European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 5 , Pages 524-533, May 2008

Does the ‘High Risk’ Patient with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Really Exist?

  • A.L. Abbott

      Affiliations

    • National Stroke Research Institute, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
    • Baker Heart Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Dr. A. L. Abbott, MBBS, PhD, National Stroke Research Institute, Austin Health, Level 1, Neurosciences Building, Banksia Street, Heidelberg West, Victoria 3081, Australia.
    • ,
  • G.A. Donnan

      Affiliations

    • National Stroke Research Institute, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
    • Neurology Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
    • The University of Melbourne, Australia

Accepted 29 January 2008. published online 06 March 2008.

Article Outline

Recent evidence indicates that the risk of stroke symptoms in non-operated medically managed patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis has fallen significantly over the last 25 years. This suggests concurrent improvements in vascular disease medical intervention efficacy. If the latest estimates of average annual stroke rate for non-operated patients are reflective of contemporary medical intervention and surgical stroke/death rates match those of the randomised trials, the current implication is that carotid surgery will not offer a stroke prevention advantage over medical intervention alone. Furthermore, it is still not possible to identify patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis with a higher than average ipsilateral stroke risk despite current medical intervention. Even if such patients were one day reliably identified, they could also be at higher risk of stroke/death from instrumental intervention (surgery, angioplasty or stenting) and randomised trials will be required before being justification in routine clinical practice.

Keywords: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis, Stroke risk

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

“High risk plaque, high risk patient or high risk procedure?” Naylor & Golledge, Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006.

Appreciation of the best stroke prevention strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe (50–99%) atherosclerotic stenosis of the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA) is important because this lesion (in westernised communities at least) becomes increasingly prevalent in older age groups and causes an estimated 9–18% of all anterior circulation ischaemic strokes.1 The term ‘high risk’ has been used to describe patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis, sometimes to justify the trial or use of interventions, like surgery or stenting.2, 3 However, ‘high risk’ is a non-specific and relative term. Therefore, to avoid confusion and inappropriate action, the kind of risk and the comparison being made must always be specified. For instance, ‘high risk’ may refer to general patient or specific plaque characteristics indicating a high risk of serious complications, like stroke or death, such that an intervention to reduce this risk should be considered. Conversely, ‘high-risk’ may refer to patient, plaque or procedural characteristics indicating that an intervention will sufficiently increase the risk of serious complications such that the intervention should be avoided.

This review consists of an appraisal of risk stratification of patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis in the context of interventions aimed at reducing risk. In this review, ‘asymptomatic’ means the absence of previous symptoms of ipsilateral stroke or TIA (except in the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial [ACST] where about 11% of patients had suffered an ipsilateral stroke/TIA >6 months before recruitment4). Patients with previous stroke/TIA in other vascular territories or with clinically silent brain imaging identified strokes are included in this definition. The most often studied risk in these patients is that of stroke or death. The interventions examined fall into three categories; (i) vascular disease medical intervention, (ii) surgery to remove the stenosis (carotid endarterectomy [CEA]) and (iii) angioplasty with/without stenting to compress the stenosis (endovascular intervention).

Risk stratification with respect to asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis more than 60% is important because patients with milder stenoses have about half the annual ipsilateral stroke rate and are less likely to benefit from instrumental intervention (CEA, angioplasty or stenting).5 Furthermore, ipsilateral stroke symptoms should be the main focus of attention because it is more likely that ipsilateral (rather than contra-lateral) stroke/TIA is caused by the carotid stenosis and will be influenced by instrumental intervention. This reasoning is supported by the absence of data demonstrating that instrumental intervention for asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis reduces any territory (or total) stroke rate independently of an effect on ipsilateral stroke rate.

Vascular disease medical intervention is used to describe the combination of non-invasive strategies to avoid or minimize vascular disease, including patient education and the diagnosis and effective treatment (non-pharmacological/pharmacological) of vascular disease risk factors and symptoms. An aspect of medical intervention is the identification of persons with carotid vascular disease. Consequently, all studies of asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis involve patients undergoing at least some degree of vascular disease medical intervention. This review will, therefore, examine the concept of the ‘high risk’ patient despite medical intervention alone, and the patient at ‘high risk’ because of additional instrumental intervention.

Back to Article Outline

The Patient at High-risk Despite Medical Intervention Alone 

Recent evidence indicates that the risk of ipsilateral and any territory stroke/TIA in hospital identified, non-operated patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis has fallen significantly over the last 25 years, suggesting concurrent improvements in the stroke prevention efficacy of vascular disease medical intervention.1 This evidence was provided from a review of all identified published prospective studies of at least 100 patients with non-operated asymptomatic severe (≥50–75%) carotid stenosis with sufficient published data for calculation of an average annual rate of ipsilateral stroke and/or TIA. Nine studies were identified5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and, more recently, comparable results have been reported from the Second Manifestations of ARTerial (SMART) disease study,14 see Table 1.

Table 1. Average annual risk of the non-operated patient with asymptomatic severe (>50%) carotid stenosis#
nFollow-up (years)^Ipsilateral stroke/TIAIpsilateral strokeAny stroke/TIAAny stroke
Johnson et al., 198511213.0Δ19.0 (12.0, 26.0)3.3 (0.1, 6.5)––
Toronto Study, 198611131.9 meanΔ (3.5 KMA)7.8 (all TIA) (2.9, 12.7)–14.8∗ (8.3, 21.3)–
Veterans' Study, 199322334.0 meanΔ5.2 (2.3, 8.1)2.4 (0.4, 4.4)6.1 (3.0, 9.2)3.0 (0.8, 5.2)
ACAS, 199528342.7 medianΔ (5 KMA)3.8∗ (2.5, 5.1)2.2∗ (1.2, 3.2)–3.5∗ (2.3, 4.7)
ECST, 199531274.5Δ (3 KMA)–1.9∗ (0, 4.3)––
ACBS, 199713573.1 mean (KMA not given)4.2∗ (2.1, 6.3)1.4∗ ( 0.2, 2.6)5.8 (3.4, 8.2)2.5∗ (0.9, 4.1)
NASCET, 20003216mean not given (5 KMA)–2.0∗ (0.1, 3.9)––
ACSRS Study, 20054, ^^11153.3 mean (7 KMA)3.4∗ (2.3, 4.5)1.7∗ (0.9, 2.5)4.1∗ (2.9, 5.3)2.1∗ (1.3, 2.9)
ASED Study, 200542022.9 mean (3 KMA)3.1∗ (0.7, 5.5)1.0∗ (0, 2.4)5.1∗ (2.1, 8.1)2.2∗ (0.2, 4.2)
SMART Study, 200712214.1 mean^^^–0.6 (0, 1.6)–0.7 (0, 1.8)

