Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in patients at low or moderate risk of surgical complications. But this is a disease of the elderly, many of whom are too frail or too sick to undergo surgery.
Now, patients who cannot undergo this surgery can be offered the less invasive option of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Balloon valvuloplasty, sodium nitroprusside, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can buy time for ill patients while more permanent mechanical interventions are being considered.
In this review, we will present several cases that highlight management choices for patients with severe aortic stenosis.
A PROGRESSIVE DISEASE OF THE ELDERLY
Aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disease in the United States, and its incidence and prevalence are rising as the population ages. Epidemiologic studies suggest that 2% to 7% of all patients over age 65 have it.1,2
The natural history of the untreated disease is well established, with several case series showing an average decrease of 0.1 cm2 per year in aortic valve area and an increase of 7 mm Hg per year in the pressure gradient across the valve once the diagnosis is made.3,4 Development of angina, syncope, or heart failure is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including death, and warrants prompt intervention with aortic valve replacement.5–7 Without intervention, the mortality rates reach as high as 75% in 3 years once symptoms develop.
Statins, bisphosphonates, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been used in attempts to slow or reverse the progression of aortic stenosis. However, studies of these drugs have had mixed results, and no definitive benefit has been shown.8–13 Surgical aortic valve replacement, on the other hand, normalizes the life expectancy of patients with aortic stenosis to that of age- and sex-matched controls and remains the gold standard therapy for patients who have symptoms.14
Traditionally, valve replacement has involved open heart surgery, since it requires direct visualization of the valve while the patient is on cardiopulmonary bypass. Unfortunately, many patients have multiple comorbid conditions and therefore are not candidates for open heart surgery. Options for these patients include aortic valvuloplasty and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. While there is considerable experience with aortic valvuloplasty, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is relatively new. In large randomized trials and registries, the transcatheter procedure has been shown to significantly improve long-term survival compared with medical management alone in inoperable patients and to have benefit similar to that of surgery in the high-risk population.15–17
CASE 1: SEVERE, SYMPTOMATIC STENOSIS IN A GOOD SURGICAL CANDIDATE
Mr. A, age 83, presents with shortness of breath and peripheral edema that have been worsening over the past several months. His pulse rate is 64 beats per minute and his blood pressure is 110/90 mm Hg. Auscultation reveals an absent aortic second heart sound with a late peaking systolic murmur that increases with expiration.
On echocardiography, his left ventricular ejection fraction is 55%, peak transaortic valve gradient 88 mm Hg, mean gradient 60 mm Hg, and effective valve area 0.6 cm2. He undergoes catheterization of the left side of his heart, which shows normal coronary arteries.
Mr. A also has hypertension and hyperlipidemia; his renal and pulmonary functions are normal.
How would you manage Mr. A’s aortic stenosis?
Symptomatic aortic stenosis leads to adverse clinical outcomes if managed medically without mechanical intervention,5–7 but patients who undergo aortic valve replacement have age-corrected postoperative survival rates that are nearly normal.14 Furthermore, thanks to improvements in surgical techniques and perioperative management, surgical mortality rates have decreased significantly in recent years and now range from 1% to 8%.18–20 The accumulated evidence showing clear superiority of a surgical approach over medical therapy has greatly simplified the therapeutic algorithm.21
Figure 1.
Consequently, the current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) give surgery a class I indication (evidence or general agreement that the procedure is beneficial, useful, and effective) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (Figure 1). This level of recommendation also applies to patients who have severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis who are undergoing other types of cardiac surgery and also to patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction (defined as an ejection fraction < 50%).21
Mr. A was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement, given its clear survival benefit.
CASE 2: SYMPTOMS AND LEFT VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION
Ms. B, age 79, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and now presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and chest discomfort. Electrocardiography shows significant left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal repolarization. Left heart catheterization reveals mild nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 25%, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and global hypokinesis. The aortic valve leaflets appear heavily calcified, with restricted motion. The peak and mean gradients across the aortic valve are 40 and 28 mm Hg, and the valve area is 0.8 cm2. Right heart catheterization shows a cardiac output of 3.1 L/min.
Does this patient’s aortic stenosis account for her clinical presentation?
Managing patients who have suspected severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular dysfunction, and low aortic valve gradients can be challenging. Although data for surgical intervention are not as robust for these patient subsets as for patients like Mr. A, several case series have suggested that survival in these patients is significantly better with surgery than with medical therapy alone.22–27
Specific factors predict whether patients with ventricular dysfunction and low gradients will benefit from aortic valve replacement. Dobutamine stress echocardiography is helpful in distinguishing true severe aortic stenosis from “pseudostenosis,” in which leaflet motion is restricted due to primary cardiomyopathy and low flow. Distinguishing between true aortic stenosis and pseudostenosis is of paramount value, as surgery is associated with improved long-term outcomes in patients with true aortic stenosis (even though they are at higher surgical risk), whereas those with pseudostenosis will not benefit from surgery.28–31
Figure 2.
Infusion of dobutamine increases the flow across the aortic valve (if the left ventricle has contractile reserve; more on this below), and an increasing valve area with increasing doses of dobutamine is consistent with pseudostenosis. In this situation, treatment of the underlying cardiomyopathy is indicated as opposed to replacement of the aortic valve (Figure 2).
Contractile reserve is defined as an increase in stroke volume (> 20%), valvular gradient (> 10 mm Hg), or peak velocity (> 0.6 m/s) with peak dobutamine infusion. The presence of contractile reserve in patients with aortic stenosis identifies a high-risk group that benefits from aortic valve replacement (Figure 2).
Treatment of patients who have inadequate reserve is controversial. In the absence of contractile reserve, an adjunct imaging study such as computed tomography may be of value in detecting calcified valve leaflets, as the presence of calcium is associated with true aortic stenosis. Comorbid conditions should be taken into account as well, given the higher surgical risk in this patient subset, as aortic valve replacement in this already high-risk group of patients might be futile in some cases.
The ACC/AHA guidelines now give dobutamine stress echocardiography a class IIa indication (meaning the weight of the evidence or opinion is in favor of usefulness or efficacy) for determination of contractile reserve and valvular stenosis for patients with an ejection fraction of 30% or less or a mean gradient of 40 mm Hg or less.21
Ms. B underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. It showed increases in ejection fraction, stroke volume, and transvalvular gradients, indicating that she did have contractile reserve and true severe aortic stenosis. Consequently, she was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement.
CASE 3: MODERATE STENOSIS AND THREE-VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Mr. C, age 81, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He now presents to the emergency department with chest discomfort that began suddenly, awakening him from sleep. His presenting electrocardiogram shows nonspecific changes, and he is diagnosed with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. He undergoes left heart catheterization, which reveals severe three-vessel coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 55% and aortic stenosis, with an aortic valve area of 1.2 cm2, a peak gradient of 44 mm Hg, and a mean gradient of 28 mm Hg.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Moderate aortic stenosis in a patient who needs surgery for severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease, other valve diseases, or aortic disease raises the question of whether aortic valve replacement should be performed in conjunction with these surgeries. Although these patients would not otherwise qualify for aortic valve replacement, the fact that they will undergo a procedure that will expose them to the risks associated with open heart surgery makes them reasonable candidates. Even if the patient does not need aortic valve replacement right now, aortic stenosis progresses at a predictable rate—the valve area decreases by a mean of 0.1 cm2/year and the gradients increase by 7 mm Hg/year. Therefore, clinical judgment should be exercised so that the patient will not need to undergo open heart surgery again in the near future.
The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement for patients with moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or surgery on the aorta or other heart valves, giving it a class IIa indication.21 This recommendation is based on several retrospective case series that evaluated survival, the need for reoperation for aortic valve replacement, or both in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.32–35
No data exist, however, on adding aortic valve replacement to coronary artery bypass grafting in cases of mild aortic stenosis. As a result, it is controversial and carries a class IIb recommendation (meaning that its usefulness or efficacy is less well established). The ACC/AHA guidelines state that aortic valve replacement “may be considered” in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who have mild aortic stenosis (mean gradient < 30 mm Hg or jet velocity < 3 m/s) when there is evidence, such as moderate or severe valve calcification, that progression may be rapid (level of evidence C: based only on consensus opinion of experts, case studies or standard of care).21
Mr. C, who has moderate aortic stenosis, underwent aortic valve replacement in conjunction with three-vessel bypass grafting.
CASE 4: ASYMPTOMATIC BUT SEVERE STENOSIS
Mr. D, age 74, has hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and aortic stenosis. He now presents to the outpatient department for his annual echocardiogram to follow his aortic stenosis. He has a sedentary lifestyle but feels well performing activities of daily living. He denies dyspnea on exertion, chest pain, or syncope.
His echocardiogram reveals an effective aortic valve area of 0.7 cm2, peak gradient 90 mm Hg, and mean gradient 70 mm Hg. There is evidence of severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and the valve leaflets show bulky calcification and severe restriction. An echocardiogram performed at the same institution a year earlier revealed gradients of 60 and 40 mm Hg.
Blood is drawn for laboratory tests, including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which is 350 pg/mL (reference range for his age < 125 pg/mL). He is referred for a treadmill stress test, which elicits symptoms at a moderate activity level.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement can be considered in patients who have asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular function (class IIb indication).21
Clinical assessment of asymptomatic aortic stenosis can be challenging, however, as patients may underreport their symptoms or decrease their activity levels to avoid symptoms. Exercise testing in such patients can elicit symptoms, unmask diminished exercise capacity, and help determine if they should be referred for surgery.36,37 Natriuretic peptide levels have been shown to correlate with the severity of aortic stenosis,38,39 and more importantly, to help predict symptom onset, cardiac death, and need for aortic valve replacement.40–42
Some patients with asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis are at higher risk of morbidity and death. High-risk subsets include patients with rapid progression of aortic stenosis and those with critical aortic stenosis characterized by an aortic valve area less than 0.60 cm2, mean gradient greater than 60 mm Hg, and jet velocity greater than 5.0 m/s. It is reasonable to offer these patients surgery if their expected operative mortality risk is less than 1.0%.21
Mr. D has evidence of rapid progression as defined by an increase in aortic jet velocity of more than 0.3 m/s/year. He is at low surgical risk and was referred for elective aortic valve replacement.
