Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavours of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Abstract TP129: Revascularization Risk in Symptomatic versus Asymptomatic Patients - Relative versus Absolute Risk: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Background: Carotid revascularization was addressed by NASCET and ACAS. NASCET showed a 2-year stroke and death of 32.3% in medical patients and a 15.8% incidence in surgical patients (16.5% absolute/51% relative reduction). Similarly, ACAS revealed an 11% 5-year risk in medical patients and 5.1% in surgical patients (5.9% absolute reduction/53% relative reduction). Absolute risk (rather than relative risk) reduction is of prime interest to the patient. However, in these studies, treatment efficacy was assessed on a relative basis, and these procedures were equally efficacious (51% vs. 53% relative risk). The higher event rates in the symptomatic patients resulted in a larger absolute risk reduction in NASCET (16.5% vs. 5.9%). CREST is the only carotid revascularization study to include both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS), and we looked at absolute and relative risks associated with both procedures.

Methods: Treatment differences in CREST by symptomatic status were reviewed and interaction terms analyzed.

Results: Symptomatic periprocedural stroke and death rates were 6% for CAS vs. 3.2% for CEA (2.8% absolute/47% relative difference/p = 0.02), and were 2.5% for CAS vs. 1.4% for CEA (1.2% absolute/53% relative difference/p = 0.15) for asymptomatic. While treatment differences in periprocedural rates were significant for symptomatic but not asymptomatic patients, there was no difference in treatment efficacy as determined by relative risk reduction. Even the most prominent interaction terms were clearly not significant, p > 0.38.

Discussion: There is no evidence of a CAS-CEA difference in treatment efficacy by symptomatic status in CREST. There are significant findings in symptomatic patients. This is likely a product of an increased background rate of events in this strata. While symptomatic status can identify a subgroup with an increased background rate, other factors (e.g. age or stenosis) could identify subgroups of asymptomatic patients with high event rates and large absolute treatment differences.

Abstract TP124: Mediators of the Age Effect among Patients Treated with Carotid Artery Stenting: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Background An increased risk of periprocedural stroke and death has been reported for older patients treated with carotid stenting (CAS). Selection of patients for CAS could be improved if patient or artery characteristics responsible for this higher risk could be identified.

Methods The 1123 CREST patients randomized to CAS who received CAS within 30-days were analyzed. From the CREST sites, risk factors for atherosclerosis (hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia) and arterial characteristics by angiography (lesion length, eccentric lesions, ulcerated lesions, and percent stenosis) were assessed. From the CREST core labs, potential mediators of the age effect included peak systolic velocity (ultrasound core, available on 853 patients) and arterial characteristics (angiographic core, available on 1042 patients, narrow/no ulcer or wide mouth, lesion location, and distal tortuosity). Mediation analysis assessed impact of adjustment for these factors on the magnitude of the estimated increased risk for CAS at older ages.

Results After adjustment for sex and symptomatic status, there was a 1.72-times (95% CI: 1.26 - 2.37) increased risk of periprocedural stroke and death associated with each decade of patient age. Adjustment for lesion length as assessed in the clinical center significantly attenuated this increased risk at older ages to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.20 - 2.29, p = 0.039), an 8.3% attenuation. No other factor showed evidence as a contributor to the periprocedural increased risk of stroke and death in older patients (p > 0.10).

Conclusion These data suggest that a longer carotid artery lesion length is a significant contributor to the increased risk of CAS in the elderly. However, attenuation of the age effect was modest, less than a 10% change in the hazard ratios. Other potential mediators such as tortuosity and atherosclerosis of the aortic arch and great vessels were not assessed. Non-anatomic factors that are more common with advancing age such as cerebral white matter disease and subclinical dementia were also not assessed and may play a role in how elderly patients respond to ischemic insults.

Abstract WP160: A Post-Hoc Assessment of Current Hormone Therapy on Revascularization Risk in Women: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Background: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was among factors considered in a post-hoc assessment of the risk of revascularization by carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in women enrolled in CREST.

Methods: Of the 872 women in CREST, 775 (89%) were post-menopausal and current HRT status was known in 739 (95%). The study composite outcome was defined as any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period, plus ipsilateral stroke over a 4-year follow-up period. Treatment groups were combined and differences in the composite outcome were assessed by current HRT at baseline.

