ICSS Safety Results NOT for PUBLICATION. June 2009 ICSS ICSS ICSS ICSS. International Carotid Stenting Study: Main Inclusion Criteria

Similar documents
Articles. Funding Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Carotid Endarterectomy vs. Carotid artery Stenting (Surgeon Perspective)

03/30/2016 DISCLOSURES TO OPERATE OR NOT THAT IS THE QUESTION CAROTID INTERVENTION IS INDICATED FOR ASYMPTOMATIC CAROTID OCCLUSIVE DISEASE

Special Topic Section

MEET Θ symptomatic patients. K. Mathias Department of Radiology Teaching Hospital of Dortmund - Germany

Carotid Artery Stenosis

BULgarian Carotid Artery Stenting versus Surgery Study (BULCASSS): Randomized single center trial

CLINICAL TIMELINE EVA-3S CREST ICSS SPACE SAPPHIRE

Debata II: Carotidal stenting v.s. carotidal endatherectomy- surgical side

My Latest Take on RCT Data: When is CEA or CAS the Best Option? The Interventional Position

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus

How to Choose Between Carotid Stenting and Carotid Endarterectomy for Stroke Prevention

Carotid Artery Stenting

Treatment Considerations for Carotid Artery Stenosis. Danielle Zielinski, RN, MSN, ACNP Rush University Neurosurgery

CAROTID STENTING A 2009 UPDATE. Hoang Duong, MD Director of Interventional Neuroradiology Memorial Regional Hospital

STROKE UPDATE ANTHEA PARRY MAY 2010

The Great Swedish Debate. Håkan Pärsson Department Vascular Surgery Helsingborgs Lasarett, University Lund

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives:

Update on the only remaining Carotid Multicenter Randomised International Trial in the World:ACST-2

Dr Julia Hopyan Stroke Neurologist Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

New Trials in Progress: ACT 1. Jon Matsumura, MD Cannes, France June 28, 2008

For the ICSS Investigators. 7 th Munich Vascular Conference Munich, 7 December 2017

Disclosure. Financial disclosure: National Advisory Board & Research Grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim

Carotid Artery Stenting Today: A Few Updating Remarks

After acute coronary syndromes patients continue to have recurrent ischemic events despite revascularization and dual antiplatelet therapy

GRAND ROUNDS - DILEMMAS IN ANTICOAGULATION AND ANTIPLATELET THERAPY. Nick Collins February 2017

CardioLucca2014. Fare luce sulla scelta ottimale del trattamento nella rivascolarizzazione delle stenosi carotidee. Fabrizio Tomai

Co chce/čeká neurochirug od anesteziologa během karotické endarterektomie?

Redgrave JN, Coutts SB, Schulz UG et al. Systematic review of associations between the presence of acute ischemic lesions on

CANADIAN STROKE BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for carotid artery stenosis (Review)

MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY RISK FROM CAROTID ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS. 73 year old NS right-handed male applicant for $1 Million life insurance

What can we learn from the AVERT trial (so far)?

Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes the PLATO trial

MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY RISK FROM CAROTID ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS. 73 year old NS right-handed male applicant for $1 Million Life Insurance

DESCRIPTION: Percent of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA who are discharged to home no later than post-operative day #2

Safer Trials, Safer stenting Time to change your practice?

2016 PQRS OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY

CANADIAN STROKE BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

Articles. Funding Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Clinical experience amongst surgeons in the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-1 (ACST-1)

Extracranial Carotid Artery Stenting With or Without Distal Protection Device

Clinical and Economic Value of Rivaroxaban in Coronary Artery Disease

Post-op Carotid Complications A Nursing Perspective of What to Watch Out for

Slide 1. Slide 2 Conflict of Interest Disclosure. Slide 3 Stroke Facts. The Treatment of Intracranial Stenosis. Disclosure

My work in the field of Carotid Revascularisation

Do Elderly Men Have Increased Mortality Following Hip Fracture?