ACAS=Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study, ECST=European Carotid Surgery Trial, ACBS=Asymptomatic Cervical Bruit Study, NASCET=North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial, ACST=Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial, ACSRS=Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Stroke, ASED=Asymptomatic Stenosis Embolus Detection, SMART=Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease.

#Table adapted from Abbott et al., International Journal of Stroke, 2007.1

1Subgroup from an observational cohort study.6, 7, 11, 14

2Medically managed subgroup from a randomised CEA trial for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.8, 10

3Medically managed subgroup from a randomised CEA trial for contralateral symptomatic carotid stenosis.5, 9

4A complete observational study cohort.12, 13

^Actual mean/median follow-up in bold print. Follow-up by Kaplan–Meier analysis (KMA, in brackets) was used for rate calculation when available.

∗Rate derived from Kaplan–Meier analysis.

ΔParameter applies to the whole sample this subgroup with >50% stenosis was selected from.

^^Rates courtesy of Prof A Nicolaides using ECST method of stenosis measurement (personal communication).

^^^Mean followup for the subgroup with >50% asymptomatic carotid stenosis courtesy of Dr Goessens (personal communication).

Many of the patients in these studies were identified because of cerebral or other symptoms of vascular disease, probably placing them at higher risk of stroke than most community based patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis. With this in mind, the most recent measures of average annual rate of ipsilateral stroke ranged from 0.6–1.7%, and the average annual rate of any territory (total) stroke ranged from 0.8–2.2%.12, 13, 14 As can be seen from Table 1, these annual stroke rates are statistically no different from those patients who received medical intervention and surgery in the two larger and most recent randomised CEA trials; the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS,10) and ACST.4 In these two trials, the average annual rates of ipsilateral and any territory stroke were 2.2%10 and 2.4%.4 Assuming these more contemporary risk estimates for non-operated patients accurately reflect outcomes in current practice, the implication is that CEA (even at the relatively high standard of the randomised trials) probably no longer offers any significant stroke prevention benefit over current medical intervention alone.

Furthermore, in current clinical practice, surgery could prove to be harmful if the perioperative stroke/death rates exceed the 2–3% seen in the randomised CEA trials4, 10 and/or current vascular disease medical intervention is even more effective than reported thus far. Accordingly, it is probably more accurate to consider comparable ‘routine practice’ patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis as high-risk from CEA or angioplasty/stenting because accurate measures of surgical outcome in routine practice are not usually made. In addition, there are no randomised trial data establishing a stroke prevention benefit from endovascular intervention and the full impact of current vascular disease medical intervention has not been measured.1

CEA or stenting may be more effective in reducing the risk of stroke/death in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis if patients at higher than average risk (despite current medical intervention) could be identified. Although the ‘high-risk’ patient in this sense may exist, a reliable identification method has been elusive. Proposed and/or investigated risk stratification parameters are discussed below. Risk stratification studies have usually been performed in hospital identified patients and none have received what would now be considered to be ‘optimal medical therapy’. This would require documentation of the prevalence and treatment of vascular disease risk factors at baseline and during follow-up. Further, on-going efforts to identify high-risk subgroups despite medical intervention alone are likely to become more challenging (and possibly less cost effective) as the efficacy and implementation of medical intervention continues to improve. Even if such high-risk patients are one day reliably identified, these patients may then be at higher risk from instrumental intervention and randomised trials of additional CEA or angioplasty/stenting would be required before justification in routine practice.

Back to Article Outline

i. Patient Features (Demographics and General Vascular Disease Risk Factors) 

So far studies of asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis providing ipsilateral stroke and/or TIA rates (listed in Table 1) have been too small for risk stratification by age, sex or any other variable. In these studies the mean patient age was 64–74 years and men generally predominated, comprising 40–100% of patients. In the Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Stroke (ACSRS) Study, the largest published and ongoing study of asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis, neither age nor sex has so far indicated a higher risk of ipsilateral stroke with/without TIA.12, 15

It may be anticipated, like stroke rates generally,16, 17, 18 that ipsilateral stroke rates in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis increase with age. In addition, it is likely that for a given age group the prevalence of severe carotid atherosclerosis19, 20 and ‘unstable’ appearing asymptomatic carotid plaques21 as well as stroke and other vascular disease complication rates will be higher in men.16, 17, 18, 22 Potential age-related gender differences in carotid vascular disease, which may be less noticeable in the extremes of old age, should be taken into account in risk estimations. Ideally, risk stratification in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis should be performed by age for men and women separately.

Other general vascular disease risk factors (like hypertension or cardiac disease), in isolation, are poor predictors of stroke and other vascular disease complications because they are common among vascular disease patients and a large proportion of vascular events occur in their absence.23, 24, 25 In the ACSRS Study, the combination of 90–99% asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (using the European Carotid Surgery Trial method of measurement26), a history of contra-lateral TIAs and a creatinine exceeding 85umol/L identified the highest risk subgroup, with an average annual rate of ipsilateral stroke of 6.3%.12 However, this annual risk (yet to be independently verified) is still relatively low compared to some reported perioperative stroke/death rates for asymptomatic patients (see below).

