or the mean values of the WSS descriptors are investigated. However, the nonNewtonian model is necessary when the low TAWSS region is the focus, especially for arteries with severe stenosis.