CASE 5: TOO FRAIL FOR SURGERY
Mr. E, age 84, has severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.6 cm2, peak and mean gradients of 88 and 56 mm Hg), coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second 0.8 L), chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. He has preserved left ventricular function. He presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and peripheral edema over the past several months. Your impression is that he is very frail. How would you manage Mr. E’s aortic stenosis?
Advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management over the years have enabled higher-risk patients to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement with excellent out-comes.18–20,43 Yet many patients still cannot undergo surgery because their risk is too high. Patients ineligible for surgery have traditionally been treated medically—with poor out-comes—or with balloon aortic valvuloplasty to palliate symptoms.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011, now provides another option for these patients. In this procedure, a bioprosthetic valve mounted on a metal frame is implanted over the native stenotic valve.
Figure 3.
Currently, the only FDA-approved and commercially available valve in the United States is the Edwards SAPIEN valve, which has bovine pericardial tissue leaflets fixed to a balloon-expandable stainless steel frame (Figure 3). In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial,15 patients who could not undergo surgery who underwent transcatheter replacement with this valve had a significantly better survival rate than patients treated medically.15,17 Use of this valve has also been compared against conventional surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients and was found to have similar long-term outcomes (Figure 4).16 It was on the basis of this trial that this valve was granted approval for patients who cannot undergo surgery.
Figure 4.
The standard of care for high-risk patients remains surgical aortic valve replacement, although it remains to be seen whether transcatheter replacement will be made available as well to patients eligible for surgery in the near future. There are currently no randomized data for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients at moderate to low surgical risk, and these patients should not be considered for this procedure.
Although the initial studies are encouraging for patients who cannot undergo surgery and who are at high risk without it, several issues and concerns remain. Importantly, the long-term durability of the transcatheter valve and longer-term outcomes remain unknown. Furthermore, the risk of vascular complications remains high (10% to 15%), dictating the need for careful patient selection. There are also concerns about the risks of stroke and of paravalvular aortic insufficiency. These issues are being investigated and addressed, however, and we hope that with increasing operator experience and improvements in the technique, outcomes will be improved.
Which approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
There are several considerations in determining a patient’s eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Initially, these valves were placed by a transvenous, transseptal approach, but now retrograde placement through the femoral artery has become standard. In this procedure, the device is advanced retrograde from the femoral artery through the aorta and placed across the native aortic valve under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance.
Patients who are not eligible for transfemoral placement because of severe atherosclerosis, tortuosity, or ectasia of the iliofemoral artery or aorta can still undergo percutaneous treatment with a transapical approach. This is a hybrid surgical-transcatheter approach in which the valve is delivered through a sheath placed by left ventricular apical puncture.17,44
A newer approach gaining popularity is the transaortic technique, in which the ascending aorta is accessed directly through a ministernotomy and the delivery sheath is placed with a direct puncture. Other approaches are through the axillary and subclavian arteries.
Other valves are under development
Several other valves are under development and will likely change the landscape of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with improving outcomes. Valves that are available in the United States are shown in Figure 3. The CoreValve, consisting of porcine pericardial leaflets mounted on a self-expanding nitinol stent, is currently being studied in a trial in the United States, and the manufacturer (Medtronic) will seek approval when results are complete in the near future.
Mr. E was initially referred for surgery, but when deemed to be unable to undergo surgery was found to be a good candidate for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
CASE 6: LIFE-LIMITING COMORBID ILLNESS
Mr. F, age 77, has multiple problems: severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area 0.6 cm2; peak and mean gradients of 92 and 59 mm Hg), stage IV pancreatic cancer, coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. He presents to the outpatient department with shortness of breath at rest, orthopnea, effort intolerance, and peripheral edema over the past several months.
On physical examination rales in both lung bases can be heard. Left heart catheterization shows patent bypass grafts.
How would you manage Mr. F’s aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement is not considered an option in patients with noncardiac illnesses and comorbidities that are life-limiting in the near term. Under these circumstances, aortic valvuloplasty can be offered as a means of palliating symptoms or, if the comorbid conditions can be modified, as a bridge to more definitive treatment with aortic valve replacement.
Since first described in 1986,45 percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty has been studied in several case series and registries, with consistent findings. Acutely, it increases the valve area and lessens the gradients across the valve, relieving symptoms. The risk of death during the procedure ranged from 3% to 13.5% in several case series, with a 30-day survival rate greater than 85%.46 However, the hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement is only short-term, as valve area and gradients gradually worsen within several months.47,48 Consequently, balloon valvuloplasty is considered a palliative approach.
Mr. F has a potentially life-limiting illness, ie, cancer, which would make him a candidate for aortic valvuloplasty rather than replacement. He can be referred for evaluation for this procedure in hopes of palliating his symptoms by relieving his dyspnea and improving his quality of life.
CASE 7: HEMODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
Mr. G, age 87, is scheduled for surgical aortic valve replacement because of severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.5 cm2, peak and mean gradients 89 and 45 mm Hg) with an ejection fraction of 30%.
Two weeks before his scheduled surgery he presents to the emergency department with worsening fluid overload and increasing shortness of breath. His initial laboratory work shows new-onset renal failure, and he has signs of hypoperfusion on physical examination. He is transferred to the cardiac intensive care unit for further care.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Patients with decompensated aortic stenosis and hemodynamic instability are at extreme risk during surgery. Medical stabilization beforehand may mitigate the risks associated with surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Aortic valvuloplasty, treatment with sodium nitroprusside, and support with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation may help stabilize patients in this “low-output” setting.
Sodium nitroprusside has long been used in low-output states. By relaxing vascular smooth muscle, it leads to increased venous capacitance, decreasing preload and congestion. It also decreases systemic vascular resistance with a subsequent decrease in afterload, which in turn improves systolic emptying. Together, these effects reduce systolic and diastolic wall stress, lower myocardial oxygen consumption, and ultimately increase cardiac output.49,50
These theoretical benefits translate to clinical improvement and increased cardiac output, as shown in a case series of 25 patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 35%) presenting in a low-output state in the absence of hypotension.51 These findings have led to a ACC/AHA recommendation for the use of sodium nitroprusside in patients who have severe aortic stenosis presenting in low-output state with decompensated heart failure.21
Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, introduced in 1968, has been used in several clinical settings, including acute coronary syndromes, intractable ventricular arrhythmias, and refractory heart failure, and for support of hemodynamics in the perioperative setting. Its role in managing ventricular septal rupture and acute mitral regurgitation is well established. It reliably reduces afterload and improves coronary perfusion, augmenting the cardiac output. This in turn leads to improved systemic perfusion, which can buy time for a critically ill patient during which the primary disease process is addressed.
Recently, a case series in which intraaortic balloon counterpulsation devices were placed in patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock showed findings similar to those with sodium nitroprusside infusion. Specifically, their use was associated with improved cardiac indices and filling pressures with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance. These changes have led to increased cardiac performance, resulting in better systemic perfusion.52 Thus, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can be an option for stabilizing patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock.
Mr. G was treated with sodium nitroprusside and intravenous diuretics. He achieved symptomatic relief and his renal function returned to baseline. He subsequently underwent aortic valve replacement during the hospitalization.
References
Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet2009; 373:956–966.
Lindroos M, Kupari M, Heikkilä J, Tilvis R. Prevalence of aortic valve abnormalities in the elderly: an echocardiographic study of a random population sample. J Am Coll Cardiol1993; 21:1220–1225.
Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL. Hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis in adults assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol1989; 13:545–550.
Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation1997; 95:2262–2270.
Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 82:2111–2115.
Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J1987; 8:471–483.
Horstkotte D, Loogen F. The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J1988; 9(suppl E):57–64.
Novaro GM, Tiong IY, Pearce GL, Lauer MS, Sprecher DL, Griffin BP. Effect of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors on the progression of calcific aortic stenosis. Circulation2001; 104:2205–2209.
Cowell SJ, Newby DE, Prescott RJ, et al; Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial, Impact on Regression (SALTIRE) Investigators. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2005; 352:2389–2397.
Rossebø AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, et al; SEAS Investigators. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2008; 359:1343–1356.
Moura LM, Ramos SF, Zamorano JL, et al. Rosuvastatin affecting aortic valve endothelium to slow the progression of aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 49:554–561.
Rosenhek R, Rader F, Loho N, et al. Statins but not angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors delay progression of aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 110:1291–1295.
O’Brien KD, Probstfield JL, Caulked MT, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and change in aortic valve calcium. Arch Intern Med2005; 165:858–862.
Lindblom D, Lindblom U, Qvist J, Lundström H. Long-term relative survival rates after heart valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol1990; 15:566–573.
Makkar RR, Fontana G P, Jilaihawi H, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2012; 366:1696–1704.
Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2011; 364:2187–2198.
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med2010; 363:1597–1607.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, Cristell D, et al; RERIC (Emilia Romagna Cardiac Surgery Registry) Investigators. Contemporary outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement in 638 octogenarians: insights from an Italian Regional Cardiac Surgery Registry (RERIC). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2012; 41:1247–1252.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, De Palma R, et al. Aortic valve replacement: results and predictors of mortality from a contemporary series of 2256 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2011; 141:940–947.
Jamieson WR, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark RE, Grover FL. Risk stratification for cardiac valve replacement. National Cardiac Surgery Database. Database Committee of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67:943–951.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol2008; 52:e1–e142.
Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation2007; 115:2856–2864.
Vaquette B, Corbineau H, Laurent M, et al. Valve replacement in patients with critical aortic stenosis and depressed left ventricular function: predictors of operative risk, left ventricular function recovery, and long term outcome. Heart2005; 91:1324–1329.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Orszulak TA, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Prognostic indicators. Circulation1997; 95:2395–2400.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, et al. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation2000; 101:1940–1946.
Pereira JJ, Lauer MS, Bashir M, et al. Survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradients and severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol2002; 39:1356–1363.
Pai RG, Varadarajan P, Razzouk A. Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis with low ejection fraction and low gradient with normal ejection fraction. Ann Thorac Surg2008; 86:1781–1789.
Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, Duval-Moulin AM, Dubois-Rande JL, Gueret P. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2001; 37:2101–2107.