Results: There were 77/739 (10%) current HRT users. HRT users were more likely to be symptomatic at baseline than non-users (65% vs. 52%; p = 0.027), and were less likely to be diabetic (19% vs. 32%; p = 0.024). However, they were similar in most other factors including age, race, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and length of follow-up (p > 0.10). There were no (0) periprocedural events among the 77 HRT users while there were 43 (6.5%) events among the 662 non-users (p = 0.017). Among those event-free at the end of the periprocedural period, there was little evidence of an impact of baseline HRT on the risk of ipsilateral stroke with 2 (2.6%) post-procedural events among 77 HRT users and 12 (1.9%) among 619 non-users.

Conclusion: We found that women on current HRT have lower periprocedural risk associated with CAS or CEA than non-users, but little difference in risk after the procedural period. The mechanism for this unexpected finding is elusive. We urge caution in the interpretation of this post-hoc observation and encourage replication or refutation by other revascularization studies with similar data.

Abstract 69: Can Patient or Arterial Characteristics Guide the Choice between Carotid Angioplasty and Carotid Endarterectomy? The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

Background: We have previously reported that carotid artery stenting (CAS) carries a higher stroke risk than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients over the age of 70. The question arises if advanced age is a surrogate for other factors? If so, can those factors be separately identified such that advanced chronological age alone would not be considered a contra-indication for CAS? Here we consider whether the CAS/CEA choice could be guided by other factors known in the clinical center at the time of patient evaluation, independent of age, in order to provide optimal 4-year outcomes.

Methods: Demographic factors (age, sex and race), symptomatic status, patient risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking), and arterial characteristics (percent stenosis) were available on 2,502 patients. Additional detailed arterial characteristics (ulcerated plaque, distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, circumferential calcification) were available on 1141 CAS and 438 CEA patients. Potential differential treatment efficacy was assessed by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a proportional hazard model containing established predictors of outcome (treatment, symptomatic status, sex, age and age-by-treatment interaction).

Results: No other factor was found to mitigate advanced age with evidence of additional treatment effect modification of 4-year outcome (p > 0.10).

Discussion: Beyond the previously described differential treatment efficacy by age, there were no other patient or arterial characteristic detected to identify patient subgroups that would differentially benefit from the choice of CAS versus CEA. Our inability to identify factors to guide treatment choices could be due to the low number of stroke and death events, incomplete information regarding arterial characteristics in the CEA population, or the potential exclusion of “high risk” groups (such as those with severe arterial tortuosity) from the study.

Common variants within oxidative phosphorylation genes influence risk of ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous studies demonstrated association between mitochondrial DNA variants and ischemic stroke (IS). We investigated whether variants within a larger set of oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) genes encoded by both autosomal and mitochondrial DNA were associated with risk of IS and, based on our results, extended our investigation to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

METHODS

This association study used a discovery cohort of 1643 individuals, a validation cohort of 2432 individuals for IS, and an extension cohort of 1476 individuals for ICH. Gene-set enrichment analysis was performed on all structural OXPHOS genes, as well as genes contributing to individual respiratory complexes. Gene-sets passing gene-set enrichment analysis were tested by constructing genetic scores using common variants residing within each gene. Associations between each variant and IS that emerged in the discovery cohort were examined in validation and extension cohorts.

RESULTS

IS was associated with genetic risk scores in OXPHOS as a whole (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; P=0.008) and complex I (OR, 1.06; P=0.050). Among IS subtypes, small vessel stroke showed association with OXPHOS (OR, 1.16; P=0.007), complex I (OR, 1.13; P=0.027), and complex IV (OR, 1.14; P=0.018). To further explore this small vessel association, we extended our analysis to ICH, revealing association between deep hemispheric ICH and complex IV (OR, 1.08; P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This pathway analysis demonstrates association between common genetic variants within OXPHOS genes and stroke. The associations for small vessel stroke and deep ICH suggest that genetic variation in OXPHOS influences small vessel pathobiology. Further studies are needed to identify culprit genetic variants and assess their functional consequences.

Differential outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy performed exclusively by vascular surgeons in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

OBJECTIVE

Outcomes in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) did not differ between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the composite primary end point of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years. Rigorous credentialing and training of interventionists, including vascular surgeons, were required for the randomization phase of CREST. Because the lead-in phase of CREST had suggested higher perioperative risks after CAS performed by vascular surgeons, the purpose of this analysis was to examine differences in outcomes after randomization between CAS and CEA performed by vascular surgeons.