Diabetic Patients: Current Evidence of Revascularization

Clinical Study Synopsis

Which Patients Are Good Candidates for Carotid Artery Stenting or Carotid Endarterectomy

Carotid Artery Stenting

Carotid Artery Disease and What s Pertinent JOSEPH A PAULISIN DO

Kenneth W. Mahaffey, MD and Keith AA Fox, MB ChB

An international, double-blind, phase III randomized trial. Main Results

Alan Barber. Professor of Clinical Neurology University of Auckland

Saudi Arabia February Pr Michel KOMAJDA. Université Pierre et Marie Curie Hospital Pitié Salpétrière

A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT): What we know, what we think and what s to come

Internal carotid artery near-total occlusions: Is it justified to operate on them?

Guideline scope Stroke and transient ischaemic attack in over 16s: diagnosis and initial management (update)

Critical Review Form Therapy

TICAGRELOR VERSUS CLOPIDOGREL AFTER THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH ST- ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Alan Barber. Professor of Clinical Neurology University of Auckland

Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna

FOCUS: Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision Results. Martin Dennis on behalf of the FOCUS collaborators

Peter A. Soukas, M.D., FACC, FSVM, FSCAI, RPVI

Disclosures. An Update on TIA and Minor Stroke. The Agenda PROGNOSIS PATHOPHYSIOLOGY GUIDELINES AND PROVEN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT

The Burden of the Diabetic Heart

Faculty/Presenter Disclosure

7 th Munich Vascular Conference

CORONARY: The Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery Off or On Pump Revascularization Study. Results at 1 Year

CAROTID DEBATE High-Grade Asymptomatic Disease Should Be Repaired Selectively; Medical Management is NOT Enough

Stroke secondary prevention. Gill Cluckie Stroke Nurse Consultant St. George s Hospital

Special Conditions of NOAC PCI 가톨릭의대 순환기내과 장성원

Carotid Artery Stent: Is it ready for prime time?

Secondary Preven-on of Thromboembolic Stroke: Clinical Data and Recommenda-ons from the ESC Atrial Fibrilla-on Guideline Update 2012

Primary Prevention of Stroke

1. Whether the risks of stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) differ from BMS and DES

MRI carotid plaque imaging predicts future stroke in patients with mild to moderate stenosis ICAD study

UPMC HAMOT CAROTID ARTERY DISEASE WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

PFO Management update

The CARENET all-comer trial using the CGuard micronet covered carotid embolic prevention stent

Fast-track CEA: a 3-year experience

Current Status and Perspectives of ACST-2, CREST-2, ECST-2 and ACTRIS. Richard Bulbulia Co-Principal Investigator ACST-2 University of Oxford

Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis To Do or Not To Do

National Vascular Registry

The Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: The SYNTAX Study

A new era in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)?

Modelling diabetes Professor Alastair Gray Health Economics Research Centre University of Oxford

Carotid Artery Surgery for the Prevention and Treatment of Ischemic Stroke Update 2015

Michael Horowitz, MD Pittsburgh, PA

Surgical Treatment of Carotid Disease

Feasibility and Safety of Simultaneous Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting for Bilateral Carotid Stenosis

Flaws, Bias, Misinterpretation and Fraud in Randomized Clinical Trials

Models of preventive care in clinical practice to achieve 25 by 25

Early mobilization after stroke What do we know (so far)?

Randomized comparison of single versus double mammary coronary artery bypass grafting: 5 year outcomes of the Arterial Revascularization Trial

Side branch occlusion in 500 ABSORB BVS

2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY. MEASURE TYPE: Outcome

Contemporary Management of Carotid Disease What We Know So Far

The TNT Trial Is It Time to Shift Our Goals in Clinical

Transcription:

Safety Results NOT for The following slides were presented to the Investigators Meeting on 22/05/09 and most of them were also presented at the European Stroke Conference on 27/05/09 They are NOT for in any form prior to a formal publication of the results to be submitted to the Lancet of the International Carotid Stenting Study (): Early outcome of patients randomised between carotid stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis Martin M Brown, Jörg Ederle, Leo Bonati, Roland J Featherstone, Joanna Dobson, on behalf of the investigators Trial Office: Institute of Neurology, University College London International Carotid Stenting Study (, CAVATAS 2) A multicentre open randomised trial with independent neurological assessment of outcome events blinded to allocated treatment Aims: To determine the risks and long term benefits of carotid artery stenting in comparison to carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis International Carotid Stenting Study Main Inclusion Criteria Extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis (>50% measured using NASCET equivalent) Exclusion: Pseudo occlusion ( string sign ) Managementdiscussedd at multidisciplinary i li meeting Patient and lesion suitable for both treatments Recent, relevant symptoms Age > 40 years (no upper limit) Suitable consenting patients then randomised between stenting and endarterectomy International Carotid Stenting Study Treatment protocol Stenting Stents and protection devices approved by TSC Several devices approved for use in the trial Protection devices recommended at discretion of interventionists: not mandatory Aspirin plus clopidogrel prior to stenting Carotid endarterectomy Local or general anaesthesia International Carotid Stenting Study: Investigator requirements Attend approved carotid stenting course Centres submitted CVs & audited outcome data Enrolled as experienced centre > 50 carotid operations, > 10 cases/ year 50 carotid operations, 10 cases/ year > 50 stents anywhere, > 10 carotid stents and audit data & CV accepted by credentialing committee Enrolled as supervised centre if insufficient cases Treatment of randomised patients then supervised by an approved experienced interventionist Promoted to experienced centre after 20 cases randomised with satisfactory results 1

Safety Results NOT for Principle research questions Primary long term outcome measure Long term survival free of disabling stroke Awaits completion of longer term follow up Primary Safety measure 30 day rate of stroke, myocardial infarction or Data to be presented at ESC, Stockholm Recruitment Recruitment started May 2002 Completed on target October 2008 50 centres, 15 countries; total patients 1713 UK 505 Netherlands 475 Australia 226 Sweden 127 Switzerland 122 Spain 51 New Zealand 40 Belgium 37 Canada 34 Finland 33 Poland 19 Norway 16 Slovenia 12 Germany 9 Ireland 5 1713 randomised 1710 patients 2, 1 patient excluded 853 allocated 857 allocated 828 procedure initiated 9 procedure 16 no procedure 853 analysed by ITT up to 120 days post randomisation 828 analysed per protocol up to 30 days post procedure 821 procedure initiated 15 procedure 21 no procedure 857 analysed by ITT up to 120 days post randomisation 821 analysed per protocol up to 30 days post procedure Baseline data at randomisation Surgery () Stenting () Total Patients 857 853 Mean age (SD) 70.1 (9.1) 70.2 (9.1) Male (%) 71 70 Female (%) 29 30 Hypertensive (%) 69 69 Mean BP (Sys/dia ) 146/79 147/79 Cardiac Failure (%) 5 3 Angina (%) 9 10 NIDDM (%) 17 16 Insulin dependent Di (% Diabetes) 5 6 Atrial Fibrillation (%) 7 7 Previous MI (%) 18 18 N Current Smoker (%) 23 24 N Ex-smoker (%) 49 48 Cholesterol (mmol/l) 4.9 4.9 Treated hyperlipidaemia (%) 66 61 Stenosis (ipsilateral) 50-69% (%) 9 11 70-99% (%) 91 89 Cumulative % of patients 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Delay from randomisation to treatment Primary short term outcome Primary outcome Stroke, or peri-proc MI (%)* 72 (8.5%) (%)* 43 (5.1%) Hazard ratio 1.73 (1.18, 2.52) 120d risk difference 3.4% (1.0, 5.8) Log rank P value 0.004 10 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Days from randomisation to allocated procedure 12 2

