Experience from a single group of operators demonstrates that carotid stenting can be performed with an acceptable 30-day complication rate. Late follow-up also demonstrates a low rate of fatal and nonfatal stroke. These results suggest that carotid stenting may be comparable to carotid endarterectomy, and it underscores the clinical equipoise and premise for the National Institute of Health-supported, randomized Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stent Trial comparing carotid stenting with carotid endarterectomy.

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.

Background-The distal-balloon protection system is being evaluated for its efficacy in preventing embolic neurological events during carotid stenting (CAS). We sought to determine the effect of this system on the frequency of Doppler-detected microembolic signals (MES) during CAS. Methods and Results-Using transcranial Doppler, we compared the frequency of MES during CAS in 2 groups: 39 patients without distal protection and 37 who used the distal-balloon protection system (GuardWire). There were no significant differences in the clinical or angiographic characteristics between the 2 groups. Three phases with increased MES counts were identified during unprotected CAS; these were stent deployment, predilation, and postdilation (75Ϯ57, 32Ϯ36, and 27Ϯ25 METS, respectively). The distal-balloon protection significantly reduced the frequency of MES during CAS (MES counts: 164Ϯ108 in the control versus 68Ϯ83 in the protection group; Pϭ0.002), particularly during these 3 phases. MES in the protection group were detected predominantly during sheath placement, guidewire manipulation, and distal-balloon deflation. Conclusion-Three phases with increased MES counts were identified during unprotected CAS (eg, stent deployment, predilation, and postdilation). The distal-balloon protection system significantly reduced the frequency of MES during CAS, particularly during these 3 phases.