METHODS

CREST is a prospective randomized controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication. Vascular surgeons performed 237 (21%) of the CAS procedures and 765 (65%) of the CEA procedures among 2320 patients who received their assigned treatment. Proportional hazards analyses were used to estimate the relative efficacy of CAS vs CEA for the composite primary end point and also for stroke and death.

RESULTS

Among 2502 randomized patients, 1321 (53%) were symptomatic and 1181 (47%) were asymptomatic. For procedures performed exclusively by vascular surgeons, the primary end point did not differ between CAS and CEA at 4-year follow-up (6.2% vs 5.6%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-2.41; P = .41) In this subgroup, the periprocedural stroke and death rates were higher after CAS than CEA for symptomatic patients (6.1% vs 1.3%; P = .01). Asymptomatic patients also had slightly higher stroke and death rates after CAS (2.6% vs 1.1%; P = .20), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Conversely, cranial nerve injuries (0.0% vs 5.0%; P < .001) were less frequent after CAS than CEA. The MI rates were slightly lower after CAS (1.3% vs 2.6%; P = .24). In performing CAS, vascular surgeons had outcomes for the periprocedural primary end point comparable to the outcomes of all interventionists (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50-2.00) after adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status. Vascular surgeons also had similar results after CEA for the periprocedural primary end point compared with other surgeons (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.42-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

When performed by surgeons, CAS and CEA have similar net outcomes, although the periprocedural risks vary (lower stroke with CEA and lower MI with CAS). These data suggest that appropriately trained vascular surgeons may safely offer both CEA and CAS for the prevention of stroke. The remarkably low stroke and death rates after CEA performed by vascular surgeons in CREST, particularly among symptomatic patients, represent the best outcomes ever reported after carotid interventions from a randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0000473.

Stroke after carotid stenting and endarterectomy in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

BACKGROUND

Stroke occurs more commonly after carotid artery stenting than after carotid endarterectomy. Details regarding stroke type, severity, and characteristics have not been reported previously. We describe the strokes that have occurred in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).

METHODS AND RESULTS

CREST is a randomized, open-allocation, controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Stroke was a component of the primary composite outcome. Patients who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization were included. Stroke was adjudicated by a panel of board-certified vascular neurologists with secondary central review of clinically obtained brain images. Stroke type, laterality, timing, and outcome were reported. A periprocedural stroke occurred among 81 of the 2502 patients randomized and among 69 of the 2272 in the present analysis. Strokes were predominantly minor (81%, n=56), ischemic (90%, n=62), in the anterior circulation (94%, n=65), and ipsilateral to the treated artery (88%, n=61). There were 7 hemorrhages, which occurred 3 to 21 days after the procedure, and 5 were fatal. Major stroke occurred in 13 (0.6%) of the 2272 patients. The estimated 4-year mortality after stroke was 21.1% compared with 11.6% for those without stroke. The adjusted risk of death at 4 years was higher after periprocedural stroke (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke, particularly severe stroke, was uncommon after carotid intervention in CREST, but stroke was associated with significant morbidity and was independently associated with a nearly 3-fold increased future mortality. The delayed timing of major and hemorrhagic stroke after revascularization suggests that these strokes may be preventable.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiography recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Genetic variants associated with myocardial infarction in the PSMA6 gene and Chr9p21 are also associated with ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic stroke shares common traditional risk factors with coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI). This study evaluated whether genetic risk factors for CAD and MI also affect susceptibility to ischaemic stroke in Caucasians and African Americans.

