Abstract
SummaryBackgroundAmong asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.MethodsACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.FindingsBetween Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21).InterpretationSerious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Highlights
Stenosed carotid arteries predispose to stroke, and either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce the long-term risk of stroke
About half are to prevent recurrent stroke in symptomatic patients and half are for primary stroke prevention in asymptomatic patients, but this proportion varies from one country to another.[2]
Asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis who were thought suitable for CAS or for CEA could enter ACST-2 if the doctor and patient were both substantially uncertain which procedure to prefer
Summary
Stenosed carotid arteries predispose to stroke, and either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce the long-term risk of stroke. In North America, some 100 000 surgery or stenting procedures are done each year to treat carotid artery narrowing,[1] and numbers are similar for Europe.[2,3] About half are to prevent recurrent stroke in symptomatic patients and half are for primary stroke prevention in asymptomatic patients (ie, those whose stenosis has not caused any recent ipsilateral symptoms), but this proportion varies from one country to another.[2] Among asymptomatic patients with severe (eg, 70–99%) stenosis, successful CEA approximately halves the long-term stroke risk.[4,5]. In this large German registry, the in-hospital risk of stroke after a carotid procedure was reliably shown to be unrelated to Lancet 2021; 398: 1065–73
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.