Thomas G Brott

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Нью-Брансуик, New Jersey, United States

Are you Thomas G Brott?

Claim your profile

Publications (325)2485.98 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated a higher periprocedural stroke and death (S+D) rate among patients randomized to carotid artery stenting (CAS) than to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Herein, we seek factors that affect the CAS-CEA treatment differences and potentially to identify a subgroup of patients for whom CAS and CEA have equivalent periprocedural S+D risk. Methods: Patient and arterial characteristics were assessed as effect modifiers of the CAS-CEA treatment difference in 2502 patients by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a logistic regression model. Results: Lesion length and lesions that were contiguous or were sequential and noncontiguous extending remote from the bulb were identified as influencing the CAS-to-CEA S+D treatment difference. For those with longer lesion length (≥12.85 mm), the risk of CAS was higher than that of CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-9.78). Among patients with sequential or remote lesions extending beyond the bulb, the risk for S+D was higher for CAS relative to CEA (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 1.20-67.8). For the 37% of patients with lesions that were both short and contiguous, the odds of S+D in those treated with CAS was nonsignificantly 28% lower than for CEA (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.21-2.46). Conclusions: The higher S+D risk for those treated with CAS appears to be largely isolated to those with longer lesion length and/or those with sequential and remote lesions. In the absence of those lesion characteristics, CAS appears to be as safe as CEA with regard to periprocedural risk of S+D.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2015 · Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose: Prior meta-analysis showed that carotid endarterectomy benefits decline with increasing surgical delay following symptoms. For symptomatic patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), we assessed if differences in time between symptoms and carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting are associated with differences in risk of periprocedural stroke or death. Methods: We analyzed the 1180 symptomatic patients in CREST who received their assigned procedure and had clearly defined timing of symptoms. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on time from symptoms to procedure: <15, 15 to 60, and >60 days. Results: For carotid endarterectomy, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was not significantly different for the 2 later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-2.49 for 15-60 days and hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-3.33 for >60 days; P=0.89). For carotid artery stenting, risk of periprocedural stroke or death was also not significantly different for later time periods relative to the earliest time period (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.40 for 15-60 days and hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.75 for >60 days; P=0.93). Conclusions: Time from symptoms to carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting did not alter periprocedural safety, supporting early revascularization regardless of modality. Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2015 · Stroke

  • No preview · Conference Paper · Oct 2015
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Oct 2015 · Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose: There is higher combined risk of stroke or death (S+D) at older ages with carotid stenting. We assess whether this can be attributed to patient or arterial characteristics that are in the pathway between older age and higher risk. Methods: Mediation analysis of selected patient (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia) and arterial characteristics assessed at the clinical sites and the core laboratory (plaque length, eccentric plaque, ulcerated plaque, percent stenosis, peak systolic velocity, and location) was performed in 1123 carotid artery stenting-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). We assessed the association of age with these characteristics, the association of these characteristics with stroke risk, and the amount of mediation of the association of age on the combined risk of periprocedural S+D with adjustment for these factors. Results: Only plaque length as measured at the sites increased with age, was associated with increased S+D risk and significantly mediated the association of age on S+D risk. However, adjustment for plaque length attenuated the increased risk per 10 years of age from 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.37) to 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.29), accounting for only 8% of the increased risk. Conclusions: Plaque length seems to be in the pathway between older age and higher risk of S+D among carotid artery stenting-treated patients, but it mediated only 8% of the age effect excess risk of carotid artery stenting in CREST. Other factors and mechanisms underlying the age effect need to be identified as plaque length will not identify elderly patients for whom stenting is safe relative to endarterectomy. Clinical trial registration: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00004732.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2015 · Stroke

  • No preview · Article · Sep 2015 · Journal of Neurological Surgery. Part A: Central European Neurosurgery