METHODS

Included in the study were a Caucasian series (713 ischaemic stroke patients, 708 controls) and a small African American series (166 ischaemic stroke patients, 117 controls). Twenty single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously shown to be associated with CAD or MI were genotyped and assessed for association with ischaemic stroke and ischaemic stroke subtypes using odds ratios (ORs) from multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In Caucasians, four SNPs on chromosome 9p21 were significantly associated with risk of cardioembolic stroke, the strongest of which was rs1333040 (OR 1.55, P = 0.0007); similar but weaker trends were observed for small vessel stroke, with no associations observed regarding large vessel stroke. Chromosome 9p21 SNPs were also associated with risk of ischaemic stroke in African Americans (rs1333040, OR 0.65, P = 0.023; rs1333042, OR 0.55, P = 0.070; rs2383207, OR 0.55, P = 0.070). The PSMA6 SNP rs1048990 on chromosome 14q13 was associated with overall ischaemic stroke in both Caucasians (OR 0.80, P = 0.036) and African Americans (OR 0.31, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence that chromosome 9p21 variants are associated with cardioembolic ischaemic stroke in Caucasians and with overall ischaemic stroke in African Americans. The PSMA6 variant rs1048990 also appears to affect susceptibility to ischaemic stroke in both populations. These findings require validation, particularly the preliminary findings regarding African Americans given the small size of that series.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy for patients at standard surgical risk: results from the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated similar rates of the primary composite end point between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although the risk of stroke was higher with CAS, and the risk of myocardial infarction was higher with CEA. Given the large number of patients who are candidates for these procedures, an understanding of their relative cost and cost-effectiveness may have important implications for health care policy and treatment guidelines.

METHODS

We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the CREST trial. Costs were estimated from all trial participants over the first year of follow-up using a combination of resource use data and hospital billing data. Patient-level health use scores were obtained using data from the SF-36. We then used a Markov disease-simulation model calibrated to the CREST results to project 10-year costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy for the 2 treatment groups.

RESULTS

Although initial procedural costs were $1025/patient higher with CAS, postprocedure costs and physician costs were lower such that total costs for the index hospitalization were similar for the CAS and CEA groups ($15 055 versus $14 816; mean difference, $239/patient; 95% CI for difference, -$297 to $775). Neither follow-up costs after discharge nor total 1-year costs differed significantly. For the CREST population, model-based projections over a 10-year time horizon demonstrated that CAS would result in a mean incremental cost of $524/patient and a reduction in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.008 years compared with CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that CEA was economically attractive at an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 54% of samples, whereas CAS was economically attractive in 46%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite slightly lower in-trial costs and lower rates of stroke with CEA compared with CAS, projected 10-year outcomes from this controlled clinical trial demonstrate only trivial differences in overall healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy between the 2 strategies. If the CREST results can be replicated in clinical practice, these findings suggest that factors other than cost-effectiveness should be considered when deciding between treatment options for carotid artery stenosis in patients at standard risk for surgical complications. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00004732.

Interventions to increase enrollment in a large multicenter phase 3 trial of carotid stenting vs. endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials often encounter slow enrollment. Failing to meet sample size requirements has scientific, financial, and ethical implications.

AIMS

We report interventions used to accelerate recruitment in a large multicenter clinical trial that was not meeting prespecified enrollment commitments.

METHODS

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial began randomization in December 2000. To accelerate enrollment, multiple recruitment tactics were initiated, which included expanding the number of sites, hiring a recruitment director (May 2003), broadening eligibility criteria (April 2005), branding with a study logo, Web site, and recruitment materials, increasing site visits by study leadership, sending e-mails to the site teams after every enrollment, distributing electronic newsletters, and implementing investigator and coordinator conferences.

RESULTS

From December 2000 through May 2003, 14 sites became active (54 patients randomized), from June 2003 through April 2005, 44 sites were added (404 patients randomized), and from May 2005 through July 2008, 54 sites were added (2044 patients randomized). During these time intervals, the number of patients enrolled per site per year was 1·5, 3·6, and 5·6. For the single years 2004 to 2008, the mean monthly randomization rates per year were 19·7, 38·1, 56·4, 53·0, and 54·7 (annualized), respectively. Enrollment was highest after recruitment tactics were implemented: 677 patients in 2006, 636 in 2007, and 657 in 2008 (annualized). The prespecified sample size of 2502 patients, 47% asymptomatic, was accomplished on July 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive recruitment tactics and investment in a full-time recruitment director who can lead implementation may be effective in accelerating recruitment in multicenter trials.

Are myocardial infarction--associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with ischemic stroke?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Ischemic stroke (IS) shares many common risk factors with coronary artery disease (CAD). We hypothesized that genetic variants associated with myocardial infarction (MI) or CAD may be similarly involved in the etiology of IS. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated whether single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 11 different loci recently associated with MI or CAD through genome-wide association studies were associated with IS.

