Fiona Kennedy

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of the nonrandomized arm of the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS-NR) trial, comparing anticoagulation and antiplatelets for prevention of recurrent stroke after carotid and vertebral dissection, and perform a meta-analysis of these results with previously published studies comparing the 2 therapeutic strategies. METHODS: A total of 88 patients from 22 centers with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection were recruited within 1 month of symptom onset. The primary endpoint was recurrent stroke at 3 months. A systematic review was performed, and results of published studies included in a meta-analysis with the CADISS-NR results. RESULTS: In CADISS-NR, one patient in each group had recurrent ischemic stroke (antiplatelet 1/59 [1.69% ], anticoagulation 1/28 [3.57%]). At the primary endpoint of 3 months, 3 (5.08%) antiplatelet patients had recurrent TIA, compared with none in the anticoagulation group. For meta-analysis, there were data from 40 nonrandomized studies including 1,636 patients. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in recurrent stroke risk (antiplatelet 13/499 [2.6%], anticoagulant 20/1,137 [1.8%], odds ratio [OR] 1.49) or risk of death (antiplatelet 5/499 [1.00%], anticoagulant 9/1,137 [0.80%], OR 1.27). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence for superiority of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy in prevention of stoke after carotid and vertebral artery dissection; however, all data are from nonrandomized studies and randomized studies are required. The nonrandomized CADISS data show a lower rate of recurrent stroke than reported in some previous studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: www.dissection.co.uk, ISRNCTN44555237.

BACKGROUND: The 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). METHODS: ICSS 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: At 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 requires further research. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, and the European Union.

OBJECTIVE: To decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined. RESULTS: Procedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined. CONCLUSION: Although the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.