Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy vs Initial Medical Therapy in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis | Cerebrovascular Disease | JAMA Neurology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.236.187.155. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Hobson  RW  II, Weiss  DG, Fields  WS,  et al; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group.  Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.   N Engl J Med. 1993;328(4):221-227. doi:10.1056/NEJM199301283280401 PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study.  Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.   JAMA. 1995;273(18):1421-1428. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520420037035 PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Halliday  A, Mansfield  A, Marro  J,  et al; MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group.  Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial.   Lancet. 2004;363(9420):1491-1502. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16146-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Barnett  HJM, Taylor  DW, Haynes  RB,  et al; North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators.  Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis.   N Engl J Med. 1991;325(7):445-453. doi:10.1056/NEJM199108153250701 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group.  MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis.   Lancet. 1991;337(8752):1235-1243. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)92916-P PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Hebert  PR, Evans  D, Schneider  WR, Rodriquez-Paz  E, Hennekens  CH.  The need for increased utilization of statins after occlusive stroke.   J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2011;16(3-4):364-367. doi:10.1177/1074248410390368 PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Gresser  U, Gathof  BS.  Atorvastatin: gold standard for prophylaxis of myocardial ischemia and stroke—comparison of the clinical benefit of statins on the basis of randomized controlled endpoint studies.   Eur J Med Res. 2004;9(1):1-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Fuentes  B, Martínez-Sánchez  P, Díez-Tejedor  E.  Lipid-lowering drugs in ischemic stroke prevention and their influence on acute stroke outcome.   Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;27(suppl 1):126-133. doi:10.1159/000200450 PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Goldstein  LB, Bushnell  CD, Adams  RJ,  et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council for High Blood Pressure Research; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.  Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.   Stroke. 2011;42(2):517-584. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e3181fcb238 PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Kirshner  HS.  Prevention of secondary stroke and transient ischaemic attack with antiplatelet therapy: the role of the primary care physician.   Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61(10):1739-1748. Published correction appears in Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61(11):1957. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01515.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Hong  KS, Yegiaian  S, Lee  M, Lee  J, Saver  JL.  Declining stroke and vascular event recurrence rates in secondary prevention trials over the past 50 years and consequences for current trial design.   Circulation. 2011;123(19):2111-2119. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.934786 PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Prospective Studies Collaboration.  Cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, and stroke: 13,000 strokes in 450,000 people in 45 prospective cohorts.   Lancet. 1995;346(8991-8992):1647-1653. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92836-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Egan  BM, Zhao  Y, Axon  RN.  US trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, 1988-2008.   JAMA. 2010;303(20):2043-2050. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.650 PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Saaddine  JB, Cadwell  B, Gregg  EW,  et al.  Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002.   Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(7):465-474. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005 PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Abbott  AL.  Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis.   Stroke. 2009;40(10):e573-e583. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.556068 PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Mattos  MA, Modi  JR, Mansour  AM,  et al.  Evolution of carotid endarterectomy in two community hospitals: Springfield revisited—seventeen years and 2243 operations later.   J Vasc Surg. 1995;21(5):719-726. doi:10.1016/S0741-5214(05)80003-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Matchar  DB, Oddone  EZ, McCrory  DC,  et al; Appropriateness Project Investigators of the Academic Medical Center Consortium.  Influence of projected complication rates on estimated appropriate use rates for carotid endarterectomy.   Health Serv Res. 1997;32(3):325-342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Tu  JV, Hannan  EL, Anderson  GM,  et al.  The fall and rise of carotid endarterectomy in the United States and Canada.   N Engl J Med. 1998;339(20):1441-1447. doi:10.1056/NEJM199811123392006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Kresowik  TF, Bratzler  D, Karp  HR,  et al.  Multistate utilization, processes, and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy.   J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(2):227-234. doi:10.1067/mva.2001.111881 PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Holt  PJ, Poloniecki  JD, Loftus  IM, Thompson  MM.  The relationship between hospital case volume and outcome from carotid endartectomy in England from 2000 to 2005.   Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34(6):646-654. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2007.07.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Wennberg  DE, Lucas  FL, Birkmeyer  JD, Bredenberg  CE, Fisher  ES.  Variation in carotid endarterectomy mortality in the Medicare population: trial hospitals, volume, and patient characteristics.   JAMA. 1998;279(16):1278-1281. doi:10.1001/jama.279.16.1278 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Cebul  RD, Snow  RJ, Pine  R, Hertzer  NR, Norris  DG.  Indications, outcomes, and provider volumes for carotid endarterectomy.   JAMA. 1998;279(16):1282-1287. doi:10.1001/jama.279.16.1282 PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Marcinczyk  MJ, Nicholas  GG, Reed  JF  III, Nastasee  SA.  Asymptomatic carotid endarterectomy: patient and surgeon selection.   Stroke. 