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 Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

Background and Purpose— Early initiated treatment of stroke increases the chances of a good recovery. This randomized controlled study evaluates how an increased priority level for patients with stroke, from level 2 to 1, from the Emergency Medical Communication Center influences thrombolysis frequency, time to stroke unit, and whether other medical emergencies reported negative consequences. Methods— Patients aged 18 to 85 years in Stockholm, Sweden, with symptoms of stroke within 6 hours were randomized from the Emergency Medical Communication Center or emergency medical services to an intervention group, priority level 1, immediate call of an ambulance, or to a control group with standard priority level, that is, priority level 2 (within 30 minutes). Before study start, an educational program on identification of stroke and importance of early initiated treatment was directed to all medical dispatchers and ambulance and emergency department personnel. Results— During 2008, 942 patients were randomized of which 53% (n=496) had a final stroke/transient ischemic attack diagnosis. Patients in the Emergency Medical Communication Center randomized intervention group reached the stroke unit 26 minutes earlier than the control group ( P <0.001) after the emergency call. Thrombolysis was given to 24% of the patients in the intervention group compared with 10% of the control subjects ( P <0.001). The higher priority level showed no negative effect on other critical ill patients requiring priority level 1 prehospital attention. Conclusion— This randomized study shows negligible harm to other medical emergencies, a significant increase in thrombolysis frequency, and a shorter time to the stroke unit for patients with stroke upgraded to priority level 1 from the Emergency Medical Communication Center and through the acute chain of stroke care.

Background Imatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been shown to restore blood–brain barrier integrity and reduce infarct size, haemorrhagic transformation and cerebral oedema in stroke models treated with tissue plasminogen activator. We evaluated the safety of imatinib, based on clinical and neuroradiological data, and its potential influence on neurological and functional outcomes. Methods A Phase II randomised trial was performed in patients with acute ischaemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned to four groups [3 (active) : 1 (control)]; the active treatment groups received oral imatinib for 6 days at three dose levels (400, 600 and 800 mg). Primary outcome was any adverse event; secondary outcomes were haemorrhagic transformation, cerebral oedema, neurological severity on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at 7 days and at 3 months and functional outcomes on the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Results Four serious adverse events were reported, which resulted in three deaths (one in the control group and two in the 400 mg dose group; one patient in the latter group did not receive active treatment and the other received two doses). Non-serious adverse events were mostly mild, resulting in full recovery. Imatinib ameliorated neurological outcomes with an improvement of 0.6 NIHSS points per 100 mg imatinib (P = 0.02). For the 800 mg group, the mean unadjusted and adjusted NIHSS improvements were 4 (P = 0.037) and 5 points (P = 0.012), respectively, versus controls. Functional independence (mRS 0–2) increased by 18% versus controls (61 vs. 79; P = 0.296). Conclusion This Phase II study showed that imatinib is safe and tolerable, and may reduce neurological disability in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis after ischaemic stroke. A confirmatory randomised trial is currently underway.