2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Stroke Association, American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, C

Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 01/2011; 124(4):489-532. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820d8d78
Source: PubMed
1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite a decline during the recent decades in stroke-related death, the incidence of stroke has remained unchanged or slightly increased, and extracranial carotid artery stenosis is implicated in 20%-30% of all strokes. Medical therapy and risk factor modification are first-line therapies for all patients with carotid occlusive disease. Evidence for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% with either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is compelling, and several trials have demonstrated a benefit to carotid revascularization in the symptomatic patient population. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is more controversial, with the largest trials only demonstrating a 1% per year risk stroke reduction with CEA. Although there are sufficient data to advocate for aggressive medical therapy as the primary mode of treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there are also data to suggest that certain patient populations will benefit from a stroke risk reduction with carotid revascularization. In the United States, consensus and practice guidelines dictate that CEA is reasonable in patients with high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, a reasonable life expectancy, and perioperative risk of less than 3%. Regarding CAS versus CEA, the best-available evidence demonstrates no difference between the two procedures in early perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, and no difference in 4-year ipsilateral stroke risk. However, because of the higher perioperative risks of stroke in patients undergoing CAS, particularly in symptomatic, female, or elderly patients, it is difficult to recommend CAS over CEA except in populations with prohibitive cardiac risk, previous carotid surgery, or prior neck radiation. Current treatment paradigms are based on identifying the magnitude of perioperative risk in patient subsets and on using predictive factors to stratify patients with high-risk asymptomatic stenosis.
    Vascular Health and Risk Management 01/2014; 10:403-416.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The rate of adverse clinical outcomes among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis receiving medical therapy alone can be used to guide clinical decision-making and to inform future research. We aimed to investigate temporal changes in the incidence rate of clinical outcomes among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis receiving medical therapy alone and to explore the implications of these changes for the design of future comparative studies. Summary: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and reference lists of included studies (last search: December 31, 2012). We selected prospective cohort studies of medical therapy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and we extracted information on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes. We performed meta-analyses to estimate summary incidence rates, meta-regressions to assess trends over time, and simulations to explore sample size requirements for the design of future studies comparing new treatments against medical therapy. The main outcomes of interest were ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, cardiovascular death, death, and myocardial infarction. We identified 41 studies of medical therapy for patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (last recruitment year: 1978-2009). The summary incidence rate of ipsilateral carotid territory stroke (25 studies) was 1.7 per 100 person-years. This incidence rate was significantly lower in recent studies (last recruitment year from 2000 onwards) as compared to studies that ended recruitment earlier (1.0 vs. 2.3 events per 100 person-years; p < 0.001). The incidence rates of any territory stroke (17 studies), cardiovascular death (6 studies), death (13 studies), and myocardial infarction (5 studies) were 2.7, 4.1, 4.6, and 1.8 per 100 person-years, respectively. Simulations showed that future studies would need to enroll large numbers of patients with a relatively high incidence rate under medical therapy, and evaluate interventions with large effect sizes, to have adequate power to reliably detect treatment effects. Key Messages: Improved prognosis under medical therapy alone has narrowed the potential range of risk reduction attainable with new treatments for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Future comparative studies will need to enroll large numbers of patients to assess treatment effectiveness. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Cerebrovascular Diseases 10/2014; 38(3):163-173. · 3.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Electronic auscultation appears superior to acoustic auscultation for identifying hemodynamic abnormalities. The aim of this study was to determine whether carotid bruits detected by electronic stethoscope in patients with diabetes are associated with stenoses and increased carotid intima-medial thickness (CIMT). Subjects and Methods: Fifty Fremantle Diabetes Study patients (mean±SD age, 73.7±10.0 years; 38.0% males) with a bruit found by electronic auscultation and 50 age- and sex-matched patients with normal carotid sounds were studied. The degree of stenosis and CIMT were assessed from duplex ultrasonography. Results: Patients with a bruit were more likely to have stenosis of ≥50% and CIMT of >1.0 mm than those without (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]=14.0 [1.8-106.5] and 5.3 [1.8-15.3], respectively; both P=0.001). For the six patients with stenosis of ≥70%, five had a bruit, and one (with a known total occlusion) did not (odds ratio=5.0 [0.6-42.8]; P=0.22). The sensitivity and specificity of carotid bruit for stenoses of ≥50% were 88% and 58%, respectively; respective values for stenoses of ≥70% were 83% and 52%. The equivalent negative predictive values were 96% and 98%, and positive predictive values were 30% and 10%, respectively. Conclusions: Electronic recording of carotid sounds for later interpretation is convenient and reliable. Most patients with stenoses had an overlying bruit. Most bruits were false positives, but ultrasonography is justified to document extent of disease; CIMT measurement will identify increased vascular risk in most of these patients. The absence of a bruit was rarely a false-negative finding, suggesting that these patients can usually be reassured that they do not have hemodynamically important stenosis.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 07/2014; · 2.29 Impact Factor


Available from
Jan 6, 2015