METHODS

Meta-analyses of the associations between the 11 MI-associated SNPs and IS were performed using 6865 cases and 11 395 control subjects recruited from 9 studies. SNPs were either genotyped directly or imputed; in a few cases a surrogate SNP in high linkage disequilibrium was chosen. Logistic regression was performed within each study to obtain study-specific βs and standard errors. Meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance weighted approach assuming a random effect model.

RESULTS

Despite having power to detect odds ratio of 1.09-1.14 for overall IS and 1.20-1.32 for major stroke subtypes, none of the SNPs were significantly associated with overall IS and/or stroke subtypes after adjusting for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the major common loci associated with MI risk do not have effects of similar magnitude on overall IS but do not preclude moderate associations restricted to specific IS subtypes. Disparate mechanisms may be critical in the development of acute ischemic coronary and cerebrovascular events.

Abstract 4: Angiographic Predictors of Stroke after Carotid Artery Stenting - A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of 1070 Patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial

Background Carotid artery stent (CAS) placement may be used as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in selected patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Perhaps because stroke is an uncommon event after CAS, the angiographic predictors of stroke have been incompletely described.

Methods A total of 1070 catheter-based angiograms were centrally reviewed in patients undergoing CAS enrolled in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Of these patients, 43 (4%) experienced periprocedural stroke. Angiograms were reviewed using qualitative and quantitative methodology before and after CAS. Reviews were done blinded to patient outcomes and strokes were adjudicated by a central committee blinded to results of angiography. The view showing the greatest carotid stenosis severity was selected. Extreme tortuosity was defined as 2 severe bends >90 degrees (maximum angulation/20 mm segment) beyond the target lesion, sequential lesions as lesions separated by ≥10 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer as a discrete area of contrast extension beyond the normal arterial lumen with a narrow inlet into the ulceration.

Results The internal carotid artery reference diameter was 4.2 ± 0.8 mm, the minimal lumen diameter was 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, and the baseline % diameter stenosis was 74.1 ± 11.6%. There were no differences in vessel size or severity of the stenosis in patients with and without stroke. Morphologic predictors significantly related to the risk of subsequent stroke are listed in the Table . Calcification, lesion eccentricity, baseline flow, and distance from the bifurcation were not predictive of periprocedural stroke (p > 0.05).

Conclusion In CREST, four angiographic variables were found to increase risk for stroke during and within 30 days after CAS: severe distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, lesion length > 20 mm, and narrow mouth ulcer. Angiographic characteristics beyond percent stenosis may help in patient selection in terms of best revascularization option.

Abstract 189: Analysis of Hypertension Associated Genetic Variants in Stroke Cases and Controls

BACKGROUND: Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a number of novel SNPs associated with blood pressure and hypertension-related traits although studies were very large (approaching 80K participants) and effect sizes were modest with per allele effect sizes as small variants as a single millimeter of mercury difference in blood pressure. However, because hypertension is the most potent modifiable risk factor for ischemic stroke, lowering blood pressure by a few mm Hg can translate into measurable decrease in stroke risk.

METHODS: We investigated 22 hypertension (HTN) associated SNPs in a case-control analysis of ischemic stroke in multiple stroke studies including the Siblings With Ischemic Stroke Study (SWISS), the Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study (ISGS), the Bio-Repository of DNA in Stroke (BRAINS), the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) trial, and the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). SWISS/ISGS/BRAINS were analyzed together and included subtype information. Genotyping was funded through the individual studies, the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET) consortium, and the SHARe (SNP Health Association Resource). All studies had both raw and imputed GWAS data. Analyses included the following phenotypes: all ischemic stroke, stroke subtypes, and age-at-stroke-onset and were stratified by race. Analyses were minimally adjusted for age, sex and principal components 1 & 2. Alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS: Eleven of the SNPs from the HTN GWAS were associated with ischemic stroke in European ancestry from one or more of the study populations. Two SNPs on chromosome 12 and one on chromosome 21 were associated in multiple European ancestry cohorts. No SNP was associated in all studies. A SNP previously associated with HTN in African ancestry populations was associated with stroke in African-Americans. Analysis of subtypes found associations with small vessel disease and cardioembolic stroke but not large artery disease. The case-only age-at-stroke-onset analysis also found associations for the two SNPs on chromosome 12.

