No abstract

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

No abstract

SummarySoluble adhesion molecules E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM) and vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM) were measured alongside von Willebrand factor (vWf) in 40 patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 43 with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and in equal numbers of age and sex matched asymptomatic controls. Increased vWf was found in patients with IHD (p = 0.0008) and in patients with PVD (p = 0.0001) relative to their respective controls but levels did not differ between the two patient groups. Raised sICAM was found in both PVD (p = 0.0003) and IHD (p = 0.0059) compared to their respective controls and was higher in PVD than in IHD (p = 0.0088). In the subjects taken as a whole, there was no correlation between vWf and sICAM. Levels of soluble E-sel-ectin and sVCAM did not differ in patients or controls. These data suggest that soluble ICAM may be useful as an index of endothelial cell activation in clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis.

The available evidence indicates that cell salvage may be a cost-effective method to reduce exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion. However, ANH may be more cost-effective than cell salvage. The results of this analysis are subject to the low quality and reliability of the data used and the use of indirect comparisons. This may affect the reliability and robustness of the clinical and economic results. There is a need for further research that includes adequately powered high-quality RCTs to compare directly various blood transfusion strategies. These should include measures of health status, health-related quality of life and patient preferences for alternative transfusion strategies. Observational and tracking studies are needed to estimate reliably the incidence of adverse events and infections transmitted during blood transfusion and to identify the lifetime consequences of the serious hazards of transfusion on mortality, health status and health-related quality of life.