  • No preview · Article · Aug 2015 · Journal of Vascular Surgery
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-hoc, we hypothesized that over the recruitment period of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), increasing experience and improved patient selection with carotid stenting, and to a lesser extent, carotid endarterectomy would contribute to lower periprocedural event rates. Three study periods with approximately the same number of patients were defined to span recruitment. Composite and individual rates of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rate were calculated separately by treatment assignment (carotid stenting/carotid endarterectomy). Temporal changes in unadjusted event rates, and rates after adjustment for temporal changes in patient characteristics, were assessed. For patients randomized to carotid stenting, there was no significant temporal change in the unadjusted composite rates that declined from 6.2% in the first period, to 4.9% in the second, and 4.6% in the third (P=0.28). Adjustment for patient characteristics attenuated the rates to 6.0%, 5.9%, and 5.6% (P=0.85). For carotid endarterectomy-randomized patients, both the composite and the combined stroke and death outcome decreased between periods 1 and 2 and then increased in period 3. The hypothesized temporal reduction of stroke+death events for carotid stenting-treated patients was not observed. Further adjustment for changes in patient characteristics between periods, including the addition of asymptomatic patients and a >50% decrease in proportion of octogenarians enrolled, resulted in practically identical rates. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2015 · Stroke
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With patients living a decade or longer post-procedure, long-term data are needed to assess the durability of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Identifying characteristics of those consenting or declining to continue in long-term follow-up may suggest strategies to improve retention in clinical trials. This report describes differences between patients choosing or declining to continue follow-up for up to 10 years in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. Following completion of the primary outcome, patients who were in active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial follow-up were asked to continue beyond their original 4-year commitment for a maximum of 10 years. The characteristics of those who consented were compared with those who declined. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis, and backwards stepwise logistic regression (the most parsimonious model) was used to determine the factors associated with continuation. Of the 1921 active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial participants for whom consent to extend follow-up was requested, 1695 (88%; mean age: 68.4) consented; 226 (12%; mean age: 69.6) declined. Of those who did not consent versus those who consented, 66% versus 48% were symptomatic at baseline (p < 0.0001), at follow-up 28% versus 20% were smokers (p = 0.009), 85% versus 90% were hypertensive (p = 0.01), and 84% versus 94% were dyslipidemic (p < 0.0001). Additional factors that differed between those who did not consent and those who consented included the mean number of years in the study at time of consent (4.8 years vs 3.7 years (p = <0.0001)) and patients from sites that enrolled ≤30 patients compared to sites randomizing 30 or more (70% vs 52% (p < 0.0001)). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that those with lesser odds of consenting to the extended follow-up were older (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.96), more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.80), smokers (odds ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.70), were in the study 5+ years versus <3 (odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.34), and at a site that randomized <30 patients (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.63), while patients with dyslipidemia at follow-up had increased odds of consenting (odds ratio: 2.28 (1.47, 3.54)). Symptomatic status, increasing age, randomized at lower volume centers, and longer time in follow-up were associated with reduced odds of consenting to long-term follow-up. Identifying factors associated with reduced willingness to extend participation long-term can suggest targeted strategies to improve retention in future clinical trials. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015 · Clinical Trials