Monin JL, Quéré J P, Monchi M, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation2003; 108:319–324.
Zuppiroli A, Mori F, Olivotto I, Castelli G, Favilli S, Dolara A. Therapeutic implications of contractile reserve elicited by dobutamine echocardiography in symptomatic, low-gradient aortic stenosis. Ital Heart J2003; 4:264–270.
Tribouilloy C, Lévy F, Rusinaru D, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 53:1865–1873.
Ahmed AA, Graham AN, Lovell D, O’Kane HO. Management of mild to moderate aortic valve disease during coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2003; 24:535–539.
Verhoye J P, Merlicco F, Sami IM, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis after previous coronary artery bypass grafting: could early reoperation be prevented?J Heart Valve Dis2006; 15:474–478.
Hochrein J, Lucke JC, Harrison JK, et al. Mortality and need for reoperation in patients with mild-to-moderate asymptomatic aortic valve disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft alone. Am Heart J1999; 138:791–797.
Pereira JJ, Balaban K, Lauer MS, Lytle B, Thomas JD, Garcia MJ. Aortic valve replacement in patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis and coronary bypass surgery. Am J Med2005; 118:735–742.
Amato MC, Moffa PJ, Werner KE, Ramires JA. Treatment decision in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis: role of exercise testing. Heart2001; 86:381–386.
Das P, Rimington H, Chambers J. Exercise testing to stratify risk in aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J2005; 26:1309–1313.
Weber M, Arnold R, Rau M, et al. Relation of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide to severity of valvular aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2004; 94:740–745.
Weber M, Hausen M, Arnold R, et al. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for conservatively and surgically treated patients with aortic valve stenosis. Heart2006; 92:1639–1644.
Gerber IL, Stewart RA, Legget ME, et al. Increased plasma natriuretic peptide levels refect symptom onset in aortic stenosis. Circulation2003; 107:1884–1890.
Bergler-Klein J, Klaar U, Heger M, et al. Natriuretic peptides predict symptom-free survival and postoperative outcome in severe aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 109:2302–2308.
Lancellotti P, Moonen M, Magne J, et al. Prognostic effect of long-axis left ventricular dysfunction and B-type natriuretic peptide levels in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2010; 105:383–388.
Langanay T, Flécher E, Fouquet O, et al. Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: the real life. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 93:70–77.
Christofferson RD, Kapadia SR, Rajagopal V, Tuzcu EM. Emerging transcatheter therapies for aortic and mitral disease. Heart2009; 95:148–155.
Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement?Lancet1986; 1:63–67.
Percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Acute and 30-day follow-up results in 674 patients from the NHLBI Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry. Circulation1991; 84:2383–2397.
Otto CM, Mickel MC, Kennedy JW, et al. Three-year outcome after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Insights into prognosis of valvular aortic stenosis. Circulation1994; 89:642–650.
Bernard Y, Etievent J, Mourand JL, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty compared with aortic valve replacement in patients more than 75 years old. J Am Coll Cardiol1992; 20:796–801.
Elkayam U, Janmohamed M, Habib M, Hatamizadeh P. Vasodilators in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med2008; 36(suppl 1):S95–S105.
Popovic ZB, Khot UN, Novaro GM, et al. Effects of sodium nitroprusside in aortic stenosis associated with severe heart failure: pressure-volume loop analysis using a numerical model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol2005; 288:H416–H423.
Khot UN, Novaro GM, Popovic ZB, et al. Nitroprusside in critically ill patients with left ventricular dysfunction and aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2003; 348:1756–1763.
Aksoy O, Yousefzai R, Singh D, et al. Cardiogenic shock in the setting of severe aortic stenosis: role of intra-aortic balloon pump support. Heart2011; 97:838–843.
Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in patients at low or moderate risk of surgical complications. But this is a disease of the elderly, many of whom are too frail or too sick to undergo surgery.
Now, patients who cannot undergo this surgery can be offered the less invasive option of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Balloon valvuloplasty, sodium nitroprusside, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can buy time for ill patients while more permanent mechanical interventions are being considered.
In this review, we will present several cases that highlight management choices for patients with severe aortic stenosis.
A PROGRESSIVE DISEASE OF THE ELDERLY
Aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disease in the United States, and its incidence and prevalence are rising as the population ages. Epidemiologic studies suggest that 2% to 7% of all patients over age 65 have it.1,2
The natural history of the untreated disease is well established, with several case series showing an average decrease of 0.1 cm2 per year in aortic valve area and an increase of 7 mm Hg per year in the pressure gradient across the valve once the diagnosis is made.3,4 Development of angina, syncope, or heart failure is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including death, and warrants prompt intervention with aortic valve replacement.5–7 Without intervention, the mortality rates reach as high as 75% in 3 years once symptoms develop.
Statins, bisphosphonates, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been used in attempts to slow or reverse the progression of aortic stenosis. However, studies of these drugs have had mixed results, and no definitive benefit has been shown.8–13 Surgical aortic valve replacement, on the other hand, normalizes the life expectancy of patients with aortic stenosis to that of age- and sex-matched controls and remains the gold standard therapy for patients who have symptoms.14
Traditionally, valve replacement has involved open heart surgery, since it requires direct visualization of the valve while the patient is on cardiopulmonary bypass. Unfortunately, many patients have multiple comorbid conditions and therefore are not candidates for open heart surgery. Options for these patients include aortic valvuloplasty and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. While there is considerable experience with aortic valvuloplasty, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is relatively new. In large randomized trials and registries, the transcatheter procedure has been shown to significantly improve long-term survival compared with medical management alone in inoperable patients and to have benefit similar to that of surgery in the high-risk population.15–17
CASE 1: SEVERE, SYMPTOMATIC STENOSIS IN A GOOD SURGICAL CANDIDATE
Mr. A, age 83, presents with shortness of breath and peripheral edema that have been worsening over the past several months. His pulse rate is 64 beats per minute and his blood pressure is 110/90 mm Hg. Auscultation reveals an absent aortic second heart sound with a late peaking systolic murmur that increases with expiration.
On echocardiography, his left ventricular ejection fraction is 55%, peak transaortic valve gradient 88 mm Hg, mean gradient 60 mm Hg, and effective valve area 0.6 cm2. He undergoes catheterization of the left side of his heart, which shows normal coronary arteries.
Mr. A also has hypertension and hyperlipidemia; his renal and pulmonary functions are normal.
How would you manage Mr. A’s aortic stenosis?
Symptomatic aortic stenosis leads to adverse clinical outcomes if managed medically without mechanical intervention,5–7 but patients who undergo aortic valve replacement have age-corrected postoperative survival rates that are nearly normal.14 Furthermore, thanks to improvements in surgical techniques and perioperative management, surgical mortality rates have decreased significantly in recent years and now range from 1% to 8%.18–20 The accumulated evidence showing clear superiority of a surgical approach over medical therapy has greatly simplified the therapeutic algorithm.21
Figure 1.
Consequently, the current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) give surgery a class I indication (evidence or general agreement that the procedure is beneficial, useful, and effective) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (Figure 1). This level of recommendation also applies to patients who have severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis who are undergoing other types of cardiac surgery and also to patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction (defined as an ejection fraction < 50%).21
Mr. A was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement, given its clear survival benefit.
CASE 2: SYMPTOMS AND LEFT VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION
Ms. B, age 79, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and now presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and chest discomfort. Electrocardiography shows significant left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal repolarization. Left heart catheterization reveals mild nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 25%, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and global hypokinesis. The aortic valve leaflets appear heavily calcified, with restricted motion. The peak and mean gradients across the aortic valve are 40 and 28 mm Hg, and the valve area is 0.8 cm2. Right heart catheterization shows a cardiac output of 3.1 L/min.
Does this patient’s aortic stenosis account for her clinical presentation?
Managing patients who have suspected severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular dysfunction, and low aortic valve gradients can be challenging. Although data for surgical intervention are not as robust for these patient subsets as for patients like Mr. A, several case series have suggested that survival in these patients is significantly better with surgery than with medical therapy alone.22–27
Specific factors predict whether patients with ventricular dysfunction and low gradients will benefit from aortic valve replacement. Dobutamine stress echocardiography is helpful in distinguishing true severe aortic stenosis from “pseudostenosis,” in which leaflet motion is restricted due to primary cardiomyopathy and low flow. Distinguishing between true aortic stenosis and pseudostenosis is of paramount value, as surgery is associated with improved long-term outcomes in patients with true aortic stenosis (even though they are at higher surgical risk), whereas those with pseudostenosis will not benefit from surgery.28–31
Figure 2.
Infusion of dobutamine increases the flow across the aortic valve (if the left ventricle has contractile reserve; more on this below), and an increasing valve area with increasing doses of dobutamine is consistent with pseudostenosis. In this situation, treatment of the underlying cardiomyopathy is indicated as opposed to replacement of the aortic valve (Figure 2).
Contractile reserve is defined as an increase in stroke volume (> 20%), valvular gradient (> 10 mm Hg), or peak velocity (> 0.6 m/s) with peak dobutamine infusion. The presence of contractile reserve in patients with aortic stenosis identifies a high-risk group that benefits from aortic valve replacement (Figure 2).
Treatment of patients who have inadequate reserve is controversial. In the absence of contractile reserve, an adjunct imaging study such as computed tomography may be of value in detecting calcified valve leaflets, as the presence of calcium is associated with true aortic stenosis. Comorbid conditions should be taken into account as well, given the higher surgical risk in this patient subset, as aortic valve replacement in this already high-risk group of patients might be futile in some cases.
The ACC/AHA guidelines now give dobutamine stress echocardiography a class IIa indication (meaning the weight of the evidence or opinion is in favor of usefulness or efficacy) for determination of contractile reserve and valvular stenosis for patients with an ejection fraction of 30% or less or a mean gradient of 40 mm Hg or less.21
Ms. B underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. It showed increases in ejection fraction, stroke volume, and transvalvular gradients, indicating that she did have contractile reserve and true severe aortic stenosis. Consequently, she was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement.
