1 / 51

Assessment: Carotid Endarterectomy ― An Evidence-Based Review

Assessment: Carotid Endarterectomy ― An Evidence-Based Review. Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

amity-ramos
Download Presentation

Assessment: Carotid Endarterectomy ― An Evidence-Based Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment: Carotid Endarterectomy―An Evidence-Based Review Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology S Chaturvedi MD, A Bruno MD, T Feasby MD, R Holloway MD, O Benavente MD, SN Cohen MD, R Cote MD, D Hess MD, J Saver MD, JD Spence MD, B Stern MD, J Wilterdink MD Published in Neurology 2005;65:794-801

  2. The AAN develops these presentation slides as educational tools for neurologists and other health care practitioners. You may download and retain a single copy for your personal use. Please contact guidelines@aan.com to learn about options for sharing this content beyond your personal use.

  3. Objective • The objective of this report isto provide an updated statement on the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CE) for stroke prevention in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with internal carotid artery stenosis.(Updates previous guideline Neurology 1990;40:682) • Additional clinical scenarios, such as use of CE combined with cardiac surgery (CABG), are also reviewed.

  4. Introduction • Depending on the population, extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis accounts for 15-20% of ischemic strokes. • CE is the most frequently performed operation to prevent stroke. • Since 1990 guideline, several multi-center trials have been completed. This statement reflects an update on major developments.

  5. Methods • Vascular neurologists were appointed by the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee (TTA) of the AAN. • Nine clinical questions were identified and selected due to clinical importance. • A systematic search was performed for articles from 1990-2001. • Additional articles from 2002-2004 were included using pre-specified criteria.

  6. Methods • Case reports, review articles, technical studies, and single surgeon case series were excluded. • After exclusions, total of 186 articles were reviewed independently by 2 committee members. • Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) were evaluated in studies. • Recommendations generated based on application of levels of evidence to the abstracted articles using AAN schemes.

  7. AAN Strength of Evidence

  8. AAN Strength of Evidence

  9. Translation of Evidence to Recommendation Level

  10. Translation of Evidence to Recommendation Level

  11. Clinical Question Does CE benefit symptomatic and asymptomatic patients?

  12. Analysis of the EvidenceSymptomatic patients

  13. Analysis of the EvidenceSymptomatic patients

  14. Analysis of the EvidenceSymptomatic patients

  15. Clinical Question Does CE benefit asymptomatic patients?

  16. Analysis of the Evidence Asymptomatic patients • 3 Class I studies are available • Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS), Veterans Affairs Study, Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) • 2 other studies were completed or planned but were stopped prematurely or had a suboptimal study design • Mayo Clinic trial stopped due to a high rate of MI (22%) in the surgical group, CASANOVA

  17. Analysis of the Evidence Asymptomatic patients • The Veterans Affairs study • 444 men with angiographically-proven 50-99% asymptomatic stenosis • Nonsignficant trend favoring CE for prevention of ipsilateral stroke (9.4% vs. 4.7% at 4 years) • Primary endpoint = transient ischemic attack (TIA) • The 30 day perioperative stroke and death rate was 4.7%, NNH = 21

  18. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) • 1662 patients, 60-99% stenosis angiographically-proven for the surgical group primarily-proven with ultrasound for the medical group • Enrollment 1993-2003 with planned10 year follow-up • Eligibility = carotid artery diameter reduction of at least 60%,no symptoms within the past six months • Patients were randomized to best medical TX (BMT) or BMT + CE

  19. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) • Study stopped after 2.7 years median follow-up 5.9% ARR at 5 years favoring CE (NNT =17) • 5 year projected rate of ipsilateral stroke • medically treated patients 11.0% • surgically treated patients 5.1% • relative risk reduction 53% • 5 year projected rate for major ipsilateral stroke any perioperative major ipsilateral stroke • medically treated patients 6.0% • surgical patients 3.4%