  • No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · Stroke

  • No preview · Article · Jun 2015 · Journal of Vascular Surgery
  • Source

    Full-text · Dataset · May 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cranial nerve injury (CNI) is the most common neurologic complication of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and can cause significant chronic disability. Data from prior randomized trials are limited and provide no health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes specific to CNI. Incidence of CNIs and their outcomes for patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) were examined to identify factors predictive of CNI and their impact on HRQOL. Incidence of CNIs, baseline and procedural characteristics, outcomes, and HRQOL scores were evaluated in the 1151 patients randomized to CEA and undergoing surgery ≤30 days. Patients with CNI were identified and classified using case report forms, adverse event data, and clinical notes. Baseline and procedural characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics. Clinical outcomes at 1 and 12 months were analyzed. All data were adjudicated by two neurologists and a vascular surgeon. HRQOL was evaluated using the Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey to assess general health and Likert scales for disease-specific outcomes at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 months after CEA. The effect of CNI on SF-36 subscales was evaluated using random effects growth curve models, and Likert scale data were compared by ordinal logistic regression. CNI was identified in 53 patients (4.6%). Cranial nerves injured were VII (30.2%), XII (24.5%), and IX/X (41.5%), and 3.8% had Horner syndrome. CNI occurred in 52 of 1040 patients (5.0%) receiving general anesthesia and in one of 111 patients (0.9%) operated on under local anesthesia (P = .05). No other predictive baseline or procedural factors were identified. Deficits resolved in 18 patients (34%) at 1 month and in 42 of 52 patients (80.8%) by 1 year. One patient died before the 1-year follow-up visit. The HRQOL evaluation showed no statistical difference between groups with and without CNI at any interval. By Likert scale analysis, the group with CNI showed a significant difference in the difficulty eating/swallowing parameter at 2 and 4 weeks (P < .001) but not at 1 year. In CREST, CNI occurred in 4.6% of patients undergoing CEA, with 34% resolution at 30 days and 80.8% at 1 year. The incidence of CNI was significantly higher in patients undergoing general anesthesia. CNI had a small and transient effect on HRQOL, negatively affecting only difficulty eating/swallowing at 2 and 4 weeks but not at 1 year. On the basis of these findings, we conclude that CNI is not a trivial consequence of CEA but rarely results in significant long-term disability. Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2015 · Journal of Vascular Surgery
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose is to determine whether patching during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) affects the perioperative and long-term risks of restenosis, stroke, death, and myocardial infarction as compared with primary closure. We identified all patients who were randomized and underwent CEA in Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. CEA patients who received a patch were compared with patients who underwent CEA with primary closure without a patch. We compared periprocedural and 4-year event rates, 2-year restenosis rates, and rates of reoperation between the 2 groups. We further analyzed results by surgeon specialty. There were 1151 patients who underwent CEA (753 [65%] with patch and 329 [29%] with primary closure). We excluded 44 patients who underwent eversion CEA and 25 patients missing CEA data (5%). Patch use differed by surgeon specialty: 89% of vascular surgeons, 6% of neurosurgeons, and 76% of thoracic surgeons patched. Comparing patients who received a patch versus those who did not, there was a significant reduction in the 2-year risk of restenosis, and this persisted after adjustment by surgeon specialty (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.74; P=0.006). There were no significant differences in the rates of periprocedural stroke and death (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-7.58; P=0.57), in immediate reoperation (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-2.27; P=0.45), or in the 4-year risk of ipsilateral stroke (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-3.63; P=0.71). Patch closure in CEA is associated with reduction in restenosis although it is not associated with improved clinical outcomes. Thus, more widespread use of patching should be considered to improve long-term durability. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Stroke
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite increased carotid artery stenting (CAS) dissemination following the 2005 National Coverage Determination, to our knowledge, periprocedural and long-term outcomes have not been described among Medicare beneficiaries. To describe the incidence of outcomes during and after the periprocedural period among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing CAS. Observational study with a mean follow-up time of approximately 2 years among 22 516 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries at least 66 years old undergoing CAS (2005-2009) who were linked to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' CAS database. Database procedure dates were required to fall during a Medicare hospitalization for CAS. Periprocedural (30-day) and long-term risks of mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack, as well as periprocedural myocardial infarction. Subgroups were based on sociodemographic, clinical, and center-level factors, as well as the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial or Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) enrollment criteria. The mean patient age was 76.3 years, 60.5% were male, 93.8% were of white race, 91.2% were at high surgical risk, 47.4% were symptomatic, and 97.4% had carotid stenosis of at least 70%. Crude 30-day mortality, stroke or transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction risks were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.5%-1.8%), 3.3% (95% CI, 3.0%-3.5%), and 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3%-2.7%), respectively. Mortality during a mean follow-up time of 2 years was 32.0% (95% CI, 31.0%-33.0%), with rates of 37.3% (95% CI, 35.8%-38.7%) among symptomatic patients and 27.7% (95% CI, 26.4%-28.9%) among asymptomatic patients. Older age, symptomatic carotid stenosis, and nonelective hospital admission were associated with increased adjusted hazards of mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack during and after the periprocedural period. The presence of a stroke center, government ownership, and a hospital bed capacity of 500 or more were associated with increased adjusted hazards of periprocedural mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Few patients met the SAPPHIRE trial or CREST enrollment criteria primarily because physicians did not meet proficiency requirements either due to exceeding periprocedural complication trial thresholds or not meeting minimum CAS volume requirements. Competing risks may limit the benefits of CAS in certain Medicare beneficiaries, particularly among older and symptomatic patients who have higher periprocedural and long-term mortality risks. The generalizability of trials like the SAPPHIRE or CREST to the Medicare population may be limited, underscoring the need to evaluate real-world effectiveness of carotid stenosis treatments.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · JAMA Neurology
  • G. Howard · T. G. Brott · J. Meschia · J. H. Voeks