Although blood detected inflammatory or biochemical markers, such as white blood cells, C-reactive protein, lipoprotein-associated phospholipse A2 activity and homocysteine levels may be useful in general stroke or vascular disease risk stratification,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 currently these are not effective in stratifying ipsilateral stroke risk in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis.

Back to Article Outline

ii. Carotid Plaque Features 

Degree of stenosis 

The predictive power of stenosis severity alone within the 60–99% range has been inadequate for identification of patients with sufficiently high risk to warrant surgical intervention. The randomised surgical studies failed to show a correlation between stenosis severity and CEA benefit.4, 10 In the ASCRS Study, combined ipsilateral cerebral ischaemic event rates (stroke, TIA and amaurosis fugax) correlated with stenosis severity,12 being highest (5.0%/year) for patients with 90–99% stenosis. In these ‘high risk’ patients, the average annual risk of ipsilateral stroke alone varied from 1.0% to 6.3%, depending on serum creatinine levels and any previous stroke symptoms.

Other carotid plaque features proposed as markers of ipsilateral or general stroke/TIA risk include an occluded contralateral carotid artery.33 However, as discussed below, these patients may be at lower spontaneous stroke risk. Other proposed high risk markers include carotid wall motion34 or stenosis progression before symptoms occur.11, 35 However, large prospective studies testing these parameters are lacking, and the influence of modern medical intervention must be considered in any future studies.

Plaque morphology 

Plaque morphology may be divided into surface contour and cross-sectional characteristics (or structure). Most studies of carotid plaque morphology have employed ultrasound or conventional angiography, particularly among patients with any degree (>0%) of carotid stenosis. An irregular surface and/or echolucent texture (diffusely dark on ultrasound) or heterogeneous texture (mixed light and dark on ultrasound) are features more strongly associated with past or subsequent any territory stroke/TIA or other vascular complications compared to a smooth surface and/or homogeneous texture (diffusely bright on ultrasound).35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 However, plaque imaging has not been demonstrated to reliably stratify ipsilateral stroke risk among patients with asymptomatic severe (>50–75%) carotid stenosis.

Johnson et al.6 in 1985, (Table 1), reported that patients with duplex determined >75% echolucent (‘soft’) plaque had respective average annual rates of ipsilateral stroke and ipsilateral stroke/TIA of about 6.3% and 31.0% (approximately 1.5–2.5 times higher than for patients with >75% echogenic ‘dense’ or bright plaques). Such high ipsilateral stroke/TIA rates stratified by plaque morphology have not been reported since, possibly influenced by a lowering of stroke symptom risk in medically treated patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis since the early 1980s. By comparison, Nicolaides et al. reported that 70–99% asymptomatic (mainly echolucent or partly echogenic) plaques carry an average ipsilateral stroke rate of only about 2%/year, compared with about 0.14%/year for uniformly echogenic or calcified plaques.43

Plaque imaging modalities are improving in tissue characterization.28, 44, 45, 46 However, the pathology itself may ultimately limit clinically useful risk stratification in patients with severe carotid stenosis. This is due to heterogeneity of tissue types within the one plaque.47, 48 In addition, although pathological features associated with plaque instability (ulceration, plaque haemorrhage/rupture and lumen thrombus) have been seen in about 20–50% of symptomatic patients, these have also been seen in about 15–45% of asymptomatic carotid plaques.49, 50, 51 Further, in studies of patients with mixed symptomatic status, such pathological features become increasingly common as degree of stenosis increases from zero,39, 49, 52, 53 consistent with the finding that imaging-determined irregular and heterogeneous plaques predominant in high-grade carotid stenosis,42, 53, 54 including specifically asymptomatic cases.36, 55

Back to Article Outline

iii. Intracranial Features 

Preliminary transcranial Doppler studies of patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis indicate that the detection of at least one or two microemboli in the ipsilateral middle cerebral artery, although a very sensitive marker of future ipsilateral stroke and/or TIA risk, lacks specificity as most patients remain stroke/TIA free over an approximate 3-year followup period.13 It is more likely that higher rates of microembolism may be useful in risk stratification, as is the case for microembolism associated with carotid endarterectomy.56 Of note, consistently microembolic signal negative asymptomatic stenotic carotid arteries are associated with a low risk of subsequent stroke or TIA.13, 57 Although results from a larger and ongoing study are awaited with interest,58 the low average rates of microembolism in these patients means that reliable automated emboli detection techniques are required.13

Other proposed intracranial markers of ipsilateral or any territory stroke/TIA risk include impaired cerebrovascular reactivity,59 relative cerebral hypoperfusion,60 magnetic resonance imaging detected metabolic changes61 or the presence of asymptomatic cerebral infarction.62 However, large prospective studies testing these parameters are lacking, and the influence of modern medical intervention must be considered in any future studies.

Back to Article Outline

The Patient at High-Risk Because of Instrumental Intervention 

In the major randomised CEA trials of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the overall average perioperative risk of stroke or death was 2.9%.4, 8, 10, 63 These trial results have been used to set a bench mark between beneficial and harmful surgical intervention. Previous recommendations for surgery were usually conditional upon an operative stroke/death risk less than 3%.64, 65, 66, 67 As mentioned above, in current routine clinical practice, however, all medically treated patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis may be considered at relatively high risk of stroke or death caused by CEA, even if the randomised trial surgical standards are matched. This is because of evidence that the overall stroke prevention efficacy of medical intervention has improved over the last 25 years and is now at least as good as the combination of CEA and medical intervention employed in the randomised CEA trials conducted in 1983–2003.4, 8, 10