Safety Results NOT for : primary cluster : severity of stroke Any stroke 65 34 Any MI 3 4 Fatal MI 3 0 Non fatal MI 0 4 Non-stroke, non MI 7 5 Any stroke 65 34 Fatal stroke 9 2 Disabling stroke 17 19 Non-disabling stroke* 39 14 *Non-disabling = modified Rankin <3 at one month follow up = number of patients with at least one event Number with at least one event. Some patients had more than one event : stroke type Any stroke 65 34 Haemorrhagic stroke 3 5 Ischaemic stroke 63 27 Uncertain type 0 2 Ipsilateral stroke 58 29 Cranial nerve palsy 1 44 : access complications Disabling cranial nerve palsy 1 1 Haematoma 31 50 Severe haematoma* 9 28 = number of patients with at least one event *Severe haematoma = requiring transfusion, operation or prolonging hospital stay No. = number of patients with at least one event 1 patient with a haemorrhagic and ischaemic stroke Number with at least one event. Some patients had more than one event Secondary outcomes : event clusters (%)* (%)* Hazard ratio 120d risk difference Log rank P value Any stroke 65 34 197 1.97 36% 3.6% 0001 0.001 (7.7%) (4.0%) (1.30, 2.99) (1.4, 5.9) All cause Stroke or Disabling or fatal stroke or 19 (2.3%) 72 (8.5%) 34 (4.0%) 7 (0.8%) 39 (4.6%) 26 (3.1%) 2.76 (1.16, 6.56) 1.91 (1.29, 2.82) 1.33 (0.80, 2.21) 1.4% (0.3, 2.6) 3.9% (1.5, 6.2) 0.9% (-0.8, 2.7) * (%) = number of patients with at least one event. % is Kaplan-Meier estimate at 120 days post randomisation 0.017 0.001 0.28 ke, or peri-op MI 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 ITT Primary Analyses: stroke, or peri-proc MI Proportion with stro 0.04 0.02 0.00 72 vs 43 HR = 1.73 (1.18, 2.52) 120d risk difference = 3.4% (1.0, 5.8) Log rank p value = 0.004 0 30 60 90 120 Time from randomisation in days Number at risk 853 792 753 743 738 857 822 789 775 768 3

Safety Results NOT for with stroke or Proportion 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 ITT Analyses: any stroke or 72 vs 39 HR = 1.91 (1.29, 2.82) 120d risk difference = 3.9% (1.5, 6.2) Log rank p value = 0.001 0 30 60 90 120 Time from randomisation in days Number at risk 853 792 753 743 738 857 826 792 778 771 19 ITT Analyses: disabling or fatal stroke or ling or fatal stroke or Proportion with disabl 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 34 vs 26 HR = 1.33 (0.80, 2.21) 120d risk difference = 0.9% ( 0.8, 2.7) Log rank p value = 0.28 0 30 60 90 120 Time from randomisation in days Number at risk 853 823 790 780 775 857 836 803 790 784 Primary outcome (%) n = 828 (%) n = 821 Risk ratio Risk difference Per Protocol 30 day Procedural Risk Analyses: Restricted to allocated treatment initiated P value Stroke, 61 33 1.83 3.3% 0.003 or MI (7.4%) (4.0%) (1.21, 2.77) (1.1, 5.6) Any stroke 58 (7.0%) Stroke or All cause Disabling or fatal stroke or 61 (7.4%) 11 (1.3%) 26 (3.1%) 27 (3.3%) 28 (3.4%) 4 (0.5%) 18 (2.2%) 2.13 (1.36, 3.33) 2.16 (1.40, 3.34) 2.73 (0.87, 8.53) 1.43 (0.79, 2.59) 3.7% (1.6, 5.8) 4.0% (1.8, 6.1) 0.8% (-0.1, 1.8) 0.9% (-0.6, 2.5) 0.001 <0.001 0.072 0.23 Exploratory sub-group analyses (primary outcome) Age < 70 yrs 21/395 15/404 1.46 0.75 2.83 0.554 70 yrs 51/458 28/453 1.86 1.17 2.95 Gender Male 52/601 24/606 2.26 1.40 3.67 0.058 Female 20/252 19/251 105 1.05 056 0.56 197 1.97 Diabetes No 51/659 31/663 1.69 1.08 2.64 0.971 Yes 19/184 12/187 1.67 0.81 3.43 Treated Hypertension No 25/256 8/255 3.25 1.46 7.20 0.046 Yes 45/587 35/595 1.33 0.85 2.06 Favours Favours ITT Analyses: any stroke, or peri-op MI Exploratory sub-group analyses ITT Analyses: any stroke, or peri-op MI Exploratory sub-group analyses Ipsilateral stenosis 50 69% 4/92 3/76 1.13 0.25 5.04 0.563 70 99% 68/761 40/781 1.79 1.21 2.65 Contralateral stenosis 0 49% 45/565 26/561 1.76 1.09 2.85 0.683 50 69% 14/128 8/142 2.04 0.85 4.85 70 99% 9/105 7/110 1.37 0.51 3.68 Occluded 2/49 1/37 1.51 0.14 16.61 Type of most recent event Stroke 45/419 21/399 2.12 1.26 3.55 0.393 TIA 24/273 16/303 1.71 0.91 3.22 AFX 3/148 4/142 0.72 0.16 3.20 Multiple ipsilateral symptoms No 52/523 25/540 2.22 1.38 3.58 0.077 Yes 20/330 18/317 1.08 0.57 2.05 Favours Favours Favours Favours 4