CASE 3: MODERATE STENOSIS AND THREE-VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Mr. C, age 81, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He now presents to the emergency department with chest discomfort that began suddenly, awakening him from sleep. His presenting electrocardiogram shows nonspecific changes, and he is diagnosed with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. He undergoes left heart catheterization, which reveals severe three-vessel coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 55% and aortic stenosis, with an aortic valve area of 1.2 cm2, a peak gradient of 44 mm Hg, and a mean gradient of 28 mm Hg.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Moderate aortic stenosis in a patient who needs surgery for severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease, other valve diseases, or aortic disease raises the question of whether aortic valve replacement should be performed in conjunction with these surgeries. Although these patients would not otherwise qualify for aortic valve replacement, the fact that they will undergo a procedure that will expose them to the risks associated with open heart surgery makes them reasonable candidates. Even if the patient does not need aortic valve replacement right now, aortic stenosis progresses at a predictable rate—the valve area decreases by a mean of 0.1 cm2/year and the gradients increase by 7 mm Hg/year. Therefore, clinical judgment should be exercised so that the patient will not need to undergo open heart surgery again in the near future.
The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement for patients with moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or surgery on the aorta or other heart valves, giving it a class IIa indication.21 This recommendation is based on several retrospective case series that evaluated survival, the need for reoperation for aortic valve replacement, or both in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.32–35
No data exist, however, on adding aortic valve replacement to coronary artery bypass grafting in cases of mild aortic stenosis. As a result, it is controversial and carries a class IIb recommendation (meaning that its usefulness or efficacy is less well established). The ACC/AHA guidelines state that aortic valve replacement “may be considered” in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who have mild aortic stenosis (mean gradient < 30 mm Hg or jet velocity < 3 m/s) when there is evidence, such as moderate or severe valve calcification, that progression may be rapid (level of evidence C: based only on consensus opinion of experts, case studies or standard of care).21
Mr. C, who has moderate aortic stenosis, underwent aortic valve replacement in conjunction with three-vessel bypass grafting.
CASE 4: ASYMPTOMATIC BUT SEVERE STENOSIS
Mr. D, age 74, has hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and aortic stenosis. He now presents to the outpatient department for his annual echocardiogram to follow his aortic stenosis. He has a sedentary lifestyle but feels well performing activities of daily living. He denies dyspnea on exertion, chest pain, or syncope.
His echocardiogram reveals an effective aortic valve area of 0.7 cm2, peak gradient 90 mm Hg, and mean gradient 70 mm Hg. There is evidence of severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and the valve leaflets show bulky calcification and severe restriction. An echocardiogram performed at the same institution a year earlier revealed gradients of 60 and 40 mm Hg.
Blood is drawn for laboratory tests, including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which is 350 pg/mL (reference range for his age < 125 pg/mL). He is referred for a treadmill stress test, which elicits symptoms at a moderate activity level.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement can be considered in patients who have asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular function (class IIb indication).21
Clinical assessment of asymptomatic aortic stenosis can be challenging, however, as patients may underreport their symptoms or decrease their activity levels to avoid symptoms. Exercise testing in such patients can elicit symptoms, unmask diminished exercise capacity, and help determine if they should be referred for surgery.36,37 Natriuretic peptide levels have been shown to correlate with the severity of aortic stenosis,38,39 and more importantly, to help predict symptom onset, cardiac death, and need for aortic valve replacement.40–42
Some patients with asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis are at higher risk of morbidity and death. High-risk subsets include patients with rapid progression of aortic stenosis and those with critical aortic stenosis characterized by an aortic valve area less than 0.60 cm2, mean gradient greater than 60 mm Hg, and jet velocity greater than 5.0 m/s. It is reasonable to offer these patients surgery if their expected operative mortality risk is less than 1.0%.21
Mr. D has evidence of rapid progression as defined by an increase in aortic jet velocity of more than 0.3 m/s/year. He is at low surgical risk and was referred for elective aortic valve replacement.
CASE 5: TOO FRAIL FOR SURGERY
Mr. E, age 84, has severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.6 cm2, peak and mean gradients of 88 and 56 mm Hg), coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second 0.8 L), chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. He has preserved left ventricular function. He presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and peripheral edema over the past several months. Your impression is that he is very frail. How would you manage Mr. E’s aortic stenosis?
Advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management over the years have enabled higher-risk patients to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement with excellent out-comes.18–20,43 Yet many patients still cannot undergo surgery because their risk is too high. Patients ineligible for surgery have traditionally been treated medically—with poor out-comes—or with balloon aortic valvuloplasty to palliate symptoms.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011, now provides another option for these patients. In this procedure, a bioprosthetic valve mounted on a metal frame is implanted over the native stenotic valve.
Figure 3.
Currently, the only FDA-approved and commercially available valve in the United States is the Edwards SAPIEN valve, which has bovine pericardial tissue leaflets fixed to a balloon-expandable stainless steel frame (Figure 3). In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial,15 patients who could not undergo surgery who underwent transcatheter replacement with this valve had a significantly better survival rate than patients treated medically.15,17 Use of this valve has also been compared against conventional surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients and was found to have similar long-term outcomes (Figure 4).16 It was on the basis of this trial that this valve was granted approval for patients who cannot undergo surgery.
Figure 4.
The standard of care for high-risk patients remains surgical aortic valve replacement, although it remains to be seen whether transcatheter replacement will be made available as well to patients eligible for surgery in the near future. There are currently no randomized data for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients at moderate to low surgical risk, and these patients should not be considered for this procedure.
Although the initial studies are encouraging for patients who cannot undergo surgery and who are at high risk without it, several issues and concerns remain. Importantly, the long-term durability of the transcatheter valve and longer-term outcomes remain unknown. Furthermore, the risk of vascular complications remains high (10% to 15%), dictating the need for careful patient selection. There are also concerns about the risks of stroke and of paravalvular aortic insufficiency. These issues are being investigated and addressed, however, and we hope that with increasing operator experience and improvements in the technique, outcomes will be improved.
Which approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
There are several considerations in determining a patient’s eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Initially, these valves were placed by a transvenous, transseptal approach, but now retrograde placement through the femoral artery has become standard. In this procedure, the device is advanced retrograde from the femoral artery through the aorta and placed across the native aortic valve under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance.
Patients who are not eligible for transfemoral placement because of severe atherosclerosis, tortuosity, or ectasia of the iliofemoral artery or aorta can still undergo percutaneous treatment with a transapical approach. This is a hybrid surgical-transcatheter approach in which the valve is delivered through a sheath placed by left ventricular apical puncture.17,44
A newer approach gaining popularity is the transaortic technique, in which the ascending aorta is accessed directly through a ministernotomy and the delivery sheath is placed with a direct puncture. Other approaches are through the axillary and subclavian arteries.
Other valves are under development
Several other valves are under development and will likely change the landscape of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with improving outcomes. Valves that are available in the United States are shown in Figure 3. The CoreValve, consisting of porcine pericardial leaflets mounted on a self-expanding nitinol stent, is currently being studied in a trial in the United States, and the manufacturer (Medtronic) will seek approval when results are complete in the near future.
Mr. E was initially referred for surgery, but when deemed to be unable to undergo surgery was found to be a good candidate for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
CASE 6: LIFE-LIMITING COMORBID ILLNESS
Mr. F, age 77, has multiple problems: severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area 0.6 cm2; peak and mean gradients of 92 and 59 mm Hg), stage IV pancreatic cancer, coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. He presents to the outpatient department with shortness of breath at rest, orthopnea, effort intolerance, and peripheral edema over the past several months.
On physical examination rales in both lung bases can be heard. Left heart catheterization shows patent bypass grafts.
How would you manage Mr. F’s aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement is not considered an option in patients with noncardiac illnesses and comorbidities that are life-limiting in the near term. Under these circumstances, aortic valvuloplasty can be offered as a means of palliating symptoms or, if the comorbid conditions can be modified, as a bridge to more definitive treatment with aortic valve replacement.
Since first described in 1986,45 percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty has been studied in several case series and registries, with consistent findings. Acutely, it increases the valve area and lessens the gradients across the valve, relieving symptoms. The risk of death during the procedure ranged from 3% to 13.5% in several case series, with a 30-day survival rate greater than 85%.46 However, the hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement is only short-term, as valve area and gradients gradually worsen within several months.47,48 Consequently, balloon valvuloplasty is considered a palliative approach.
Mr. F has a potentially life-limiting illness, ie, cancer, which would make him a candidate for aortic valvuloplasty rather than replacement. He can be referred for evaluation for this procedure in hopes of palliating his symptoms by relieving his dyspnea and improving his quality of life.
CASE 7: HEMODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
Mr. G, age 87, is scheduled for surgical aortic valve replacement because of severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.5 cm2, peak and mean gradients 89 and 45 mm Hg) with an ejection fraction of 30%.
Two weeks before his scheduled surgery he presents to the emergency department with worsening fluid overload and increasing shortness of breath. His initial laboratory work shows new-onset renal failure, and he has signs of hypoperfusion on physical examination. He is transferred to the cardiac intensive care unit for further care.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Patients with decompensated aortic stenosis and hemodynamic instability are at extreme risk during surgery. Medical stabilization beforehand may mitigate the risks associated with surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Aortic valvuloplasty, treatment with sodium nitroprusside, and support with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation may help stabilize patients in this “low-output” setting.
Sodium nitroprusside has long been used in low-output states. By relaxing vascular smooth muscle, it leads to increased venous capacitance, decreasing preload and congestion. It also decreases systemic vascular resistance with a subsequent decrease in afterload, which in turn improves systolic emptying. Together, these effects reduce systolic and diastolic wall stress, lower myocardial oxygen consumption, and ultimately increase cardiac output.49,50
These theoretical benefits translate to clinical improvement and increased cardiac output, as shown in a case series of 25 patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 35%) presenting in a low-output state in the absence of hypotension.51 These findings have led to a ACC/AHA recommendation for the use of sodium nitroprusside in patients who have severe aortic stenosis presenting in low-output state with decompensated heart failure.21
Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, introduced in 1968, has been used in several clinical settings, including acute coronary syndromes, intractable ventricular arrhythmias, and refractory heart failure, and for support of hemodynamics in the perioperative setting. Its role in managing ventricular septal rupture and acute mitral regurgitation is well established. It reliably reduces afterload and improves coronary perfusion, augmenting the cardiac output. This in turn leads to improved systemic perfusion, which can buy time for a critically ill patient during which the primary disease process is addressed.