Assuming recent risk estimates for non-operated patients accurately reflect outcomes in current practice, indications are that CEA would have to carry an average stroke/death risk of perhaps <1% if it is to offer a meaningful benefit over current vascular disease medical intervention alone. However, there is little evidence that general surgical standards have improved (or even match) those seen in the CEA randomised trials. In fact, concern has been raised over higher perioperative stroke/death rates reported in other settings. Perioperative mortality rates of up to 14 or 25 times higher than in ACAS have been reported among non-trial patients when CEA is performed within trial and non-trial hospitals.68 Higher peri-operative stroke/death rates for asymptomatic patients have also been reported from other randomised trials2, 69 and retrospective surveys of surgical practice.70, 71, 72

The SAPPHIRE (Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy) Study, in which 71% of 334 patients recruited were asymptomatic, has provided the first published randomised results of stenting versus CEA for asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis.2 The respective 30-day procedural stroke/death rates were 5.4% and 4.6% for asymptomatic patients who underwent CEA or stenting. The relatively high procedural stroke/death rates in SAPPHIRE, and in prospective stenting registries for asymptomatic (5.8% in ARCHeR73) or mostly asymptomatic patients (5.2% in CREATE74), have been attributed to patient factors (such as degree of stenosis and co-morbidities). However, the absence of a comparison arm of medical intervention alone for such ‘high risk’ asymptomatic patients makes it impossible to judge the extent to which patient or procedural factors are responsible.

Several other randomised studies of endovascular intervention versus CEA for asymptomatic carotid stenosis are underway or being planned, most (unfortunately) without comparison with current optimal (or any) medical intervention alone (CREST,75 CaRESS,76 ACST-2 [website: http:www.acst.org.uk] and TACIT77). Of note, in several randomised trials of CEA versus endovascular intervention for symptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis, the 30-day procedural stroke/death rate for one or both procedures exceeded 6 or 7%,2, 78, 79, 80, 81 the threshold between beneficial and harmful surgical intervention in this setting.26, 82, 83, 84 These observations emphasise the importance of accurate assessment of procedural outcomes from each centre offering routine procedures. Further, inter-centre differences in major procedural complication rates may not be immediately apparent from meta-analyses showing overall similar results.85

Evidence with regard to the low overall risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis receiving current medical intervention alone (and thus the relatively high overall risk of stroke or death imposed by CEA) is recent and requires a well designed and conducted clinical study for confirmation. In addition, (as now discussed) certain patient, plaque and procedural features have already been recognised as indicators that CEA is likely to increase the risk of stroke or death over medical intervention alone.

Back to Article Outline

i. Patient and Plaque Features 

It is clear that the risk of peri-operative stroke or death is lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic patients.86 Therefore, outcomes for these patients should always be reported separately. In the major randomised CEA trials of asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis the main exclusion criteria were aspirin intolerance, use of long term anticoagulants, post-CEA carotid stenosis and conditions likely to complicate surgery, prevent continuing participation or cause disability or death within five years.4, 10, 75 About 25 and four patients, respectively, were screened for every one randomised in ACAS and the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study.10, 68, 87 Although these patients were excluded because of the perception of high risk imposed by CEA, the outcome of such patients with current (or any) vascular disease medical intervention alone is unknown.

Of patients with asymptomatic moderate-severe carotid stenosis included in randomised trials of CEA or angioplasty/stenting or retrospective surveys of clinical practice,88 there is evidence that women,10, 88 those with contra-lateral carotid occlusion,5, 89 the elderly75, 88 and those with a history of congestive heart failure88 are more likely to suffer peri-procedural stroke or death or receive no long term benefit from carotid surgery. In ACAS, patients with a history of diabetes mellitus, contralateral siphon stenosis or no alcohol consumption had a higher risk of perioperative stroke, while those with a history of previous stroke, contralateral stenosis greater than 60% and no alcohol consumption had a higher perioperative risk of stroke, TIA, nonfatal MI or death.65

From studies of patients with mixed symptomatic status, indicators of higher surgical stroke/death risk are age beyond 75 years,90, 91, 92 female sex,90, 92, 93, 94 contralateral ICA stenosis or occlusion69, 90 and stenosis of the ipsilateral external carotid artery or carotid siphon,90 left sided procedure,69, 95 carotid re-operation,96 systolic hypertension90 and previous angina or congestive heart failure.97 From a registry of 418 mostly asymptomatic patients, it has been reported that carotid plaque echolucency increases the risk of stroke associated with carotid stenting.98

Back to Article Outline

ii. Procedural Factors 

Surgical experience 

The experience and expertise of the surgical team is very important in determining procedural complication rates and was probably a key reason for the relatively low stroke/death rates seen in the major randomised CEA trials. Potential participating surgeons for the major randomised surgical trials were selected based on personal records of acceptable annual numbers of CEAs performed99 and/or procedural stroke/death rates.4, 87, 99 In addition, ACAS and ACST trial surgeons participated on the understanding that they would be excluded from further participation if complication rates were unacceptable.4, 99, 100 About 32% of applicant surgeons were excluded from ACAS and operative stroke/death rates were 2–3 times higher among them.99

Higher reported perioperative stroke/death rates than those in the randomised CEA trials are more likely when relatively few procedures (fewer than about 10–50/centre or surgeon) are performed annually.68, 95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 Other complications of CEA (such as wound haematoma, infection or dehiscence and pneumonia) are also more likely when relatively few procedures are performed annually.103

Other procedural factors 

The lack of peri-operative antiplatelet therapy97, 107, 108 and use of angiography8, 10 increase the risk of perioperative stroke, death and myocardial infarction among asymptomatic or mixed asymptomatic/symptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Further, reported neurological complication and/or mortality rates following CEA and angioplasty/stenting are higher when neurologists are involved in pre and post-intervention assessments.70, 109, 110

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion and Future Directions 

The term ‘high risk’ in relation to patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis is a non-specific and relative term and must always be specified if confusion and inappropriate action are to be avoided. In practice, this term usually refers to the patient at high risk of stroke or death despite medical intervention alone or at high risk of stroke or death because of additional instrumental intervention. In both situations, risk is dependent on patient risk factor profile and the nature of the intervention(s) employed. To date hospital identified patients with asymptomatic severe carotid disease have been the focus of investigation. For these patients there is evidence that the risk of stroke/TIA has fallen significantly over the last 25 years, probably due to improvements in efficacy of vascular disease medical intervention. Indications are that it is inappropriate to use the relatively high stroke rates from the earliest studies of non-operated patients with asymptomatic severe, carotid stenosis to justify instrumental intervention (CEA or stenting) today.2 Overestimates of average annual stroke rates for non-operated patients may also occur if derived only from the first 12 months of followup (when stroke rates are likely to be relatively high)1 or if total and ipsilateral stroke rates are not differentiated.