  20. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) • The perioperative stroke rate = 2.3%, NNH=43 • Such a low perioperative stroke/death rate has not been achieved in most recent observational studies or in the Aspirin and Carotid Endarterectomy (ACE) trial (n=1512, stroke and death = 4.6%)

  21. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) • Randomized study of immediate vs. indefinite deferral of CE • 5 five year follow-up at 126 centers in 30 countries • % diameter reduction stenosis by carotid ultrasound • Eligibility = carotid artery diameter reduction of at least 60% on ultrasound and no symptoms within the past six months • Enrollment 1993 – 2003 planned 10 year follow-up • 3120 randomized patients - 2 groups of 1560 each

  22. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) • Perioperative events (stroke and death within 30 days) and the non-perioperative strokes combined • Net 5 year risks were 6.4% (immediate CE) versus 11.8% (deferred CE) for all strokes; 3.5% vs. 6.1% for fatal or disabling strokes • Gain mostly in non-perioperative carotid territory ischemic strokes • The benefit was seen in both contralateral and ipsilateral carotid-territory strokes

  23. Analysis of the EvidenceAsymptomatic patients • Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) • Subgroup analyses showed • benefits were significant for those < 65 years, those between 65 and 74 years, but uncertain for those > 75 years • Men and women both benefited but there were only a total of 40 non-perioperative strokes in women so the results were not as definite (p=0.02) • 5 year benefit of CE appeared to be as great for those with <80% diameter reduction (mean 69% stenosis) as for those with 80-99% (mean 87%) reduction • No significant difference in results in those patients who were never symptomatic compared to those with symptoms > six months previously (7.1% and 4.6% absolute five year gain, respectively)

  24. Clinical Question Is emergent CE beneficial in patients with progressing stroke of <24 hours?

  25. Analysis of the EvidenceEmergent CE • Four Class IV studies met the criteria • In 3 studies, neurological improvement was noted in 81-93% of patients who underwent emergent CE • Studies were fairly small in size, lacked objective evaluation of the reported neurological outcomes, and one study was clouded by coexisting treatments including emergent thrombolysis

  26. Clinical Question What are the most important clinical variables that impact the risk/benefit ratio?

  27. Analysis of the EvidenceClinical Variables • None of the trials had clinical variables that impact risk/benefit as predetermined endpoints • In post-hoc analyses 2 variables stand out: gender and nature of the presenting symptoms • In NASCET 50-69% stenosis group & ACAS no benefit shown for CE in women • NASCET showed lower subsequent stroke risk in patients w/ retinal ischemia compared to patients with hemispheric events • A pooled analysis of the 3 symptomatic studies identified modifiers of CE benefit. Greatest benefit in men, patients above age 75 years, and those randomized within 2 weeks of their last symptomatic event

  28. Clinical Question What are the most important radiologic factors that impact the risk/benefit ratio?

  29. Analysis of the EvidenceRadiologic Factors • Several studies addressed issues (status of the contralateral carotid artery, angiographic appearance of the ICA, and other factors). • NASCET and ACAS studies had highest level data on contralateral occlusion. • For symptomatic patients: • Contralateral occlusion present: surgical complication rate is higher than if the contralateral ICA is patent • Better outcome compared to medical management for patients with 70-99% stenosis • For asymptomatic patients: • Contralateral occlusion present: randomized evidence suggests that patients do slightly better with medical management (2.0% absolute increase in risk with CE at 5 years)

  30. Analysis of the EvidenceRadiologic Factors • For patients with angiographic near-occlusion • Pooled analysis of the symptomatic studies suggests: • CE is associated with trend toward benefit at 2 years but no clear benefit at 5 years • BMT severe stenosis patients in NASCET-including those with near-occlusion-were offered CE after the 2 year results made available • Only Class IV evidence or below available for other factors such as influence of carotid siphon stenosis or posterior circulation stenosis.