Recently, a case series in which intraaortic balloon counterpulsation devices were placed in patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock showed findings similar to those with sodium nitroprusside infusion. Specifically, their use was associated with improved cardiac indices and filling pressures with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance. These changes have led to increased cardiac performance, resulting in better systemic perfusion.52 Thus, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can be an option for stabilizing patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock.
Mr. G was treated with sodium nitroprusside and intravenous diuretics. He achieved symptomatic relief and his renal function returned to baseline. He subsequently underwent aortic valve replacement during the hospitalization.
Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis in patients at low or moderate risk of surgical complications. But this is a disease of the elderly, many of whom are too frail or too sick to undergo surgery.
Now, patients who cannot undergo this surgery can be offered the less invasive option of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Balloon valvuloplasty, sodium nitroprusside, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can buy time for ill patients while more permanent mechanical interventions are being considered.
In this review, we will present several cases that highlight management choices for patients with severe aortic stenosis.
A PROGRESSIVE DISEASE OF THE ELDERLY
Aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disease in the United States, and its incidence and prevalence are rising as the population ages. Epidemiologic studies suggest that 2% to 7% of all patients over age 65 have it.1,2
The natural history of the untreated disease is well established, with several case series showing an average decrease of 0.1 cm2 per year in aortic valve area and an increase of 7 mm Hg per year in the pressure gradient across the valve once the diagnosis is made.3,4 Development of angina, syncope, or heart failure is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including death, and warrants prompt intervention with aortic valve replacement.5–7 Without intervention, the mortality rates reach as high as 75% in 3 years once symptoms develop.
Statins, bisphosphonates, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been used in attempts to slow or reverse the progression of aortic stenosis. However, studies of these drugs have had mixed results, and no definitive benefit has been shown.8–13 Surgical aortic valve replacement, on the other hand, normalizes the life expectancy of patients with aortic stenosis to that of age- and sex-matched controls and remains the gold standard therapy for patients who have symptoms.14
Traditionally, valve replacement has involved open heart surgery, since it requires direct visualization of the valve while the patient is on cardiopulmonary bypass. Unfortunately, many patients have multiple comorbid conditions and therefore are not candidates for open heart surgery. Options for these patients include aortic valvuloplasty and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. While there is considerable experience with aortic valvuloplasty, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is relatively new. In large randomized trials and registries, the transcatheter procedure has been shown to significantly improve long-term survival compared with medical management alone in inoperable patients and to have benefit similar to that of surgery in the high-risk population.15–17
CASE 1: SEVERE, SYMPTOMATIC STENOSIS IN A GOOD SURGICAL CANDIDATE
Mr. A, age 83, presents with shortness of breath and peripheral edema that have been worsening over the past several months. His pulse rate is 64 beats per minute and his blood pressure is 110/90 mm Hg. Auscultation reveals an absent aortic second heart sound with a late peaking systolic murmur that increases with expiration.
On echocardiography, his left ventricular ejection fraction is 55%, peak transaortic valve gradient 88 mm Hg, mean gradient 60 mm Hg, and effective valve area 0.6 cm2. He undergoes catheterization of the left side of his heart, which shows normal coronary arteries.
Mr. A also has hypertension and hyperlipidemia; his renal and pulmonary functions are normal.
How would you manage Mr. A’s aortic stenosis?
Symptomatic aortic stenosis leads to adverse clinical outcomes if managed medically without mechanical intervention,5–7 but patients who undergo aortic valve replacement have age-corrected postoperative survival rates that are nearly normal.14 Furthermore, thanks to improvements in surgical techniques and perioperative management, surgical mortality rates have decreased significantly in recent years and now range from 1% to 8%.18–20 The accumulated evidence showing clear superiority of a surgical approach over medical therapy has greatly simplified the therapeutic algorithm.21
Figure 1.
Consequently, the current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) give surgery a class I indication (evidence or general agreement that the procedure is beneficial, useful, and effective) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (Figure 1). This level of recommendation also applies to patients who have severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis who are undergoing other types of cardiac surgery and also to patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction (defined as an ejection fraction < 50%).21
Mr. A was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement, given its clear survival benefit.
CASE 2: SYMPTOMS AND LEFT VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION
Ms. B, age 79, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and now presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and chest discomfort. Electrocardiography shows significant left ventricular hypertrophy and abnormal repolarization. Left heart catheterization reveals mild nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 25%, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and global hypokinesis. The aortic valve leaflets appear heavily calcified, with restricted motion. The peak and mean gradients across the aortic valve are 40 and 28 mm Hg, and the valve area is 0.8 cm2. Right heart catheterization shows a cardiac output of 3.1 L/min.
Does this patient’s aortic stenosis account for her clinical presentation?
Managing patients who have suspected severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular dysfunction, and low aortic valve gradients can be challenging. Although data for surgical intervention are not as robust for these patient subsets as for patients like Mr. A, several case series have suggested that survival in these patients is significantly better with surgery than with medical therapy alone.22–27
Specific factors predict whether patients with ventricular dysfunction and low gradients will benefit from aortic valve replacement. Dobutamine stress echocardiography is helpful in distinguishing true severe aortic stenosis from “pseudostenosis,” in which leaflet motion is restricted due to primary cardiomyopathy and low flow. Distinguishing between true aortic stenosis and pseudostenosis is of paramount value, as surgery is associated with improved long-term outcomes in patients with true aortic stenosis (even though they are at higher surgical risk), whereas those with pseudostenosis will not benefit from surgery.28–31
Figure 2.
Infusion of dobutamine increases the flow across the aortic valve (if the left ventricle has contractile reserve; more on this below), and an increasing valve area with increasing doses of dobutamine is consistent with pseudostenosis. In this situation, treatment of the underlying cardiomyopathy is indicated as opposed to replacement of the aortic valve (Figure 2).
Contractile reserve is defined as an increase in stroke volume (> 20%), valvular gradient (> 10 mm Hg), or peak velocity (> 0.6 m/s) with peak dobutamine infusion. The presence of contractile reserve in patients with aortic stenosis identifies a high-risk group that benefits from aortic valve replacement (Figure 2).
Treatment of patients who have inadequate reserve is controversial. In the absence of contractile reserve, an adjunct imaging study such as computed tomography may be of value in detecting calcified valve leaflets, as the presence of calcium is associated with true aortic stenosis. Comorbid conditions should be taken into account as well, given the higher surgical risk in this patient subset, as aortic valve replacement in this already high-risk group of patients might be futile in some cases.
The ACC/AHA guidelines now give dobutamine stress echocardiography a class IIa indication (meaning the weight of the evidence or opinion is in favor of usefulness or efficacy) for determination of contractile reserve and valvular stenosis for patients with an ejection fraction of 30% or less or a mean gradient of 40 mm Hg or less.21
Ms. B underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. It showed increases in ejection fraction, stroke volume, and transvalvular gradients, indicating that she did have contractile reserve and true severe aortic stenosis. Consequently, she was referred for surgical aortic valve replacement.
CASE 3: MODERATE STENOSIS AND THREE-VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Mr. C, age 81, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He now presents to the emergency department with chest discomfort that began suddenly, awakening him from sleep. His presenting electrocardiogram shows nonspecific changes, and he is diagnosed with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. He undergoes left heart catheterization, which reveals severe three-vessel coronary artery disease.
Echocardiography reveals an ejection fraction of 55% and aortic stenosis, with an aortic valve area of 1.2 cm2, a peak gradient of 44 mm Hg, and a mean gradient of 28 mm Hg.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Moderate aortic stenosis in a patient who needs surgery for severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease, other valve diseases, or aortic disease raises the question of whether aortic valve replacement should be performed in conjunction with these surgeries. Although these patients would not otherwise qualify for aortic valve replacement, the fact that they will undergo a procedure that will expose them to the risks associated with open heart surgery makes them reasonable candidates. Even if the patient does not need aortic valve replacement right now, aortic stenosis progresses at a predictable rate—the valve area decreases by a mean of 0.1 cm2/year and the gradients increase by 7 mm Hg/year. Therefore, clinical judgment should be exercised so that the patient will not need to undergo open heart surgery again in the near future.
The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement for patients with moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or surgery on the aorta or other heart valves, giving it a class IIa indication.21 This recommendation is based on several retrospective case series that evaluated survival, the need for reoperation for aortic valve replacement, or both in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.32–35
No data exist, however, on adding aortic valve replacement to coronary artery bypass grafting in cases of mild aortic stenosis. As a result, it is controversial and carries a class IIb recommendation (meaning that its usefulness or efficacy is less well established). The ACC/AHA guidelines state that aortic valve replacement “may be considered” in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting who have mild aortic stenosis (mean gradient < 30 mm Hg or jet velocity < 3 m/s) when there is evidence, such as moderate or severe valve calcification, that progression may be rapid (level of evidence C: based only on consensus opinion of experts, case studies or standard of care).21
Mr. C, who has moderate aortic stenosis, underwent aortic valve replacement in conjunction with three-vessel bypass grafting.
CASE 4: ASYMPTOMATIC BUT SEVERE STENOSIS
Mr. D, age 74, has hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and aortic stenosis. He now presents to the outpatient department for his annual echocardiogram to follow his aortic stenosis. He has a sedentary lifestyle but feels well performing activities of daily living. He denies dyspnea on exertion, chest pain, or syncope.
His echocardiogram reveals an effective aortic valve area of 0.7 cm2, peak gradient 90 mm Hg, and mean gradient 70 mm Hg. There is evidence of severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and the valve leaflets show bulky calcification and severe restriction. An echocardiogram performed at the same institution a year earlier revealed gradients of 60 and 40 mm Hg.