If the most recent estimates of stroke risk in non-operated patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis accurately reflect outcomes in current routine practice, the implication is that CEA (even to the relatively high standard seen in the randomised trials) will not offer a stroke prevention advantage over current medical intervention alone. In fact, CEA may be dangerous given the general unavailability of accurate measures of outcomes from routine surgical practice and because the full potential of currently available vascular disease medical intervention has not been assessed. Even the most recent studies of patients with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis were not fully interventional in the diagnosis and treatment of vascular disease risk factors and/or have provided only baseline descriptions of patient risk factors and medical interventions employed.12, 13, 14

Carotid atherosclerosis, being a well recognised marker of systemic vascular disease and relatively easy to detect non-invasively, is an opportunistic window into general vascular health. Most important for patients with carotid atherosclerosis (including those with severe stenosis) is to assess the combined impact of effective vascular disease medical interventions on ‘global vascular risk’,111 which is the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and other symptoms or death due to vascular disease. Patients should be stratified by markers of ‘global’ vascular risk, such as age, sex and the presence or absence vascular disease symptoms. Study of hospital and community based patients would allow assessment of early primary through to late secondary prevention of vascular disease complications. Although some may suggest repeated randomised surgical studies for this purpose,112 well conducted observational studies of contemporary vascular disease medical intervention alone may be preferable given the already recognised difficulties of ensuring a surgical benefit in routine practice and the cost-ineffectiveness of CEA in asymptomatic patients.1

Until now the kind of medical intervention which specifically reduces stroke risk in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis has been unknown. Previously, medical intervention for many of these patients was directed by general vascular risk factors or non-ipsilateral carotid vascular disease symptoms rather than the presence of carotid stenosis itself. Over the last 25 years our understanding of vascular risk factors has evolved and effective therapies (including the use of aspirin, statin agents and newer anti-hypertensive agents) have become ‘common place’. The apparent 25-year fall in risk of stroke symptoms in non-operated asymptomatic patients with severe carotid disease is an indication that now commonly employed vascular disease medical intervention is effective in reducing the risk of stroke caused by and otherwise associated with this lesion. It is now time to educate the public about the benefits expected from vascular disease medical intervention in reducing everyone's risk.25, 113 After all, vascular disease avoidance or minimisation depends chiefly on an informed public to adopt a healthy lifestyle and comply with appropriate use of medication.114