1997;28(2):291-296. doi:10.1161/01.STR.28.2.291 PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Golledge  J, Cuming  R, Beattie  DK, Davies  AH, Greenhalgh  RM.  Influence of patient-related variables on the outcome of carotid endarterectomy.   J Vasc Surg. 1996;24(1):120-126. doi:10.1016/S0741-5214(96)70152-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Gray  WA, Chaturvedi  S, Verta  P; Investigators and the Executive Committees.  Thirty-day outcomes for carotid artery stenting in 6320 patients from 2 prospective, multicenter, high-surgical-risk registries.   Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(3):159-166. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.108.823013 PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Halm  EA, Chassin  MR, Tuhrim  S,  et al.  Revisiting the appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy.   Stroke. 2003;34(6):1464-1471. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000072514.79745.7D PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Halm  EA, Tuhrim  S, Wang  JJ, Rojas  M, Hannan  EL, Chassin  MR.  Has evidence changed practice? appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy after the clinical trials.   Neurology. 2007;68(3):187-194. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000251197.98197.e9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Karp  HR, Flanders  WD, Shipp  CC, Taylor  B, Martin  D.  Carotid endarterectomy among Medicare beneficiaries: a statewide evaluation of appropriateness and outcome.   Stroke. 1998;29(1):46-52. doi:10.1161/01.STR.29.1.46 PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Reker  DM, Hamilton  BB, Duncan  PW, Yeh  SC, Rosen  A.  Stroke: who’s counting what?   J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(2):281-289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Information Resource Center. Updated April 7, 2020. Accessed September 19, 2011. https://www.virec.research.va.gov/
31.
Defense Suicide Prevention Office. Suicide Data Repository. Accessed September 18, 2018. https://www.dspo.mil/About-Suicide/Suicide-Data-Repository/
32.
Mowery  DL, Chapman  BE, Conway  M,  et al.  Extracting a stroke phenotype risk factor from Veteran Health Administration clinical reports: an information content analysis.   J Biomed Semantics. 2016;7:26. doi:10.1186/s13326-016-0065-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
McCaffrey  DF, Griffin  BA, Almirall  D, Slaughter  ME, Ramchand  R, Burgette  LF.  A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.   Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3388-3414. doi:10.1002/sim.5753 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Howard  VJ, Meschia  JF, Lal  BK,  et al; CREST-2 study investigators.  Carotid revascularization and medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: protocol of the CREST-2 clinical trials.   Int J Stroke. 2017;12(7):770-778. doi:10.1177/1747493017706238 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Brott  TG, Hobson  RW  II, Howard  G,  et al; CREST Investigators.  Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis.   N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):11-23. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912321 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Sheffet  AJ, Roubin  G, Howard  G,  et al.  Design of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST).   Int J Stroke. 2010;5(1):40-46. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00405.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Carotid revascularization and medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis trial (CREST-2). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02089217. Updated March 30, 2020. Accessed September 18, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02089217
38.
Tirschwell  DL, Longstreth  WT  Jr.  Validating administrative data in stroke research.   Stroke. 2002;33(10):2465-2470. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000032240.28636.BD PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Hernán  MA, Robins  JM.  Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available.   Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758-764. doi:10.1093/aje/kwv254 PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Hernán  MA, Sauer  BC, Hernández-Díaz  S, Platt  R, Shrier  I.  Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:70-75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014 PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Emilsson  L, García-Albéniz  X, Logan  RW, Caniglia  EC, Kalager  M, Hernán  MA.  Examining bias in studies of statin treatment and survival in patients with cancer.   JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(1):63-70. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2752 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Shen  Y, Hendricks  A, Li  D, Gardner  J, Kazis  L.  VA-Medicare dual beneficiaries’ enrollment in Medicare HMOs: access to VA, availability of HMOs, and favorable selection.   Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(4):479-495. doi:10.1177/1077558705277396 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Austin  PC, Lee  DS, Fine  JP.  Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks.   Circulation. 2016;133(6):601-609. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719 PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Mozaffarian  D, Benjamin  EJ, Go  AS,  et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.  Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association.   Circulation. 2016;133(4):e38-e360. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Asch  SM, McGlynn  EA, Hogan  MM,  et al.  Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample.   Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(12):938-945. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Derdeyn  CP, Chimowitz  MI, Lynn  MJ,  et al; Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis Trial Investigators.  Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial.   Lancet. 2014;383(9914):333-341. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62038-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Normand  SL.  Evaluating the optimal timing of angiography: landmark or off the mark?   Circulation. 2007;116(23):2656-2657. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.741132 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Dafni  U.  Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point.   Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):363-371. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.957951 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Lichtman  JH, Jones  MR, Leifheit  EC,  et al.  Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the US Medicare population, 1999-2014.   JAMA. 2017;318(11):1035-1046. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.12882 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    June 1, 2020

    Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy vs Initial Medical Therapy in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco
    • 2San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, San Francisco, California
    • 3Department of Neurology, UCLA (University of California Los Angeles), Los Angeles
    • 4VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
    • 5Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • 6Northern California Institute of Research and Education, San Francisco
    • 7University of Washington, Seattle
    • 8Puget Sound VA, Seattle, Washington
    • 9Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
    • 10Department of Population, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
    • 11Department of Data Science, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
    • 12Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco
    • 13Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska, Omaha
    • 14Omaha VA Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
    • 15Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
    • 16Salt Lake City VA Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah
    • 17Now with Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    • 18University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    • 19Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
    • 20Department of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
    • 21Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
    JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(9):1110-1121. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1427
    Key Points

    Question  Among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, is carotid endarterectomy superior to initial medical therapy in preventing fatal and nonfatal stroke within 5 years of follow-up in real-world practice?

    Findings  In this comparative effectiveness study of 5221 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the absolute reduction in the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes associated with early carotid endarterectomy treatment was less than half the reduction observed in trials initiated more than 2 decades ago. The decrease was not statistically significant when the competing risk of nonstroke deaths was accounted for in the analysis.

    Meaning  Results of this study suggest that, given the up-front perioperative risks associated with carotid endarterectomy and the reduced benefit derived from revascularization, initial medical therapy may be an acceptable treatment strategy for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

    Abstract

    Importance  Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among asymptomatic patients involves a trade-off between a higher short-term perioperative risk in exchange for a lower long-term risk of stroke. The clinical benefit observed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may not extend to real-world practice.

    Objective  To examine whether early intervention (CEA) was superior to initial medical therapy in real-world practice in preventing fatal and nonfatal strokes among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This comparative effectiveness study was conducted from August 28, 2018, to March 2, 2020, using the Corporate Data Warehouse, Suicide Data Repository, and other databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Data analyzed were those of veterans of the US Armed Forces aged 65 years or older who received carotid imaging between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009. Patients without a carotid imaging report, those with carotid stenosis of less than 50% or hemodynamically insignificant stenosis, and those with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack in the 6 months before index imaging were excluded. A cohort of patients who received initial medical therapy and a cohort of similar patients who received CEA were constructed and followed up for 5 years. The target trial method was used to compute weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and estimate the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes in each cohort in the pragmatic sample across 5 years of follow-up. This analysis was repeated after restricting the sample to patients who met RCT inclusion criteria. Cumulative incidence functions for fatal and nonfatal strokes were estimated, accounting for nonstroke deaths as competing risks in both the pragmatic and RCT-like samples.

    Exposures  Receipt of CEA vs initial medical therapy.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Fatal and nonfatal strokes.

    Results  Of the total 5221 patients, 2712 (51.9%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2678 men [98.8%]) received CEA and 2509 (48.1%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2479 men [98.8%]) received initial medical therapy within 1 year after the index carotid imaging. The observed rate of stroke or death (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CEA cohort was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%). The 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was lower among patients randomized to CEA compared with patients randomized to initial medical therapy (5.6% vs 7.8%; risk difference, −2.3%; 95% CI, −4.0% to −0.3%). In an analysis that incorporated the competing risk of death, the risk difference between the 2 cohorts was lower and not statistically significant (risk difference, −0.8%; 95% CI, −2.1% to 0.5%). Among patients who met RCT inclusion criteria, the 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) among patients randomized to CEA and was 7.6% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.5%) among those randomized to initial medical therapy (risk difference, −2.1%; 95% CI, −4.4% to −0.2%). Accounting for competing risks resulted in a risk difference of −0.9% (95% CI, −2.9% to 0.7%) that was not statistically significant.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study found that the absolute reduction in the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes associated with early CEA was less than half the risk difference in trials from 20 years ago and was no longer statistically significant when the competing risk of nonstroke deaths was accounted for in the analysis. Given the nonnegligible perioperative 30-day risks and the improvements in stroke prevention, medical therapy may be an acceptable therapeutic strategy.

    ×