Blood is drawn for laboratory tests, including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which is 350 pg/mL (reference range for his age < 125 pg/mL). He is referred for a treadmill stress test, which elicits symptoms at a moderate activity level.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement can be considered in patients who have asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular function (class IIb indication).21
Clinical assessment of asymptomatic aortic stenosis can be challenging, however, as patients may underreport their symptoms or decrease their activity levels to avoid symptoms. Exercise testing in such patients can elicit symptoms, unmask diminished exercise capacity, and help determine if they should be referred for surgery.36,37 Natriuretic peptide levels have been shown to correlate with the severity of aortic stenosis,38,39 and more importantly, to help predict symptom onset, cardiac death, and need for aortic valve replacement.40–42
Some patients with asymptomatic but severe aortic stenosis are at higher risk of morbidity and death. High-risk subsets include patients with rapid progression of aortic stenosis and those with critical aortic stenosis characterized by an aortic valve area less than 0.60 cm2, mean gradient greater than 60 mm Hg, and jet velocity greater than 5.0 m/s. It is reasonable to offer these patients surgery if their expected operative mortality risk is less than 1.0%.21
Mr. D has evidence of rapid progression as defined by an increase in aortic jet velocity of more than 0.3 m/s/year. He is at low surgical risk and was referred for elective aortic valve replacement.
CASE 5: TOO FRAIL FOR SURGERY
Mr. E, age 84, has severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.6 cm2, peak and mean gradients of 88 and 56 mm Hg), coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second 0.8 L), chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. He has preserved left ventricular function. He presents to the outpatient department with worsening shortness of breath and peripheral edema over the past several months. Your impression is that he is very frail. How would you manage Mr. E’s aortic stenosis?
Advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management over the years have enabled higher-risk patients to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement with excellent out-comes.18–20,43 Yet many patients still cannot undergo surgery because their risk is too high. Patients ineligible for surgery have traditionally been treated medically—with poor out-comes—or with balloon aortic valvuloplasty to palliate symptoms.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011, now provides another option for these patients. In this procedure, a bioprosthetic valve mounted on a metal frame is implanted over the native stenotic valve.
Figure 3.
Currently, the only FDA-approved and commercially available valve in the United States is the Edwards SAPIEN valve, which has bovine pericardial tissue leaflets fixed to a balloon-expandable stainless steel frame (Figure 3). In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial,15 patients who could not undergo surgery who underwent transcatheter replacement with this valve had a significantly better survival rate than patients treated medically.15,17 Use of this valve has also been compared against conventional surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients and was found to have similar long-term outcomes (Figure 4).16 It was on the basis of this trial that this valve was granted approval for patients who cannot undergo surgery.
Figure 4.
The standard of care for high-risk patients remains surgical aortic valve replacement, although it remains to be seen whether transcatheter replacement will be made available as well to patients eligible for surgery in the near future. There are currently no randomized data for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients at moderate to low surgical risk, and these patients should not be considered for this procedure.
Although the initial studies are encouraging for patients who cannot undergo surgery and who are at high risk without it, several issues and concerns remain. Importantly, the long-term durability of the transcatheter valve and longer-term outcomes remain unknown. Furthermore, the risk of vascular complications remains high (10% to 15%), dictating the need for careful patient selection. There are also concerns about the risks of stroke and of paravalvular aortic insufficiency. These issues are being investigated and addressed, however, and we hope that with increasing operator experience and improvements in the technique, outcomes will be improved.
Which approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
There are several considerations in determining a patient’s eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Initially, these valves were placed by a transvenous, transseptal approach, but now retrograde placement through the femoral artery has become standard. In this procedure, the device is advanced retrograde from the femoral artery through the aorta and placed across the native aortic valve under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance.
Patients who are not eligible for transfemoral placement because of severe atherosclerosis, tortuosity, or ectasia of the iliofemoral artery or aorta can still undergo percutaneous treatment with a transapical approach. This is a hybrid surgical-transcatheter approach in which the valve is delivered through a sheath placed by left ventricular apical puncture.17,44
A newer approach gaining popularity is the transaortic technique, in which the ascending aorta is accessed directly through a ministernotomy and the delivery sheath is placed with a direct puncture. Other approaches are through the axillary and subclavian arteries.
Other valves are under development
Several other valves are under development and will likely change the landscape of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with improving outcomes. Valves that are available in the United States are shown in Figure 3. The CoreValve, consisting of porcine pericardial leaflets mounted on a self-expanding nitinol stent, is currently being studied in a trial in the United States, and the manufacturer (Medtronic) will seek approval when results are complete in the near future.
Mr. E was initially referred for surgery, but when deemed to be unable to undergo surgery was found to be a good candidate for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
CASE 6: LIFE-LIMITING COMORBID ILLNESS
Mr. F, age 77, has multiple problems: severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area 0.6 cm2; peak and mean gradients of 92 and 59 mm Hg), stage IV pancreatic cancer, coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting, chronic kidney disease (serum creatinine 1.9 mg/dL), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. He presents to the outpatient department with shortness of breath at rest, orthopnea, effort intolerance, and peripheral edema over the past several months.
On physical examination rales in both lung bases can be heard. Left heart catheterization shows patent bypass grafts.
How would you manage Mr. F’s aortic stenosis?
Aortic valve replacement is not considered an option in patients with noncardiac illnesses and comorbidities that are life-limiting in the near term. Under these circumstances, aortic valvuloplasty can be offered as a means of palliating symptoms or, if the comorbid conditions can be modified, as a bridge to more definitive treatment with aortic valve replacement.
Since first described in 1986,45 percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty has been studied in several case series and registries, with consistent findings. Acutely, it increases the valve area and lessens the gradients across the valve, relieving symptoms. The risk of death during the procedure ranged from 3% to 13.5% in several case series, with a 30-day survival rate greater than 85%.46 However, the hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement is only short-term, as valve area and gradients gradually worsen within several months.47,48 Consequently, balloon valvuloplasty is considered a palliative approach.
Mr. F has a potentially life-limiting illness, ie, cancer, which would make him a candidate for aortic valvuloplasty rather than replacement. He can be referred for evaluation for this procedure in hopes of palliating his symptoms by relieving his dyspnea and improving his quality of life.
CASE 7: HEMODYNAMIC INSTABILITY
Mr. G, age 87, is scheduled for surgical aortic valve replacement because of severe aortic stenosis (valve area 0.5 cm2, peak and mean gradients 89 and 45 mm Hg) with an ejection fraction of 30%.
Two weeks before his scheduled surgery he presents to the emergency department with worsening fluid overload and increasing shortness of breath. His initial laboratory work shows new-onset renal failure, and he has signs of hypoperfusion on physical examination. He is transferred to the cardiac intensive care unit for further care.
How would you manage his aortic stenosis?
Patients with decompensated aortic stenosis and hemodynamic instability are at extreme risk during surgery. Medical stabilization beforehand may mitigate the risks associated with surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Aortic valvuloplasty, treatment with sodium nitroprusside, and support with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation may help stabilize patients in this “low-output” setting.
Sodium nitroprusside has long been used in low-output states. By relaxing vascular smooth muscle, it leads to increased venous capacitance, decreasing preload and congestion. It also decreases systemic vascular resistance with a subsequent decrease in afterload, which in turn improves systolic emptying. Together, these effects reduce systolic and diastolic wall stress, lower myocardial oxygen consumption, and ultimately increase cardiac output.49,50
These theoretical benefits translate to clinical improvement and increased cardiac output, as shown in a case series of 25 patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 35%) presenting in a low-output state in the absence of hypotension.51 These findings have led to a ACC/AHA recommendation for the use of sodium nitroprusside in patients who have severe aortic stenosis presenting in low-output state with decompensated heart failure.21
Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, introduced in 1968, has been used in several clinical settings, including acute coronary syndromes, intractable ventricular arrhythmias, and refractory heart failure, and for support of hemodynamics in the perioperative setting. Its role in managing ventricular septal rupture and acute mitral regurgitation is well established. It reliably reduces afterload and improves coronary perfusion, augmenting the cardiac output. This in turn leads to improved systemic perfusion, which can buy time for a critically ill patient during which the primary disease process is addressed.
Recently, a case series in which intraaortic balloon counterpulsation devices were placed in patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock showed findings similar to those with sodium nitroprusside infusion. Specifically, their use was associated with improved cardiac indices and filling pressures with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance. These changes have led to increased cardiac performance, resulting in better systemic perfusion.52 Thus, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation can be an option for stabilizing patients with severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock.
Mr. G was treated with sodium nitroprusside and intravenous diuretics. He achieved symptomatic relief and his renal function returned to baseline. He subsequently underwent aortic valve replacement during the hospitalization.
References
Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet2009; 373:956–966.
Lindroos M, Kupari M, Heikkilä J, Tilvis R. Prevalence of aortic valve abnormalities in the elderly: an echocardiographic study of a random population sample. J Am Coll Cardiol1993; 21:1220–1225.
Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL. Hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis in adults assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol1989; 13:545–550.
Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation1997; 95:2262–2270.
Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 82:2111–2115.
Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J1987; 8:471–483.
Horstkotte D, Loogen F. The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J1988; 9(suppl E):57–64.
Novaro GM, Tiong IY, Pearce GL, Lauer MS, Sprecher DL, Griffin BP. Effect of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors on the progression of calcific aortic stenosis. Circulation2001; 104:2205–2209.
Cowell SJ, Newby DE, Prescott RJ, et al; Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial, Impact on Regression (SALTIRE) Investigators. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2005; 352:2389–2397.
Rossebø AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, et al; SEAS Investigators. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2008; 359:1343–1356.
Moura LM, Ramos SF, Zamorano JL, et al. Rosuvastatin affecting aortic valve endothelium to slow the progression of aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 49:554–561.
Rosenhek R, Rader F, Loho N, et al. Statins but not angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors delay progression of aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 110:1291–1295.
O’Brien KD, Probstfield JL, Caulked MT, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and change in aortic valve calcium. Arch Intern Med2005; 165:858–862.
Lindblom D, Lindblom U, Qvist J, Lundström H. Long-term relative survival rates after heart valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol1990; 15:566–573.
Makkar RR, Fontana G P, Jilaihawi H, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2012; 366:1696–1704.
Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2011; 364:2187–2198.
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med2010; 363:1597–1607.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, Cristell D, et al; RERIC (Emilia Romagna Cardiac Surgery Registry) Investigators. Contemporary outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement in 638 octogenarians: insights from an Italian Regional Cardiac Surgery Registry (RERIC). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2012; 41:1247–1252.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, De Palma R, et al. Aortic valve replacement: results and predictors of mortality from a contemporary series of 2256 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2011; 141:940–947.