  31. Clinical Question What is the ideal dose of aspirin preoperatively in patients undergoing CE?

  32. Analysis of the EvidenceAspirin therapy • Aspirin and Carotid Endarterectomy trial (ACE) • 2,849 subjects, double-blind randomized clinical trial • Compared aspirin before carotid endarterectomy & continued for 3 months at doses 81 mg, 325 mg, 650 mg and 1300 mg • Primary outcome = combined rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death was the • Outcome lower in the low-dose groups (81 mg and 325 mg) than in the high-dose groups (650 mg and 1300 mg) at 30 days and 3 months

  33. Analysis of the EvidenceAspirin therapy • Another trial enrolled 232 subjects to 75mg aspirin or placebo before CE and continued for 6 months. • Aspirin compared with placebo: Trial demonstrated fewer strokes without recovery in those subjects randomized aspirin at 1 month and 6 months

  34. Clinical Question What are the data regarding CE concurrent with or prior to CABG?

  35. Analysis of the EvidenceCABG • 48 studies for review, nine met criteria for inclusion (≥50 subjects). • No randomized clinical trials addressing this question; the best available evidence comes from retrospective case control (class III) and case series (class IV) reports. • Some studies compared findings between groups with different surgical strategies, but because prospective criteria were not applied, a selection bias is likely.

  36. Analysis of the EvidenceCABG

  37. Analysis of the EvidenceCABG

  38. Clinical Question How long should one wait after a stroke to perform CE?

  39. Analysis of the EvidenceTime to CE surgery • 6 retrospective cohort studies comparing timing of CE in patients after a stroke. Significant limitations in the designs of these studies. • 4 of the studies defined early surgery as < 6 weeks from the stroke. • 2 studies defined early surgery as < four weeks from the stroke. • None of the studies found differences in the outcomes in terms of operative morbidity and longer-term follow-up.

  40. Recommendations

  41. Recommendations

  42. Recommendations

  43. Recommendations

  44. Recommendations

  45. Recommendations

  46. Recommendations for Future Research • Improve quality of data is needed: • The setting of urgent CE in patients with progressing stroke • The appropriateness of CE in community settings • The management of coexisting carotid and coronary artery disease • The timing of CE in patients with recent stroke. • Data are needed on newer antiplatelet agents in the perioperative setting • Data are needed on how CE compares to less invasive, endovascular treatment with stenting in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

  47. Recommendations for Future Research • Data are needed on the role of cerebral hemodynamics in risk stratification for patients with carotid stenosis. • Data are needed to examine indices of vasoreactivity and cerebral perfusion in future studies of patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. • There is a paucity of data on stroke rates in patients with carotid stenosis who receive an aggressive treatment regimen with statins, newer antiplatelet agents, and targeted blood pressure lowering.

  48. Disclaimer This statement is provided as an educational service of the American Academy of Neurology. It is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. It is not intended to include all possible proper methods of care for a particular neurological problem or all legitimate criteria for choosing to use a specific procedure. Neither is it intended to exclude any reasonable alternative methodologies. The AAN recognizes that specific patient care decisions are the prerogative of the patient and the physician caring for the patient, based on all of the circumstances involved.

  49. Acknowledgments The committee thanks Drs. Chung Hsu and David Lefkowitz as liaisons from the TTA Subcommittee, Alison Nakashima, Paul Hetland, Nancy King, and Wendy Edlund from the American Academy of Neurology for their superb assistance in coordinating the review, and Vicki Glasgow for assistance with the literature search.

  50. TTA Subcommittee Members Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee Members: Douglas S. Goodin, MD (Chair); Yuen T. So, MD, PhD (Vice-Chair); Carmel Armon, MD; Richard M. Dubinsky, MD: Mark Hallett, MD; David Hammond, MD; Cynthia Harden, MD; Chung Hsu, MD, PhD (ex-officio); Andres M. Kanner, MD (ex-officio); David S. Lefkowitz, MD ;Janis Miyasaki, MD; Michael A. Sloan, MD; James C. Stevens, MD

More Related