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgements 

The first author is a 2007 recipient of a National Health and Medical Research Council Australian Research Training Fellowship and a 2007/2008 Royal Australasian College of Physicians GallaxoSmithKline Neurology Research Fellowship.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Abbott A, Bladin C, Levi C, Chambers B. What should we do with asymptomatic carotid stenosis?. Int J Stroke. 2007;2:27–39
  2. Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1493–1501
  3. Moussa I, Rundek T, Mohr JE. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: Risk stratification and management. London: Informa Healthcare; 2007;
  4. Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, Peto C, Peto R, Potter J, et al. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1491–1502
  5. Inzitari D, Eliasziw M, Gates P, Sharpe BL, Chan RK, Meldrum HE, et al. The causes and risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic internal-carotid-artery stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1693–1700
  6. Johnson JM, Kennelly MM, Decesare D, Morgan S, Sparrow A. Natural history of asymptomatic carotid plaque. Arch Surg. 1985;120:1010–1012
  7. Chambers BR, Norris JW. Outcome in patients with asymptomatic neck bruits. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:860–865
  8. Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, Goldstone J, Moore WS, Towne JB, et al. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group N Engl J Med. 1993;328:221–227
  9. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Risk of stroke in the distribution of an asymptomatic carotid artery. Lancet. 1995;345:209–212
  10. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study . Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421–1428
  11. Mackey AE, Abrahamowicz M, Langlois Y, Battista R, Simard D, Bourque F, et al. Outcome of asymptomatic patients with carotid disease. Asymptomatic Cervical Bruit Study Group Neurology. 1997;48:896–903
  12. Nicolaides AN, Kakkos S, Griffin M, Sabetai M, Dhanjil S, Tegos T, et al. Severity of asymptomatic carotid stenosis and risk of ipsilateral hemispheric ischaemic events: results from the ACSRS Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;30:275–284
  13. Abbott AL, Chambers BR, Stork JL, Levi CR, Bladin CF, Donnan GA. Embolic signals and prediction of ipsilateral stroke or transient ischemic attack in asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Stroke. 2005;36:1128–1133
  14. Goessens BM, Visseren FL, Kappelle LJ, Algra A, van der Graaf Y. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and the risk of new vascular events in patients with manifest arterial disease: the SMART Study. Stroke. 2007;38:1470–1475
  15. Nicolaides AN, Kakkos S, Griffin M, Geroulakos G, Ioannidou E. Severity of asymptomatic carotid stenosis and risk of ipsilateral hemispheric ischaemic events: results from the ACSRS study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:336
  16. Bonita R, Beaglehole R, North JD. Event, incidence and case fatality rates of cerebrovascular disease in Auckland, New Zealand. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;120:236–243
  17. Anderson CS, Jamrozik KD, Burvill PW, Chakera TM, Johnson GA, Stewart-Wynne EG. Ascertaining the true incidence of stroke: experience from the Perth Community Stroke Study, 1989–1990. Med J Aust. 1993;158:80–84
  18. Thrift AG, Dewey HM, Macdonell RA, McNeil JJ, Donnan GA. Stroke incidence on the east coast of Australia: the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke. 2000;31:2087–2092
  19. Torvik A, Joergensen L. Thrombotic and embolic occlusions of the carotid arteries in an autopsy material. I. Prevalence, location and associated diseases. J Neurol Sci. 1964;41:24–39
  20. Solberg LA, Eggen DA. Localization and sequence of development of atherosclerotic lesions in the carotid and vertebral arteries. Circulation. 1971;43:711–724
  21. Hellings WE, Pasterkamp G, Verhoeven BA, De Kleijn DP, De Vries JP, Seldenrijk KA, et al. Gender-associated differences in plaque phenotype of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:289–296[discussion 296–287]
  22. Dick P, Sherif C, Sabeti S, Amighi J, Minar E, Schillinger M. Gender differences in outcome of conservatively treated patients with asymptomatic high grade carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2005;36:1178–1183
  23. Hankey GJ, Slattery JM, Warlow CP. Can the long term outcome of individual patients with transient ischaemic attacks be predicted accurately?. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1993;56:752–759
  24. Nicolaides A, Sabetai M, Kakkos SK, Dhanjil S, Tegos T, Stevens JM, et al. The asymptomatic carotid stenosis and risk of stroke (ACSRS) study. Aims and results of quality control. Int Angiol. 2003;22:263–272
  25. Wald NJ, Law MR. A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 80%. BMJ. 2003;326:1419
  26. 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;337:1235–1243
  27. Corrado E, Rizzo M, Tantillo R, Muratori I, Bonura F, Vitale G, et al. Markers of inflammation and infection influence the outcome of patients with baseline asymptomatic carotid lesions: a 5-year follow-up study. Stroke. 2006;37:482–486
  28. Daskalopoulou SS, Daskalopoulos ME, Perrea D, Nicolaides AN, Liapis CD. Carotid artery atherosclerosis: what is the evidence for drug action?. Curr Pharm Des. 2007;13:1141–1159
  29. Oei HH, van der Meer IM, Hofman A, Koudstaal PJ, Stijnen T, Breteler MM, et al. Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity is associated with risk of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke: the Rotterdam Study. Circulation. 2005;111:570–575
  30. Nygard O, Nordrehaug JE, Refsum H, Ueland PM, Farstad M, Vollset SE. Plasma homocysteine levels and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:230–236
  31. Wald DS, Law M, Morris JK. Homocysteine and cardiovascular disease: evidence on causality from a meta-analysis. BMJ. 2002;325:1202
  32. VITATOPS Trial Study Group . The VITATOPS (Vitamins to Prevent Stroke) Trial: rationale and design of an international, large, simple, randomised trial of homocysteine-lowering multivitamin therapy in patients with recent transient ischaemic attack or stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2002;13:120–126
  33. AbuRahma AF, Cook CC, Metz MJ, Wulu JT, Bartolucci A. Natural history of carotid artery stenosis contralateral to endarterectomy: results from two randomized prospective trials. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:1154–1161
  34. Golemati S, Sassano A, Lever MJ, Bharath AA, Dhanjil S, Nicolaides AN. Carotid artery wall motion estimated from B-mode ultrasound using region tracking and block matching. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:387–399
  35. Bock RW, Gray-Weale AC, Mock PA, App Stats M, Robinson DA, Irwig L, et al. The natural history of asymptomatic carotid artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:160–169[discussion 170–171]
  36. Carra G, Visona A, Bonanome A, Lusiani L, Pesavento R, Bortolon M, et al. Carotid plaque morphology and cerebrovascular events. Int Angiol. 2003;22:284–289
  37. Kitamura A, Iso H, Imano H, Ohira T, Okada T, Sato S, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness and plaque characteristics as a risk factor for stroke in Japanese elderly men. Stroke. 2004;35:2788–2794
