Published online before print April 28, 2005, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000165919.26944.05
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2005;36:1314.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.
Comments, Opinions, and Reviews |
Carotid Artery Stenting
Meeting the Recruitment Challenge of a Clinical Trial
From CREST, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School (R.W.H.), Newark, NJ; CREST, Mayo Clinic (T.G.B.), Jacksonville, Fla; CREST, Intervention (Cardiology), and Interventional Cardiology (G.S.R.), Lenox Hill, New York, NY; CREST Canada and, UHN Stroke Program (F.L.S.), Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Robarts Research Institute (H.J.M.B.), London, ON, Canada.
Correspondence to Robert W. Hobson II, MD, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School ADMC, Bldg. 6, Room 620 30 Bergen Street Newark, NJ 07101. E-mail hobsonrw{at}umdnj.edu
Key Words: carotid endarterectomy • carotid stenosis • randomized controlled trials • stents
Clinical efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), when combined with best medical care and compared with optimal medical management alone, was established in rigorous clinical trials for symptomatic1–4 and asymptomatic5,6 extracranial carotid occlusive disease. Enrollment was slow for each, and so reporting of results occurred years after the first randomizations. Nonetheless, increases in the numbers of CEAs in the US and Canada occurred soon after these results became available.7 These increases indicated that physicians were exercising restraint while the trials were in progress and then increased referrals for and performance of CEA in response to the positive results.
Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as a less invasive but potentially equally effective treatment for carotid disease. Physicians and patients are eager for information comparing CEA and CAS. Data derived from previous and current attempts at randomized clinical trials8–12 and registries9,12 (P.L. Whitlow et al, personal communication, 2003) have raised the question of comparability of CEA and CAS, particularly in high-risk patients. None of these trials was powered to compare efficacy of CEA and CAS in symptomatic patients, in which the evidence for CEA is the strongest.1–4 Fortunately, larger clinical trials are currently underway in North America13 and Europe.10,14 Recruitment into these trials will also be slow and the data may not be available for next 2 to 3 years.
As was recommended previously for CEA, caution should be exercised in the use of CAS, pending reports from these rigorous randomized comparisons of CEA to CAS. We ask that specialists in Cardiology, Neurology, Internal–Family Medicine, Vascular and Neurosurgery, Interventional Radiology, and Interventional Neuroradiology, join us to ensure that larger randomized clinical trials such as CREST13 are not placed in jeopardy by early approval of interventional devices. For example, a recent Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panel15 recommended approval of a CAS stent and protection system for use in patients at higher risk, despite the size limitations of the pivotal randomized trial (SAPPHIRE: 96 symptomatic and 219 asymptomatic patients) and despite the absence of comparative data for medical treatment alone. The availability of an approved device "on the shelf" must not result in use of CAS in patients for whom adequate safety and efficacy data are not available.
In CREST, a multidisciplinary group has worked toward the goal of comparing efficacy between CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid stenoses. Recruitment of trial participants has been slow but compares favorably with data on the number of participants recruited per center per year in other clinical trials (Table), including the recently published data from the ACST (Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial) investigators.16 These rates demonstrate the challenges of patient enrollment into trials of treatments in which opinions of physicians, and patients, may be strongly held. In the NASCET trial1,2 Canadian centers were particularly effective contributors to this process. Fourteen percent of the NASCET centers were located in Canada, and yet these investigators randomized 40% of the randomized participants. For CREST to be successful, more Canadian sites must join CREST and again assist with the recruitment of patients with extracranial carotid occlusive disease.
|
Specialists in the United States must also redouble their efforts to achieve adequate recruitment into CREST and other trials comparing CEA and CAS to sustain support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the greater medical community. Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST) sites currently headed by Principal Investigators in Neurology, Interventional Radiology/Neuroradiology, Vascular, and Neurosurgery are recruiting at rates approaching 0.60 participants per center per month, whereas centers headed by Principal Investigators in Cardiology are recruiting at the rate of 0.25 participants per center per month. Given the pivotal role that cardiologists have made to the development of carotid stenting, it is now imperative that they take a greater responsibility in recruitment of patients. The CREST Executive Committee is reaching out to these practitioners to stimulate recruitment efforts. CREST will complete expansion of its clinical sites over the next 18 to 24 months, from the current 57 centers to 80 to 100 centers, with at least 8 in Canada. The CREST randomization goal is 1200 to 1600 symptomatic patients.