Jamieson WR, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark RE, Grover FL. Risk stratification for cardiac valve replacement. National Cardiac Surgery Database. Database Committee of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67:943–951.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol2008; 52:e1–e142.
Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation2007; 115:2856–2864.
Vaquette B, Corbineau H, Laurent M, et al. Valve replacement in patients with critical aortic stenosis and depressed left ventricular function: predictors of operative risk, left ventricular function recovery, and long term outcome. Heart2005; 91:1324–1329.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Orszulak TA, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Prognostic indicators. Circulation1997; 95:2395–2400.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, et al. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation2000; 101:1940–1946.
Pereira JJ, Lauer MS, Bashir M, et al. Survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradients and severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol2002; 39:1356–1363.
Pai RG, Varadarajan P, Razzouk A. Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis with low ejection fraction and low gradient with normal ejection fraction. Ann Thorac Surg2008; 86:1781–1789.
Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, Duval-Moulin AM, Dubois-Rande JL, Gueret P. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2001; 37:2101–2107.
Monin JL, Quéré J P, Monchi M, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation2003; 108:319–324.
Zuppiroli A, Mori F, Olivotto I, Castelli G, Favilli S, Dolara A. Therapeutic implications of contractile reserve elicited by dobutamine echocardiography in symptomatic, low-gradient aortic stenosis. Ital Heart J2003; 4:264–270.
Tribouilloy C, Lévy F, Rusinaru D, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 53:1865–1873.
Ahmed AA, Graham AN, Lovell D, O’Kane HO. Management of mild to moderate aortic valve disease during coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2003; 24:535–539.
Verhoye J P, Merlicco F, Sami IM, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis after previous coronary artery bypass grafting: could early reoperation be prevented?J Heart Valve Dis2006; 15:474–478.
Hochrein J, Lucke JC, Harrison JK, et al. Mortality and need for reoperation in patients with mild-to-moderate asymptomatic aortic valve disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft alone. Am Heart J1999; 138:791–797.
Pereira JJ, Balaban K, Lauer MS, Lytle B, Thomas JD, Garcia MJ. Aortic valve replacement in patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis and coronary bypass surgery. Am J Med2005; 118:735–742.
Amato MC, Moffa PJ, Werner KE, Ramires JA. Treatment decision in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis: role of exercise testing. Heart2001; 86:381–386.
Das P, Rimington H, Chambers J. Exercise testing to stratify risk in aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J2005; 26:1309–1313.
Weber M, Arnold R, Rau M, et al. Relation of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide to severity of valvular aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2004; 94:740–745.
Weber M, Hausen M, Arnold R, et al. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for conservatively and surgically treated patients with aortic valve stenosis. Heart2006; 92:1639–1644.
Gerber IL, Stewart RA, Legget ME, et al. Increased plasma natriuretic peptide levels refect symptom onset in aortic stenosis. Circulation2003; 107:1884–1890.
Bergler-Klein J, Klaar U, Heger M, et al. Natriuretic peptides predict symptom-free survival and postoperative outcome in severe aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 109:2302–2308.
Lancellotti P, Moonen M, Magne J, et al. Prognostic effect of long-axis left ventricular dysfunction and B-type natriuretic peptide levels in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2010; 105:383–388.
Langanay T, Flécher E, Fouquet O, et al. Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: the real life. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 93:70–77.
Christofferson RD, Kapadia SR, Rajagopal V, Tuzcu EM. Emerging transcatheter therapies for aortic and mitral disease. Heart2009; 95:148–155.
Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement?Lancet1986; 1:63–67.
Percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Acute and 30-day follow-up results in 674 patients from the NHLBI Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry. Circulation1991; 84:2383–2397.
Otto CM, Mickel MC, Kennedy JW, et al. Three-year outcome after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Insights into prognosis of valvular aortic stenosis. Circulation1994; 89:642–650.
Bernard Y, Etievent J, Mourand JL, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty compared with aortic valve replacement in patients more than 75 years old. J Am Coll Cardiol1992; 20:796–801.
Elkayam U, Janmohamed M, Habib M, Hatamizadeh P. Vasodilators in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med2008; 36(suppl 1):S95–S105.
Popovic ZB, Khot UN, Novaro GM, et al. Effects of sodium nitroprusside in aortic stenosis associated with severe heart failure: pressure-volume loop analysis using a numerical model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol2005; 288:H416–H423.
Khot UN, Novaro GM, Popovic ZB, et al. Nitroprusside in critically ill patients with left ventricular dysfunction and aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2003; 348:1756–1763.
Aksoy O, Yousefzai R, Singh D, et al. Cardiogenic shock in the setting of severe aortic stenosis: role of intra-aortic balloon pump support. Heart2011; 97:838–843.
References
Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet2009; 373:956–966.
Lindroos M, Kupari M, Heikkilä J, Tilvis R. Prevalence of aortic valve abnormalities in the elderly: an echocardiographic study of a random population sample. J Am Coll Cardiol1993; 21:1220–1225.
Otto CM, Pearlman AS, Gardner CL. Hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis in adults assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol1989; 13:545–550.
Otto CM, Burwash IG, Legget ME, et al. Prospective study of asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and exercise predictors of outcome. Circulation1997; 95:2262–2270.
Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 82:2111–2115.
Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J1987; 8:471–483.
Horstkotte D, Loogen F. The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J1988; 9(suppl E):57–64.
Novaro GM, Tiong IY, Pearce GL, Lauer MS, Sprecher DL, Griffin BP. Effect of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors on the progression of calcific aortic stenosis. Circulation2001; 104:2205–2209.
Cowell SJ, Newby DE, Prescott RJ, et al; Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial, Impact on Regression (SALTIRE) Investigators. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2005; 352:2389–2397.
Rossebø AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, et al; SEAS Investigators. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2008; 359:1343–1356.
Moura LM, Ramos SF, Zamorano JL, et al. Rosuvastatin affecting aortic valve endothelium to slow the progression of aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 49:554–561.
Rosenhek R, Rader F, Loho N, et al. Statins but not angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors delay progression of aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 110:1291–1295.
O’Brien KD, Probstfield JL, Caulked MT, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and change in aortic valve calcium. Arch Intern Med2005; 165:858–862.
Lindblom D, Lindblom U, Qvist J, Lundström H. Long-term relative survival rates after heart valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol1990; 15:566–573.
Makkar RR, Fontana G P, Jilaihawi H, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2012; 366:1696–1704.
Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2011; 364:2187–2198.
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med2010; 363:1597–1607.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, Cristell D, et al; RERIC (Emilia Romagna Cardiac Surgery Registry) Investigators. Contemporary outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement in 638 octogenarians: insights from an Italian Regional Cardiac Surgery Registry (RERIC). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2012; 41:1247–1252.
Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, De Palma R, et al. Aortic valve replacement: results and predictors of mortality from a contemporary series of 2256 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2011; 141:940–947.
Jamieson WR, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark RE, Grover FL. Risk stratification for cardiac valve replacement. National Cardiac Surgery Database. Database Committee of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67:943–951.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol2008; 52:e1–e142.
Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation2007; 115:2856–2864.
Vaquette B, Corbineau H, Laurent M, et al. Valve replacement in patients with critical aortic stenosis and depressed left ventricular function: predictors of operative risk, left ventricular function recovery, and long term outcome. Heart2005; 91:1324–1329.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Orszulak TA, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Prognostic indicators. Circulation1997; 95:2395–2400.
Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV, et al. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation2000; 101:1940–1946.
Pereira JJ, Lauer MS, Bashir M, et al. Survival after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradients and severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol2002; 39:1356–1363.
Pai RG, Varadarajan P, Razzouk A. Survival benefit of aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis with low ejection fraction and low gradient with normal ejection fraction. Ann Thorac Surg2008; 86:1781–1789.
Monin JL, Monchi M, Gest V, Duval-Moulin AM, Dubois-Rande JL, Gueret P. Aortic stenosis with severe left ventricular dysfunction and low transvalvular pressure gradients: risk stratification by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2001; 37:2101–2107.
Monin JL, Quéré J P, Monchi M, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: operative risk stratification and predictors for long-term outcome: a multicenter study using dobutamine stress hemodynamics. Circulation2003; 108:319–324.
Zuppiroli A, Mori F, Olivotto I, Castelli G, Favilli S, Dolara A. Therapeutic implications of contractile reserve elicited by dobutamine echocardiography in symptomatic, low-gradient aortic stenosis. Ital Heart J2003; 4:264–270.
Tribouilloy C, Lévy F, Rusinaru D, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement for low-flow/low-gradient aortic stenosis without contractile reserve on dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 53:1865–1873.
Ahmed AA, Graham AN, Lovell D, O’Kane HO. Management of mild to moderate aortic valve disease during coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2003; 24:535–539.
Verhoye J P, Merlicco F, Sami IM, et al. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis after previous coronary artery bypass grafting: could early reoperation be prevented?J Heart Valve Dis2006; 15:474–478.
Hochrein J, Lucke JC, Harrison JK, et al. Mortality and need for reoperation in patients with mild-to-moderate asymptomatic aortic valve disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft alone. Am Heart J1999; 138:791–797.
Pereira JJ, Balaban K, Lauer MS, Lytle B, Thomas JD, Garcia MJ. Aortic valve replacement in patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis and coronary bypass surgery. Am J Med2005; 118:735–742.
Amato MC, Moffa PJ, Werner KE, Ramires JA. Treatment decision in asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis: role of exercise testing. Heart2001; 86:381–386.
Das P, Rimington H, Chambers J. Exercise testing to stratify risk in aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J2005; 26:1309–1313.
Weber M, Arnold R, Rau M, et al. Relation of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide to severity of valvular aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2004; 94:740–745.
Weber M, Hausen M, Arnold R, et al. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for conservatively and surgically treated patients with aortic valve stenosis. Heart2006; 92:1639–1644.
Gerber IL, Stewart RA, Legget ME, et al. Increased plasma natriuretic peptide levels refect symptom onset in aortic stenosis. Circulation2003; 107:1884–1890.
Bergler-Klein J, Klaar U, Heger M, et al. Natriuretic peptides predict symptom-free survival and postoperative outcome in severe aortic stenosis. Circulation2004; 109:2302–2308.
