Understanding the CREST results. Carotid stenting vs surgery: Parsing the risk of stroke and MI
ABSTRACTThe Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) is the largest randomized prospective study to date to compare carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in a patient population similar to that seen in everyday practice. CREST showed stenting and surgery to be equivalent in terms of the composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death within 30 days, as well as for the rate of stroke at up to 4 years (N Engl J Med 2010; 363:11–23). Importantly, the risk of major stroke was low with either intervention. However, the results need to be considered in the context of the impact of each procedure on stroke and MI.
KEY POINTS
- In CREST, stenting and surgery had similar combined rates of stroke, MI, and death when performed by highly qualified interventionalists and surgeons in carefully selected patients.
- The risk of periprocedural stroke was higher with stenting; most of those strokes were nonmajor. Both major and nonmajor strokes were associated with decreased quality of life in long-term follow-up.
- Endarterectomy was associated with higher rates of periprocedural MI than stenting.
- Endarterectomy carried a significantly higher rate of cranial nerve damage than stenting.
HOW CREST FINDINGS COMPARE WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES
Patients in CREST enjoyed overall better outcomes than in previous studies. In earlier trials of surgery vs medical therapy, the rates of adverse outcomes were higher than in CREST. In NASCET, the risk of ipsilateral stroke was 9% with surgery, with 2.5% being fatal or disabling strokes.10 In the ECST, rates of major stroke or death with endarterectomy were 7.0% within 30 days of surgery and 37.0% at a mean follow-up of 6.1 years.12
In earlier studies of surgery vs stenting, outcomes at 30 days were also substantially worse than those in CREST. In the EVA-3S trial, the 30-day incidence of stroke or death was 3.9% after surgery and 9.6% after stenting. These findings were similar at 6 months in EVA-3S, with a 6.1% rate of adverse events after surgery and 11.7% after stenting.25 In the SAPPHIRE trial, the cumulative incidence of stroke and death at 1 year was 21.4% for surgery and 13.6% for stenting.23
Overall, the CREST results show better outcomes than in previous trials. This may be due to improvements in technical aspects of the interventions and to more aggressive drug therapy. Also, because of the high number of patients enrolled in CREST, surgeons and interventionalists were required to meet eligibility criteria, which could have contributed to the improved outcomes.32
CREST was also unique in that stenting was done with an embolic protection device whenever possible, and this also likely had an impact on outcomes.
CREST vs ICSS
CREST and ICSS, published within a few months of each other, seem to have arrived at entirely different conclusions. As both studies are well-designed randomized controlled trials, these distinct results have yielded much controversy. However, closer scrutiny sheds light as to why the results may be different.
While ICSS focused only on patients with symptoms, CREST also included those without symptoms. The difference in patient populations is itself enough to account for the different outcomes.
Also, the interim analysis of ICSS was at 120 days, which makes periprocedural events a more dominant factor in outcomes, whereas these events likely do not last into the long term, as was the case in CREST. Analysis of the ICSS data at a later follow-up date may show results more similar to those of CREST.
The design of ICSS was also different than CREST. In ICSS, the use of an embolic protection device in stenting was not mandated, and the study lacked a lead-in phase of intensive training for those performing stenting. Furthermore, MI was adjudicated only when clinically recognized, which is different than the more rigorous method used in CREST.
Yet despite these differences, CREST and ICSS shed light on a controversial area of carotid stenosis management, and both studies boasted low rates of periprocedural complications. Clinicians should keep in mind the inclusion criteria and the technical specificities of these trials in order to explain to patients the risks and benefits of stenting and surgery, and to arrive at a decision together.
Limitations
The results of CREST should also be reviewed carefully due to a number of limitations. The study began in 2000 with symptomatic patients only, and began enrolling asymptomatic patients in 2005, so that the methodology of the study was changed midway. However, the investigators performed a subgroup analysis to distinguish between outcomes of the symptomatic and the asymptomatic groups and found no statistical interaction for the primary end point based on symptom status.
Despite careful patient selection, many of the predictors of adverse outcomes with stenting, such as lesion length, level of calcification, and lesion location, were not accounted for in the earlier days of enrollment. This may have had an impact on the incidence of stroke in patients enrolled in the early years of the trial. We await the analysis of predictors of perioperative stroke from CREST.
TAKE-HOME POINTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The CREST findings show that outcomes with stenting are similar to those with surgery in both the short term and the long term, and that the choice of management should be individualized. Each patient’s risk of MI and stroke should be considered based on a variety of factors, including the severity of coronary artery disease, the length of the carotid lesion, the level of calcification, the location of the lesion, and aortic atheroma. The treatment should be selected after also taking into account the patient’s preference and the available expertise, and only after a comprehensive discussion with the patient.