The Executive Committee has examined Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) data17 on the number of carotid endarterectomies performed at each medical center in the United States. In 2002, Medicare billing for CEA was documented in 89 860 patients as compared with billings for CAS in 3909 patients. Although it has been estimated that 
140 000 CEAs are performed annually in the United States,18 MEDPAR data included Medicare billing only and probably underestimated the total number of patients undergoing CEA or CAS. Assuming that two-thirds of the endarterectomies are performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, we estimate that 45 000 patients with symptomatic disease are being treated annually with CEA rather than being considered for CREST. If CREST is to accomplish its goal of completing its recruitment, all specialists must cooperate to evaluate this patient population for its suitability to be included in the trial. This will require substantial interest and support from the surgical community, and cardiology groups will need to collaborate with neurology as well as other surgical and interventional colleagues to accomplish this goal.
In North America, CREST may be our last opportunity to compare the efficacy of CEA and CAS in conventional risk patients. We are asking that all interested practitioners in every center act as an enthusiastic team throughout the trial. Experience has taught that this collegial approach produces the best recruitment records and the most complete data with minimal loss to follow-up. If we fail to achieve a study of adequate size, we will not produce convincing evidence of the value of carotid stenting in stroke prevention. The question as to whether stenting is either equal to or superior to endarterectomy will not be answered. Uncertainty will forever cast a long shadow over the use of what may in fact be a worthy therapy.
Received August 4, 2004; accepted September 4, 2004.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
1. North Am Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325: 445–453.[Abstract]
2. Barnett HJM, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, Fox AJ, Ferguson GG, Haynes RB, Rankin RN, Clagett GP, Hachinski VC, Sackett DL, Thorpe KE, and Meldrum HE for the North Am Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 1415–1425.
3. European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. MCR European Carotid Surgery Trial: Interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70–99%) or with mild (0–29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet. 1991; 337: 1235–1243.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Mayberg MR, Wilson SE, Yatsu F and the VA Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis Group. Carotid endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral ischemia in symptomatic carotid stenosis. JAMA. 1991; 266: 3289–3294.
5. Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, Goldstone J, Moore WS, Towne JB, Wright CB, and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 221–227.
6. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study: endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. JAMA. 1995; 273: 1421–1428.
7. Tu JV, Hannan EL, Anderson GM, Iron K, Wu K, Vranizan K, Popp AJ, Grumbach K. The fall and rise of carotid endarterectomy in the United States and Canada N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 1441–1447.
8. Alberts MJ. Results of a multicenter prospective randomized trial of carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 2001; 32: 325-d(Abstract).
9. Yadav JS. Stenting and angioplasty with protection in patients at high risk from endarterectomy: the SAPPHIRE study. Circulation. 2002; 106: 2986a.[CrossRef]
10. Brown MM, Rogers J, Bland JM and the CAVATAS Investigators: Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid And Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomized trial. Lancet. 2001; 357: 1729–1737.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Brooks WH, McClue RR, Jones MR, Coleman TC, Breathitt L. Carotid angioplasty and stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: randomized trial in a community hospital. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 1589–1595.
12. CARESS Steering Committee. Carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting systems (CARESS): phase I clinical trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2003; 10: 1021–1030.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Hobson RW II. Update on the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stent Trial (CREST) protocol. J Am Coll Surg. 2002; 194 (1 Suppl): S9–S14.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Kunze AK, Ringleb PA, Hacke W. The SPACE Study (Stent-Protected percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid vs. Endarterectomy). Poster presentation. 28th International Stroke Conference, February 2003, Phoenix, AZ.
15. Public Advisory Committee of the FDA. Circulatory System Device Panel meeting. April 21, 2004, Gaithersburg, MD.
16. MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 363: 1491–1502.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. National MEDPAR (Medicare Provider Analysis and Review). Baltimore, MD: Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services; 2002.
18. Cronenwett JL, Birkmeyer JD. Carotid artery disease. In: The Dartmouth Atlas of Vascular Health Care. Chicago: AHA Press, Division of Health Forum, Inc; 2000: 41–64.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  W. N. Kernan, C. M. Viscoli, D. DeMarco, B. Mendes, K. Shrauger, J. L. Schindler, J. C. McVeety, A. Sicklick, D. Moalli, P. Greco, et al. Boosting enrollment in neurology trials with Local Identification and Outreach Networks (LIONs) Neurology, April 14, 2009; 72(15): 1345 - 1351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Furlan Carotid-Artery Stenting -- Case Open or Closed? N. Engl. J. Med., October 19, 2006; 355(16): 1726 - 1729. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Hacke, M. M. Brown, J.-L. Mas, R. W. Hobson II, T. G. Brott, G. S. Roubin, and F. L. Silver Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting: An International Perspective * Response: Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 344 - 344. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Pelz, T. Andersson, M. Soderman, P. Lylyk, and M. Negoro Advances in Interventional Neuroradiology 2005 Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 309 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||