CONCLUSION: These data suggest that candidate SNPs from a HTN GWAS may be associated with ischemic stroke and warrant further investigation. Racial differences were observed. Replication in populations from the other SiGN (Stroke Genetics Network), GENEVA (Gene Environment Association Studies) consortium, and the ISGC (International Stroke Genetics Consortium) studies are underway.

Abstract 3686: Stroke, TIA, Amaurosis Fugax, or No Symptoms as Predictors of Outcomes in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial

Background In previous carotid revascularization trials, stroke as a qualifying symptom has had the greatest importance as a predictor of subsequent outcomes. However, the importance of stroke, TIA, amaurosis fugax, and asymptomatic status has not been analyzed together and comparatively as predictors of outcome for carotid stenosis in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

Methods Qualifying events were analyzed for the 1321 symptomatic patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and were modeled as predictors of the primary outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, and death during a 30-day peri-procedural period, or ipsilateral stroke over the follow-up period out to 4 years); the potential predictive value was also tested for the outcome of stroke and death. The model included other potential predictors such as age, sex, and treatment.

Results The distribution of pre-randomization qualifying events among symptomatic patients in CREST was 572 strokes, 550 TIA, and 199 amaurosis fugax. Relative to symptomatic patients qualifying for the study with stroke, the risk of subsequent primary endpoint was 15% lower for those qualifying with TIA (HR=0.85; 95% CI = 0.57 - 1.28), 36% lower for those qualifying with amaurosis fugax (HR=0.64; 95% CI = 0.3 - 1.23), and 48% lower for asymptomatic patients (HR=0.52; 95% CI = 0.35 - 0.76). The risk of stroke or death was 11% lower for TIA (HR=0.89; 95% CI = 0.57 - 1.40), 18% lower for amaurosis fugax (HR=0.82; 95% CI = 0.42 - 1.60), and 57% lower for asymptomatic patients (HR=0.43; 95% CI = 0.28 - 0.67) when compared to symptomatic patients qualifying with stroke. The risk for patients with stroke or TIA did not differ significantly, and the risk for asymptomatic patients and patients with amaurosis fugax did not differ significantly.

Conclusion Outcomes in patients with carotid disease were predicted in descending order by stroke, TIA, amaurosis fugax, and asymptomatic status in a large RCT. Asymptomatic status and amaurosis fugax have a comparatively benign prognosis. Better understanding of these predictors may help in determining who will benefit from carotid revascularization and how quickly they may benefit given the perioperative risks.

Abstract 1: Did Carotid Stenting and Endarterectomy Outcomes Change Over Time in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial?

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) enrolled 2502 patients between December of 2000 and mid-July of 2008. We analyzed temporal changes in outcomes for both CEA and CAS over the course of this study. Methods Enrollment was divided into 3 consecutive epochs (5 years, 14 months, and 16 months), each with approximately 834 patients ( Table ). Rates for the primary outcome of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (DSMI) and for death and stroke (DS) during the periprocedural period were calculated. Poisson regression was used to adjust rates for age, sex, dyslipidemia, and symptomatic status, all of which were found to influence outcomes.

Results For CAS, there was a 26% decline in DSMI (6.2% → 4.6%) and a 35% decline in DS (5.5% → 3.6%). For both composite endpoints in CEA there was no consistent pattern ( Table ). As CREST progressed, it enrolled younger patients, more men, patients more likely to be dyslipidemic and enrolled more asymptomatic patients (all p < 0.05). Adjustment for these changes mediated the improvement in event rates for the CAS patients, and had no consistent effect on CEA event rates ( Table ).

Conclusion Periprocedural safety for CAS improved over time in CREST. Changes were inconsistent for CEA. Improvements for CAS in part appear to reflect changes in patient selection related to age, sex, and risk factors, as adjustment for those variables attenuated the decline in rates. Linking rates to operator experience was not feasible because of the large number of new interventionalists and surgeons entering CREST over time.

Abstract 3: Restenosis following Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial

Objectives The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) showed no difference in the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (CS). We compared restenosis or occlusion, and repeat revascularization, between CAS and CEA over 2 years of follow-up.

