ICSS: Continued higher event rates with stenting vs surgery for symptomatic carotid stenosis

Susan Jeffrey

February 26, 2010

London, UK - Interim safety results at 120 days in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) appear to favor carotid endarterectomy over carotid stenting for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis[1].

The results show higher rates of stroke, death, or periprocedural MI in patients treated with stenting vs endarterectomy. The primary outcome of the study is the three-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, and results are expected in 2012.

"I think the conclusions from our trial are very much that, overall, surgery is a better option, but there may be some patients in whom it's reasonable to do stenting, perhaps the younger patients or those at high risk of surgery," principal investigator Dr Martin M Brown (University College London, UK) said in an interview.

The 120-day results of ICSS and those of the ICSS-MRI substudy[2] are published online February 26, 2010 in the Lancet and Lancet Neurology, respectively.

Results of the long-awaited Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), comparing carotid stenting with endarterectomy in patients with both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis eligible for either procedure, will be presented today at the American Stroke Association International Stroke Conference, in San Antonio, TX.

The results are expected to give as clear a picture as possible comparing the two modalities while addressing issues regarding operator experience and use of distal-protection devices that have been raised with other comparative trials.

Trials find surgery superior

ICSS brings to three the number of large randomized trials that have reported results evaluating the use of carotid stenting as an alternative to endarterectomy to treat symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. In the first, the Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery vs Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial, carotid stenting failed to meet criteria for noninferiority vs endarterectomy and in fact showed slightly higher rates of ipsilateral ischemic stroke and death at 30 days[3].

Results of the Endarterectomy vs Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) were published within two weeks of the SPACE trial and again failed to show noninferiority with carotid stenting vs endarterectomy[4]. Stroke and death rates were again lower with surgery.

Longer-term follow-up of both of these trials, however, presented in 2008 at the European Stroke Conference, showed rates of ipsilateral stroke were low and similar between carotid stenting and endarterectomy groups at two and four years of follow-up.

ICSS is a multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial comparing carotid artery stenting with carotid endarterectomy in patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis. The trial enrolled 1713 patients, with 855 randomized to stenting and 858 randomized to surgery.

An earlier version of the safety data from ICSS was presented at the European Stroke Conference in Stockholm in May 2009. The results showed that carotid stenting was associated with twice as many strokes as carotid endarterectomy in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

The difference was driven largely by nondisabling strokes and was balanced by a much higher frequency of cranial nerve palsy with endarterectomy.

Still, the researchers concluded at the time that carotid endarterectomy should be the treatment of choice for suitable patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. These more complete results with slightly higher patient numbers don't appear to change that conclusion.

Stroke, death, or procedural MI at 120 days was higher in the stenting group than among those who underwent endarterectomy, as was the incidence of stroke, death, and periprocedural MI; any stroke; and all-cause death.

ICSS: 120-day interim safety results

End point Stenting g roup , n (%) Carotid e ndarterectomy g roup , n (%) Hazard r atio (95% CI) p
Disabling stroke or death 34 (4.0) 27 (3.2) 1.28 (0.77-2.11) 0.34
Stroke, death, or procedural MI 72 (8.5) 44 (5.2) 1.69 (1.16-2.45) 0.006
Any s troke 65 (7.7) 35 (4.1) 1.92 (1.27-2.89) 0.002
All- cause death 19 (2.3) 7 (0.8) 2.76 (1.16-6.56) 0.017
Three procedural MIs, all of which were fatal, occurred in the stenting group, vs four, all nonfatal, in the surgery group.

Cranial nerve palsy was seen in one stenting patient but in 45 of the endarterectomy patients. Hematomas of any severity were also less frequent with stenting—31 vs 50 events with surgery (p=0.0197).

Although they conclude that endarterectomy should be the treatment of choice, Brown and colleagues acknowledge that some patients will still prefer stenting. "Most patients had no complications from either procedure," they write. "Thus, some patients might still opt for stenting after being presented with the available evidence, especially if they have a strong preference for avoiding surgery."

ICSS-MRI study

In the paper published in Lancet Neurology, the ICSS investigators, with lead author Dr Leo H Bonati (University Hospital Basel, Switzerland), report results of an MRI substudy in seven ICSS centers, scanning patients before, one to three days after, and then again 27 to 33 days after their assigned intervention.

A total of 231 patients were scanned, 124 from the stenting group and 107 from the surgery group. The primary outcome was the presence of at least one new ischemic brain lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on the posttreatment scan.

They report that 62, or 50%, of stenting patients had at least one new lesion on DWI done a median of one day after treatment, compared with 18, or 17%, of endarterectomy patients (odds ratio 5.21; 95% CI 2.78-9.79; p<0.0001).

When they compared this outcome in centers that did and did not use distal-protection devices, the odds ratio for a new lesion on DWI was 12.20 (95% CI 4.53-32.84) in centers using cerebral-protection devices as a policy, but only 2.70 (95% CI 1.16-6.24) in centers where stenting was unprotected.

"One of the reasons we wanted to get the MRI study out at the same time is it really demonstrates how you get a lot of silent damage to the brain after stenting that doesn't occur after endarterectomy," Brown noted. "I find that rather worrying as a neurologist," he added.

He also finds their results with regard to protection devices consistent with both their MRI findings and findings from other studies. One of the ICSS centers has done cognitive testing to gauge any subtle deficits associated with these lesions, he noted, and the results are now being analyzed.

"I think there will be a lot more interesting analyses coming out of the trial, and we're hoping to combine all our data with the CREST results in due course, so we can look at risk factors," Brown said.

"Clear advantage" for endarterectomy

In a Reflection and Reaction article accompanying publication of ICSS-MRI in Lancet Neurology, Dr Klaus Gröschel (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany) points out that the results of the MRI substudy suggest that "the widespread use of carotid stenting, especially its routine use as first-choice treatment for symptomatic carotid stenosis, does not seem to be justified for the time being[5].

"However," he adds, "it is not only about whether stenting or endarterectomy will win the race, [at present] with a clear advantage for endarterectomy, but more about individual patient selection. Stenting and endarterectomy could both have their place as different treatment options for carotid stenosis and should preferably complement each other, with advantages of either technique in certain patient subgroups that need to be further identified."

The association seen between the filter-based neuroprotection and new DWI lesions is "striking," though, Gröschel notes, "because they do not seem to accomplish the job they were invented to do."

At present, he concludes, these devices should be used on an individual basis, "according to, for example, a potentially difficult endovascular access to reach the stenosis or lesion characteristics."

Brown reports no conflicts of interest; disclosures for coauthors are listed in the paper. Bonati reports no conflicts of interest; disclosures for other coauthors are listed in the paper. Gr ö schel reports no conflict of interest.




Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.