    No preview · Conference Paper · Dec 2014

  • No preview · Conference Paper · Dec 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) is a multicenter randomized trial of stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease. This study assesses management of vascular risk factors. Management was provided by the patient's physician, with biannual monitoring results collected by the local site. Therapeutic targets were low-density lipoprotein, cholesterol <100 mg/dL, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, fasting blood glucose <126 mg/dL, and nonsmoking status. Optimal control was defined as achieving all 4 goals concurrently. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare risk factors at baseline with those observed in scheduled follow-up visits for up to 48 months. In the analysis cohort of 2210, significant improvements in risk-factor control were observed across risk factors for all follow-up visits compared with baseline. At 48 months, achievement of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal improved from 59.1% to 73.6% (P<0.001), achievement of the systolic blood pressure goal improved from 51.6% to 65.1% (P<0.001), achievement of the glucose goal improved from 74.9% to 80.7% (P=0.0101), and nonsmoking improved from 74.4% to 80.9% (P<0.0001). The percentage with optimal risk-factor control also improved significantly, from 16.7% to 36.2% (P<0.001), but nearly 2 of 3 study participants did not achieve optimal control during the study. Site-based risk-factor control improved significantly in the first 6 months and over the long term in CREST but was often suboptimal. Intensive medical management should be considered for future trials of carotid revascularization. ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732. © 2014 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · Journal of the American Heart Association
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the feasibility, safety, and exploratory efficacy of the Embrella Embolic Deflector (EED) system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND Few data exist on the value of using embolic protection devices during TAVR. METHODS This pilot study included 52 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR. The EED system was used in 41 patients, whereas 11 patients underwent TAVR without embolic protection (control group). Cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was performed at baseline and within 7 days and 30 days after TAVR. RESULTS The EED system was successfully deployed at the level of the aortic arch in all patients with no complications. The deployment of the EED system was associated with high-intensity transient signals (HITS) as evaluated by transcranial Doppler (median: 48 [interquartile range: 17 to 198] HITS), and a higher total number of HITS was observed in the EED group (p < 0.001 vs. control group). DW-MRI performed within 7 days after TAVR showed the presence of new ischemic lesions in all patients in both groups, with a median number of 7 (interquartile range: 3 to 13) lesions per patient. The use of the EED system was associated with a lower lesion volume compared with the control group (p = 0.003). All new cerebral lesions had disappeared on the DW-MRI performed at 30 days after TAVR. Two strokes unrelated to the EED system occurred 2 and 29 days after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS This study showed the feasibility and safety of using the EED system in TAVR procedures. The EED system did not prevent the occurrence of cerebral microemboli during TAVR or new transient ischemic lesions as evaluated by DW-MRI, but it was associated with a reduction in lesion volume. Further studies are warranted to determine the efficacy of using the EED system during TAVR procedures.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2014 · JACC Cardiovascular Interventions
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Purpose Evidence indicates that center volume of cases affects outcomes for both carotid endarterectomy and stenting. We evaluated the effect of enrollment volume by site on complication rates in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods The primary composite end point was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days or ipsilateral stroke in follow-up. The 477 approved surgeons performed >12 procedures per year with complication rates <3% for asymptomatic patients and <5% for symptomatic patients; 224 interventionists were certified after a rigorous 2 step credentialing process. CREST centers were divided into tertiles based on the number of patients enrolled into the study, with Group 1 sites enrolling <25 patients, Group 2 sites enrolling 25 to 51 patients, and Group 3 sites enrolling >51 patients. Differences in periprocedural event rates for the primary composite end point and its components were compared using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and symptomatic status within site-volume level. Results The safety of carotid angioplasty and stenting and carotid endarterectomy did not vary by site-volume during the periprocedural period as indicated by occurrence of the primary end point (P=0.54) or by stroke and death (P=0.87). A trend toward an inverse relationship between center enrollment volume and complications was mitigated by adjustment for known risk factors. Conclusions Complication rates were low in CREST and were not associated with center enrollment volume. The data are consistent with the value of rigorous training and credentialing in trials evaluating endovascular devices and surgical procedures. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2014 · Stroke

Publication Stats

26k Citations
2,485.98 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2014-2015
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
      Нью-Брансуик, New Jersey, United States
  • 2003-2014
    • Mayo Clinic - Rochester
      Rochester, Minnesota, United States
  • 2001-2014
    • Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
      • • Division of Cardiovascular Diseases
      • • Department of Neurology
      • • Department of Pharmacology
      Rochester, Michigan, United States
    • University of Texas Medical School
      • Department of Neurology
      Houston, Texas, United States
  • 2012
    • Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
      Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
  • 2011
    • ASA College
      New York, New York, United States
  • 1997-2010
    • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
      • Department of Surgery
      Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • 1986-2009
    • University of Cincinnati
      • • Department of Neurology
      • • Department of Emergency Medicine
      • • Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
  • 2008
    • University of Innsbruck
      Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austria
  • 2007
    • University of Florida
      Gainesville, Florida, United States
  • 2004-2007
    • Emory University
      • Department of Neurology
      Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • 2006
    • University of Groningen
      • Department of Surgery
      Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
  • 2005-2006
    • Mayo Clinic
      Jacksonville, Florida, United States
  • 2000
    • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes
      Chicago, Illinois, United States
    • American Heart Association
      Dallas, Texas, United States
  • 1999
    • Duke University Medical Center
      Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • 1989-1997
    • University of Cincinnati Medical Center
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States