  38. Prabhakaran S, Rundek T, Ramas R, Elkind MS, Paik MC, Boden-Albala B, et al. Carotid plaque surface irregularity predicts ischemic stroke: the Northern Manhattan Study. Stroke. 2006;37:2696–2701
  39. Sterpetti AV, Schultz RD, Feldhaus RJ, Davenport KL, Richardson M, Farina C, et al. Ultrasonographic features of carotid plaque and the risk of subsequent neurologic deficits. Surgery. 1988;104:652–660
  40. Langsfeld M, Gray-Weale AC, Lusby RJ. The role of plaque morphology and diameter reduction in the development of new symptoms in asymptomatic carotid arteries. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:548–557
  41. Belcaro G, Laurora G, Cesarone MR, De Sanctis MT, Incandela L, Fascetti E, et al. Ultrasonic classification of carotid plaques causing less than 60% stenosis according to ultrasound morphology and events. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1993;34:287–294
  42. Polak JF, O'Leary DH, Kronmal RA, Wolfson SK, Bond MG, Tracy RP, et al. Sonographic evaluation of carotid artery atherosclerosis in the elderly: relationship of disease severity to stroke and transient ischemic attack. Radiology. 1993;188:363–370
  43. Nicolaides AN, Kakkos SK, Griffin M, Sabetai M, Dhanjil S, Thomas DJ, et al. Effect of image normalization on carotid plaque classification and the risk of ipsilateral hemispheric ischemic events: results from the Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Stroke Study. Vascular. 2005;13:211–221
  44. Hennerici M, Meairs S. Imaging arterial wall disease. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2000;10(Suppl. 5):9–20
  45. Schumacher H, Kaiser E, Schnabel PA, Sykora J, Eckstein HH, Allenberg JR. Immunophenotypic characterisation of carotid plaque: increased amount of inflammatory cells as an independent predictor for ischaemic symptoms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;21:494–501
  46. Davies JR, Rudd JH, Weissberg PL, Narula J. Radionuclide imaging for the detection of inflammation in vulnerable plaques. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:C57–C68
  47. Fisher CM, Ojemann RG. A clinico-pathologic study of carotid endarterectomy plaques. Rev Neurol (Paris). 1986;142:573–589
  48. Bassiouny HS, Davis H, Massawa N, Gewertz BL, Glagov S, Zarins CK. Critical carotid stenoses: morphologic and chemical similarity between symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:202–212
  49. Svindland A, Torvik A. Atherosclerotic carotid disease in asymptomatic individuals: an histological study of 53 cases. Acta Neurol Scand. 1988;78:506–517
  50. Golledge J, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. The symptomatic carotid plaque. Stroke. 2000;31:774–781
  51. Fisher M, Paganini-Hill A, Martin A, Cosgrove M, Toole JF, Barnett HJ, et al. Carotid plaque pathology: thrombosis, ulceration, and stroke pathogenesis. Stroke. 2005;36:253–257
  52. Lennihan L, Kupsky WJ, Mohr JP, Hauser WA, Correll JW, Quest DO. Lack of association between carotid plaque hematoma and ischemic cerebral symptoms. Stroke. 1987;18:879–881
  53. Rothwell PM, Gibson R, Warlow CP. Interrelation between plaque surface morphology and degree of stenosis on carotid angiograms and the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. On behalf of the European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group Stroke. 2000;31:615–621
  54. Leahy AL, McCollum PT, Feeley TM, Sugrue M, Grouden MC, O'Connell DJ, et al. Duplex ultrasonography and selection of patients for carotid endarterectomy: plaque morphology or luminal narrowing?. J Vasc Surg. 1988;8:558–562
  55. Abbott AL. Natural history of high-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis and identification of high ipsilateral stroke or TIA risk using microembolus detection. Thesis, The University of Melbourne, Department of Medicine; 2004. p. 438.
  56. Abbott AL, Levi CR, Stork JL, Donnan GA, Chambers BR. Timing of clinically significant microembolism after carotid endarterectomy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23:362–367
  57. Spence JD, Tamayo A, Lownie SP, Ng WP, Ferguson GG. Absence of microemboli on transcranial Doppler identifies low-risk patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2005;36:2373–2378
  58. Markus HS, Cullinane M. Asymptomatic carotid emboli (ACES) study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2000;10(Suppl. 1):3
  59. Markus H, Cullinane M. Severely impaired cerebrovascular reactivity predicts stroke and TIA risk in patients with carotid artery stenosis and occlusion. Brain. 2001;124:457–467
  60. Derdeyn CP, Grubb RL, Powers WJ. Cerebral hemodynamic impairment: methods of measurement and association with stroke risk. Neurology. 1999;53:251–259
  61. van der Grond J, Balm R, Kappelle LJ, Eikelboom BC, Mali WP. Cerebral metabolism of patients with stenosis or occlusion of the internal carotid artery. A 1H-MR spectroscopic imaging study. Stroke. 1995;26:822–828
  62. Norris JW, Zhu CZ. Silent stroke and carotid stenosis. Stroke. 1992;23:483–485
  63. Chambers BR, Donnan GA. Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;CD001923
  64. Beebe HG, Clagett GP, DeWeese JA, Moore WS, Robertson JT, Sandok B, et al. Assessing risk associated with carotid endarterectomy. A statement for health professionals by an ad hoc committee on carotid surgery standards of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1989;79:472–473
  65. Young B, Moore WS, Robertson JT, Toole JF, Ernst CB, Cohen SN, et al. An analysis of perioperative surgical mortality and morbidity in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. ACAS investigators Stroke. 1996;27:2216–2224
  66. Goldstein LB, Adams R, Becker K, Furberg CD, Gorelick PB, Hademenos G, et al. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2001;32:280–299
  67. Goldstein LB, Adams R, Becker K, Furberg CD, Gorelick PB, Hademenos G, et al. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;103:163–182
  68. 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;279:1278–1281
  69. Taylor DW, Barnett HJ, Haynes RB, Ferguson GG, Sackett DL, Thorpe KE, et al. Low-dose and high-dose acetylsalicylic acid for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. ASA and carotid endarterectomy (ACE) Trial Collaborators Lancet. 1999;353:2179–2184
  70. Bond R, Rerkasem K, Rothwell P. High morbidity and mortality due to endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis (abs). Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003;16(Suppl. 4):65–66
  71. Rothwell PM, Goldstein LB. Carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial. Stroke. 2004;35:2425–2427
  72. Kresowik TF, Bratzler DW, Kresowik RA, Hendel ME, Grund SL, Brown KR, et al. Multistate improvement in process and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:372–380
  73. Gray WA, Hopkins LN, Yadav S, Davis T, Wholey M, Atkinson R, et al. Protected carotid stenting in high-surgical-risk patients: the ARCHeR results. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:258–268
  74. Safian RD, Bresnahan JF, Jaff MR, Foster M, Bacharach JM, Maini B, et al. Protected carotid stenting in high-risk patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2384–2389