Safety Results NOT for Exploratory sub-group analyses (primary outcome) Centre experience Experienced 65/751 37/760 1.83 1.22-2.74 0.419 Supervised 7/102 6/97 1.13 0.38 3.35 Centre size < 50 pts 33/302 14/307 2.51 1.35 4.70 0.123 50 pts 39/551 29/550 1.36 0.84 2.20 Time from event to procedure* * 14 days 15/205 6/151 1.91 0.74 4.92 0.925 > 14 days 53/623 32/668 1.82 1.17 2.82 MRI substudy Lead investigator: Leo Bonati 5 centres recruited patients into substudy MRI with vascular sequences performed in consecutive patients if consent obtained and no contra indication to MRI 1 7 days pre procedure 1 3 days post procedure (early scan) 3 6 weeks post procedure (late scan) Scans analysed blind to treatment Primary outcome Early ischaemia: New abnormality on post procedure DWI FLAIR abnormality on late MRI at site of early ischaemia * Per protocol Favours Favours MRI Substudy results Silent DWI lesions after stenting (n=108) (n=92) OR New ischaemia 50 (46.3%) 13 (14.1%) between treatment and early scan No event 42 11 TIA 0 0 Stroke 8 2 5.24 (2.61-10.53) p<0.001 FLAIR abnormal at site of early ischaemia on late scan 28 (32.2%) 6 (7.9%) 5.54 (2.15-14.29) p<0.001 Summary and conclusions Strong evidence that is safer than in the primary ITT analysis (any stroke, or perio op MI, 8.5% v 5.1%, p=004) Twice as many strokes after than after in the perprotocol analysis (7.0% v 3.3%, p=0.001) Differencelargelydrivenby non disabling stroke Higher 30 day risk of any cranial nerve palsy and haematoma in arm compared to arm. Blinded MRI substudy supports the results of the main study and makes it unlikely that the difference is the result of bias Carotid endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for suitable patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis Surgical 30-day risk of stroke or Trial Patients Estimated proportion 95% CI ECST 122 1807 6.75% 5.68 8.00 NASCET 73 1087 6.72% 5.38 8.36 CAVATAS 25 253 9.88% 6.78 14.18 SPACE 39 589 6.62% 4.88 8.92 EVA-3S 10 262 3.82% 2.09 6.88 72 857 4.55% 3.35 6.16 Estimated population proportion in % and 95% CI 30 5

Safety Results NOT for Interventional 30-day risk of stroke or Trial Patients Estimated proportion 95% CI CAVATAS 25 251 9.96% 6.84 14.29 SPACE 45 607 7.41% 5.59 9.78 EVA-3S 25 265 9.43% 6.47 13.56 72 853 8.44% 6.76 10.50 Estimated population proportion in % and 95% CI 31 6