Methods Restenosis, occlusion, and repeat revascularization were assessed at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months post-randomization. Hemodynamically significant restenosis (≥70% diameter reduction) was defined by a peak systolic velocity (PSV) ≥300 cm/second on standardized duplex ultrasonography (DUS), occlusion by an absence of flow within the target artery on DUS, and repeat revascularization by any additional procedure (CEA, angioplasty or CAS) performed on the index artery. Studies were performed in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted in the CREST Ultrasound Core Lab. Patients included in this report were those who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization and had an ultrasound reviewed at the Core Lab (n=2191). Treatment differences were assessed using proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status.

Results In the analytic cohort, 1086 patients received CAS and 1105 received CEA. Over 2 years 113 patients developed restenosis, 56 (rate 5.8%) in the CAS group and 57 (rate 5.8%) in the CEA group; and 8 developed an occlusion, 3 (rate 0.3 %) in the CAS group and 5 (rate 0.5%) in the CEA group. The combined restenosis-occlusion rate was 6.0% (n=58) for CAS and 6.3% (n=62) for CEA (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.63-1.29, p=0.58). Forty-three patients of the 2191 underwent repeat revascularization (20 CAS, 23 CEA, p=0.69) of which 28 had restenosis by our criteria and so were included ( Figure ). Stroke occurred in 13 (4 CAS; 9 CEA) of the 120 patients with restenosis or occlusion; 1 of the 4 CAS strokes occurred after restenosis was detected, and 5 of 9 CEA strokes occurred after restenosis was detected.

Conclusions This analysis of carotid restenosis is the largest reported to date from any randomized clinical trial. Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and similar up to 2 years following CAS or CEA among 2191 patients. The rates of revascularization likewise did not differ between CAS and CEA. Follow-up out to 10 years is ongoing.

Figure.

Abstract 6: Relationship between Center-Volume and Complication Rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial

Background There is evidence that center-volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). We sought to evaluate the effect of center-volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).

Methods In CREST, the primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. Certification was achieved by 477 surgeons performing more than 12 procedures per year with complication rates less than 3% for asymptomatic patients and less than 5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous training and credentialing process that included a lead-in registry. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 composed of 82 sites each enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 with 24 sites enrolling 25-51 patients and Group 3 with 10 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite endpoint and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level.

Results The safety of CAS and CEA did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary endpoint (p=0.54) or by stroke and death (p=0.87).

Conclusion Complication rates (as indicated by the primary endpoint and its components) were low in CREST and were not associated with center-volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures; because of ongoing entry of new interventionalists and surgeons into CREST, operator experience independent of center-volume cannot be addressed.

Health-related quality of life after carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: results from CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial)

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

BACKGROUND

In CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial), the largest randomized trial of carotid revascularization to date, there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint, but rates of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) differed between CAS and CEA. To help guide individualized clinical decision making, we compared HRQOL among patients enrolled in the CREST study. We also performed exploratory analyses to evaluate the association between periprocedural complications and HRQOL.

METHODS

We measured HRQOL at baseline, and after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 1 year among 2,502 patients randomly assigned to either CAS or CEA in the CREST study. The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-specific scales designed to study HRQOL in patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

RESULTS

At both 2 weeks and 1 month, CAS patients had better outcomes for multiple components of the SF-36, with large differences for role physical function, pain, and the physical component summary scale (all p < 0.01). On the disease-specific scales, CAS patients reported less difficulty with driving, eating/swallowing, neck pain, and headaches but more difficulty with walking and leg pain (all p < 0.05). However, by 1 year, there were no differences in any HRQOL measure between CAS and CEA. In the exploratory analyses, periprocedural stroke was associated with poorer 1-year HRQOL across all SF-36 domains, but periprocedural MI or cranial nerve palsy were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing carotid revascularization, CAS is associated with better HRQOL during the early recovery period as compared with CEA-particularly with regard to physical limitations and pain-but these differences diminish over time and are not evident after 1 year. Although CAS and CEA are associated with similar overall HRQOL at 1 year, event-specific analyses confirm that stroke has a greater and more sustained impact on HRQOL than MI. (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial [CREST]; NCT00004732)

Abstract P20: One-Year Hospitalization Costs Associated with Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: Results from the CREST Trial

Background: The CREST trial demonstrated that for patients at standard risk of surgical complications, there was no significant difference in the primary composite outcome of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke, or late ipsilateral stroke between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although CAS had a higher rate of stroke, and CEA had a higher rate of MI. The economic implications of these two strategies are unknown.