  75. Hobson RW, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, Brott TG, Ferguson RD, Popma JJ, et al. Carotid artery stenting is associated with increased complications in octogenarians: 30-day stroke and death rates in the CREST lead-in phase. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40:1106–1111
  76. CaRESS Steering Committee . Carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting systems (CaRESS) phase 1 clinical trial: 1-year results. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42:213–219
  77. Katzen BT. The Transatlantic Asymptomatic Carotid Intervention Trial. Endovascular Today. 2005 September;49–50
  78. CAVATAS Investigators . Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1729–1737
  79. Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, Branchereau A, Moulin T, Becquemin JP, et al. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1660–1671
  80. Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Bruckmann H, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Hartmann M, et al. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2006;368:1239–1247
  81. Naylor AR. Where next after SPACE and EVA-3s: ‘the good, the bad and the ugly!’. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;33:44–47
  82. Rothwell PM, Eliasziw M, Gutnikov SA, Fox AJ, Taylor DW, Mayberg MR, et al. Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet. 2003;361:107–116
  83. Mayberg MR, Wilson SE, Yatsu F, Weiss DG, Messina L, Hershey LA, et al. Carotid endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral ischemia in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program 309 Trialist Group JAMA. 1991;266:3289–3294
  84. 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;325:445–453
  85. Coward LJ, Featherstone RL, Brown MM. Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy: a Cochrane systematic review of the randomized evidence. Stroke. 2005;36:905–911
  86. Rothwell PM, Slattery J, Warlow CP. A systematic comparison of the risks of stroke and death due to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic and asymptomatic stenosis. Stroke. 1996;27:266–269
  87. Role of carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A Veterans Administration Cooperative Study. Stroke. 1986;17:534–539
  88. Goldstein LB, Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Oddone EZ. Multicenter review of preoperative risk factors for endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Stroke. 1998;29:750–753
  89. Baker WH, Howard VJ, Howard G, Toole JF. Effect of contralateral occlusion on long-term efficacy of endarterectomy in the asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis study (ACAS). ACAS investigators Stroke. 2000;31:2330–2334
  90. Rothwell PM, Slattery J, Warlow CP. Clinical and angiographic predictors of stroke and death from carotid endarterectomy: systematic review. BMJ. 1997;315:1571–1577
  91. Miller MT, Comerota AJ, Tzilinis A, Daoud Y, Hammerling J. Carotid endarterectomy in octogenarians: does increased age indicate “High risk?”. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:231–237
  92. Bond R, Rerkasem K, Cuffe R, Rothwell PM. A systematic review of the associations between age and sex and the operative risks of carotid endarterectomy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;20:69–77
  93. Veith FJ, Amor M, Ohki T, Beebe HG, Bell PR, Bolia A, et al. Current status of carotid bifurcation angioplasty and stenting based on a consensus of opinion leaders. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S111–S116
  94. Messe SR, Kasner SE, Mehta Z, Warlow CP, Rothwell PM. Effect of body size on operative risk of carotid endarterectomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2004;75:1759–1761
  95. Kucey DS, Bowyer B, Iron K, Austin P, Anderson G, Tu JV. Determinants of outcome after carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:1051–1058
  96. Hertzer NR, O'Hara PJ, Mascha EJ, Krajewski LP, Sullivan TM, Beven EG. Early outcome assessment for 2228 consecutive carotid endarterectomy procedures: the Cleveland Clinic experience from 1989 to 1995. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26:1–10
  97. Wong JH, Findlay JM, Suarez-Almazor ME. Regional performance of carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness, outcomes, and risk factors for complications. Stroke. 1997;28:891–898
  98. Biasi GM, Froio A, Diethrich EB, Deleo G, Galimberti S, Mingazzini P, et al. Carotid plaque echolucency increases the risk of stroke in carotid stenting: the imaging in carotid angioplasty and risk of stroke (ICAROS) Study. Circulation. 2004;110:756–762
  99. Moore WS, Vescera CL, Robertson JT, Baker WH, Howard VJ, Toole JF. Selection process for surgeons in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. Stroke. 1991;22:1353–1357
  100. Halliday AW, Thomas D, Mansfield A. The Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST). Rationale and design. Steering Committee. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1994;8:703–710
  101. Rubin JR, Pitluk HC, King TA, Hutton M, Kieger EF, Plecha FR, et al. Carotid endarterectomy in a metropolitan community: the early results after 8535 operations. J Vasc Surg. 1988;7:256–260
  102. Kantonen I, Lepantalo M, Salenius JP, Matzke S, Luther M, Ylonen K. Influence of surgical experience on the results of carotid surgery. The Finnvasc Study Group. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1998;15:155–160
  103. Karp HR, Flanders WD, Shipp CC, Taylor B, Martin D. Carotid endarterectomy among Medicare beneficiaries: a statewide evaluation of appropriateness and outcome. Stroke. 1998;29:46–52
  104. Cebul RD, Snow RJ, Pine R, Hertzer NR, Norris DG. Indications, outcomes and provider volumes for carotid endarterectomy. JAMA. 1998;279:1282–1287
  105. Hsia DC, Moscoe LM, Krushat WM. Epidemiology of carotid endarterectomy among Medicare beneficiaries: 1985–1996 update. Stroke. 1998;29:346–350
  106. Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Tranmer B, Fuestel P, Waldman J, Shah D. Relationship between provider volume and mortality for carotid endarterectomies in New York State. Stroke. 1998;29:2292–2297
  107. Mayo Asymptomatic Carotid Endarectomy Study Group . Results of a randomized controlled trial of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 1992;67:513–518
  108. Lindblad B, Persson NH, Takolander R, Bergqvist D. Does low-dose acetylsalicylic acid prevent stroke after carotid surgery? A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Stroke. 1993;24:1125–1128
  109. Rothwell P, Warlow C. Is self-audit reliable?. Lancet. 1995;346:1623
  110. Theiss W, Hermanek P, Mathias K, Ahmadi R, Heuser L, Hoffmann FJ, et al. Pro-cas: a prospective registry of carotid angioplasty and stenting. Stroke. 2004;35:2134–2139
  111. Sacco RL. The 2006 William Feinberg Lecture: shifting the paradigm from stroke to global vascular risk estimation. Stroke. 2007;38:1980–1987
  112. Chaturvedi S. Should the multicenter carotid endarterectomy trials be repeated?. Arch Neurol. 2003;60:774–775
  113. Gorelick PB. Stroke prevention. Arch Neurol. 1995;52:347–355
  114. Spence JD. Intensive management of risk factors for accelerated atherosclerosis: The role of multiple interventions. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2007;7:42–48

PII: S1078-5884(08)00061-0

doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.01.017

European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 5 , Pages 524-533, May 2008

Article Tools