Methods: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the CREST trial. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the US health care system in 2008 dollars using a combination of resource-based and event-based methods. Costs for carotid revascularization procedures were based on measured resource use and unit costs derived from a sample of study hospitals. Non-procedural costs for these hospitalizations were estimated using hospital billing data (charges) and cost-center-specific cost-to-charge-ratios. Costs for follow-up events were estimated using national average DRG reimbursements. The primary analysis was based on a modified intention-to-treat population for which the assigned procedure was attempted (n=1212 CAS; 1193 CEA).

Results: CAS was associated with higher total procedural costs (Δ=$675, see Table), driven mainly by higher costs for disposable supplies. Length of stay was shorter for CAS, with associated reductions in non-procedural hospital costs (Δ = -$436). Total cost for the index hospitalization remained slightly higher for CAS (Δ=$239) with similar differences at 1 year.

Conclusions: For patients at standard risk of surgical complications, total 1-year costs are slightly higher for CAS vs. CEA, driven largely by higher initial procedural costs. Cost-utility analysis will be performed to determine whether differences in quality of life observed in CREST render CAS an economically attractive strategy.

CAS (n= 1212) CEA (n=1193) Δ CAS - CEA (95% CI via bootstrap) Index Procedure Costs, $     Excluding MD Fees 6782 ± 1412 5743 ± 1370 1039 (926, 1148)     MD Fees 1114 ± 240 1478 ± 108 -364 (-379, -349)     Total 7896 ± 1551 7221 ± 1450 675 (555, 800) Index Hospital Stay 7159 ± 5108 7595 ± 7482 -436 (-951, -59) TOTAL Index Hosp Costs 15055 ± 5539 14816 ± 7709 239 (-302, 778) Index Hosp LOS (days)     ICU LOS 0.7 ± 1.1 0.8 ± 1.4 -0.1 (-0.24, -0.04)     Non-ICU LOS 1.9 ± 3.2 2.2 ± 4.1 -0.2 (-0.55, 0.06) TOTAL LOS 2.6 ± 3.3 3.0 ± 4.5 -0.4 (-0.7, -0.06) 1-year Rehosp Costs:     Repeat Revasc - CAS 295 ± 2097 273 ± 2126 -21 (-142, 201)     Repeat Revasc - CEA 287 ± 2088 477 ± 2510 -190 (-371, -11)     Ipsilateral Stroke 556 ± 3273 384 ± 2580 172 (-75, 402)     TIA 48 ± 520 33 ± 487 16 (-25, 56)     Death 63 ± 846 45 ± 779 18 (-49, 85) TOTAL Rehosp costs 1321 ± 4827 1293± 4502 28 (-334, 396) TOTAL 1-year costs 16375 ± 7730 16108 ± 9030 267 (-366, 961)

Age and outcomes after carotid stenting and endarterectomy: the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High stroke event rates among carotid artery stenting (CAS)-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) lead-in registry generated an a priori hypothesis that age may modify the relative efficacy of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In the primary CREST report, we previously noted significant effect modification by age. Here we extend this investigation by examining the relative efficacy of the components of the primary end point, the treatment-specific impact of age, and contributors to the increasing risk in CAS-treated patients at older ages.

METHODS

Among 2502 CREST patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of age on the CAS-to-CEA relative efficacy, and the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients.

RESULTS

Age acted as a treatment effect modifier for the primary end point (P interaction=0.02), with the efficacy of CAS and CEA approximately equal at age 70 years. For CAS, risk for the primary end point increased with age (P<0.0001) by 1.77-times (95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.28) per 10-year increment; however, there was no evidence of increased risk for CEA-treated patients (P=0.27). Stroke events were the primary contributor to the overall effect modification (P interaction=0.033), with equal risk at ≈64 years. The treatment-by-age interaction for CAS and CEA was not altered by symptomatic status (P=0.96) or by sex (P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after CAS versus CEA were related to patient age, attributable to increasing risk for stroke after CAS at older ages. Patient age should be an important consideration when choosing between the 2 procedures for treating carotid stenosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.