Lancellotti P, Moonen M, Magne J, et al. Prognostic effect of long-axis left ventricular dysfunction and B-type natriuretic peptide levels in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol2010; 105:383–388.
Langanay T, Flécher E, Fouquet O, et al. Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: the real life. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 93:70–77.
Christofferson RD, Kapadia SR, Rajagopal V, Tuzcu EM. Emerging transcatheter therapies for aortic and mitral disease. Heart2009; 95:148–155.
Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement?Lancet1986; 1:63–67.
Percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Acute and 30-day follow-up results in 674 patients from the NHLBI Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry. Circulation1991; 84:2383–2397.
Otto CM, Mickel MC, Kennedy JW, et al. Three-year outcome after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Insights into prognosis of valvular aortic stenosis. Circulation1994; 89:642–650.
Bernard Y, Etievent J, Mourand JL, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous aortic valvuloplasty compared with aortic valve replacement in patients more than 75 years old. J Am Coll Cardiol1992; 20:796–801.
Elkayam U, Janmohamed M, Habib M, Hatamizadeh P. Vasodilators in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med2008; 36(suppl 1):S95–S105.
Popovic ZB, Khot UN, Novaro GM, et al. Effects of sodium nitroprusside in aortic stenosis associated with severe heart failure: pressure-volume loop analysis using a numerical model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol2005; 288:H416–H423.
Khot UN, Novaro GM, Popovic ZB, et al. Nitroprusside in critically ill patients with left ventricular dysfunction and aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med2003; 348:1756–1763.
Aksoy O, Yousefzai R, Singh D, et al. Cardiogenic shock in the setting of severe aortic stenosis: role of intra-aortic balloon pump support. Heart2011; 97:838–843.
Calcific aortic stenosis is the most common acquired valvular disease, and its prevalence is increasing as the population ages.
Patients who have symptoms should be referred for aortic valve replacement. Patients who are not candidates for open heart surgery may be eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
For high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities, “bridging” therapies such as aortic valvuloplasty are an option.
In patients with aortic stenosis who present with hemodynamic instability and circulatory collapse, time can be gained with the use of intravenous sodium nitroprusside (in the absence of hypotension) or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation while more definitive treatment decisions are being made.
For patients with carotid artery stenosis, percutaneous intervention with stenting is as good as surgery (carotid endarterectomy). This was the major finding of the recently completed Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)1—with some qualifications.
CREST is the latest in a series of clinical trials of treatment of carotid stenosis that have generated reams of numbers and much debate. The topic of surgery vs percutaneous intervention is a moving target, as techniques evolve and improve. We believe the CREST results are valuable and should help inform decisions about treatment in the “real world.”
In this article, we offer a critical review of CREST, with a careful evaluation of its methods, results, and conclusions.
AN EVOLVING FIELD
Despite improvements in diagnosis and management, stroke remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and death in the United States, with an annual incidence of 780,000 cases and 270,000 deaths.2,3
Figure 1. Carotid endarterectomy has long been an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater. However, percutaneous carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and placement of an embolic protection device is gaining ground as a reasonable, safe, less invasive alternative.From 10% to 30% of ischemic strokes are due to emboli from the carotid arteries.4–6 Carotid endarterectomy is an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater.7,8 However, percutaneous techniques such as carotid artery angioplasty with stenting have improved, making them a viable, less invasive option (Figure 1).
Randomized trials of stenting have had mixed results, leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to adopt strict reimbursement policies. Currently, CMS reimburses for stenting only in symptomatic cases with at least 50% carotid artery stenosis. It also reimburses for stenting in asymptomatic cases in patients at high risk with 80% or greater stenosis, but only if the patients are enrolled in ongoing clinical trials or registries.
CREST compared stenting with endarterectomy and provided important insights into each approach.1
BEFORE CREST
Endarterectomy is superior to medical therapy for symptomatic stenosis
First described in 1953, carotid endarterectomy became the most widely used invasive treatment for significant carotid stenosis.9 Several studies have described patient subsets that benefit from this procedure.
NASCET (the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial)10 assigned 2,226 patients with symptomatic stenosis (transient ischemic attack or stroke within the past 180 days) to medical management or endarterectomy.
Surgery was associated with a 65% lower rate of ipsilateral cerebral events in patients with 70% or greater stenosis.10 Surgery was also found to be superior in patients with moderate disease (50% to 69% stenosis), but the difference only approached statistical significance. In patients with stenosis of less than 50%, the outcomes were similar with endarterectomy and medical management.11
ECST (the European Carotid Surgery Trial)12 included a similar population of 3,024 patients. Those with high-grade disease (stenosis ≥ 80%) had significantly better outcomes with endarterectomy, but in those with stenosis less than 70%, surgery was no better than drug therapy.
Comment. NASCET and ECST taught us that endarterectomy is clearly superior to medical therapy in patients with severe symptomatic carotid disease. However, both trials excluded patients at high surgical risk, eg, those with severe coronary artery disease, kidney disease, or heart failure. Additionally, medical management was not aggressive by today’s standards in terms of control of blood pressure and hyperlipidemia, and this could have skewed the results in favor of carotid endarterectomy.
The case for carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis
Endarterectomy has also been compared with drug therapy for asymp tomatic carotid artery stenosis in several trials.13–15
ACAS (the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study)15 assigned 1,662 patients who had no symptoms and had at least 60% carotid artery stenosis to endarterectomy or to medical management, and found a relative risk reduction of 53% in favor of surgery.15
The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group14 corroborated these results in 444 patients with asymptomatic stenosis of greater than 50%. Endarterectomy was associated with a 61% lower risk of transient ischemic attack, transient monocular blindness, or stroke compared with medical therapy. However, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of stroke or death at 30 days.14
ACST (the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial),13 the largest study to compare carotid endarterectomy with drug therapy for asymptomatic stenosis, randomized 3,120 patients to surgery or drug therapy. The net 5-year risk of stroke was 6.4% with endarterectomy vs 11.8% with drug therapy (P < .0001). The rate of fatal stroke was also lower with endarterectomy: 2.1% vs 4.2% (P = .006).13
Comment. The results of these and other studies of endarterectomy vs medical therapy may not be applicable to current practice, since medical therapy has evolved and the risks with current drug therapy are likely much lower than seen in these trials, some of which began 2 decades ago. Another problem with interpreting these trials is that they excluded surgically “high-risk” patients, which limits the generalizability of the findings to this particular patient population.
The American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association have, on the basis of these trials, recommended carotid endarterectomy in patients with7,8,16:
Ipsilateral, symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 70% to 99% (class I, level of evidence A)
Symptomatic stenosis of 50% to 69%, depending on patient-specific factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities
High-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis, if the patients are carefully selected and the surgery is performed by surgeons with procedural morbidity and mortality rates of less than 3% (class I, level of evidence A).
In all cases, treatment should be individualized according to the patient’s comorbid conditions and preferences, with a thorough discussion of risks and benefits (Table 1).7,8,16
The case for percutaneous intervention
While carotid endarterectomy is proven to be more efficacious than medical management in certain patient subsets, studies favoring surgery over medical therapy have been criticized because they excluded patients with significant comorbidities. In addition, surgery has been associated with significant cardiovascular events, wound complications, and cranial nerve damage, and it requires general anesthesia in most cases.12,17–19 These and other factors spurred the development of less invasive, percutaneous approaches for patients with substantial comorbidities.
So far, several trials have investigated carotid angioplasty with or without stents and with or without devices to capture distal emboli. This interest set the stage for CREST.20,21
Initial attempts at angioplasty without distal protection were not very successful. A meta-analysis of nonrandomized trials that included 714 patients from the initial 13 studies of angioplasty (with or without stenting) and 6,970 patients from 20 studies of carotid endarterectomy found angioplasty to be possibly associated with higher rates of stroke within 30 days of the procedure.20
With improvements in technology, routine use of embolic protection devices, more experience, and better selection of patients, the outcome of carotid stenting has improved. In fact, a meta-analysis comparing stenting without an embolic protection device (26 trials with 2,357 patients) vs stenting with an embolic protection device (11 trials with 839 patients) showed that embolic protection led to significantly better outcomes with fewer strokes—outcomes arguably similar to those of carotid endarterectomy.21
SAPPHIRE (the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy trial)22 was the only completed US trial until CREST that compared carotid artery stenting with distal protection against surgery. It included 334 high-risk patients with either symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater.
The results suggested that the outcomes with stenting with embolic protection were in fact similar to those of endarterectomy, with possibly fewer complications.23 The benefit persisted up to 2 years.22
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the basis of these data, approved the use of stenting with distal protection for high-risk patients, and the CMS reimburses for symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater and for asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater as long as the patient is enrolled in a registry.
SPACE (the Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients trial),24 conducted in Germany, included 1,214 patients with symptomatic stenosis of at least 50%. Results were similar in terms of the combined primary end point of stroke or death at 30 days. However, the results were not similar enough to prove that stenting is not inferior to surgery, according to preset study criteria.
EVA-3S (the Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial),25 in France, evaluated 527 patients with symptomatic carotid disease (stenosis ≥ 60%), but was terminated early due to significantly higher rates of death or stroke at 30 days in the stenting group.
Comment. SPACE and EVA-3S have been widely criticized for not mandating the use of an embolic protection device (used in 27% of cases in SPACE and in 91.9% of cases in EVA-3S). Questions were also raised about the experience level of the operators who performed the carotid stenting: up to 39% of the primary operators involved in stent placement were trainees.26 Also, myocardial infarction (MI), an important complication of carotid endarterectomy, was not included in the primary end point.
ICSS (the International Carotid Stenting Study)27 compared stenting with endarterectomy in 1,713 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of greater than 50%. The primary end point was the rate of fatal or disabling stroke at 3 years.
An interim safety analysis at 120 days of follow-up showed the primary end point had occurred in 4.0% of stenting cases vs 3.2% of endarterectomy cases, a difference that was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–2.11). However, the risk of any stroke was higher with stenting, with a rate of 7.7% vs 4.1% in the surgical group—a statistically significant difference (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27–2.89).
In a substudy of ICSS,28 the investigators corroborated these findings, using magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate for new ischemic brain lesions periprocedurally. They found more new ischemic brain lesions in patients who underwent stenting than in patients who underwent surgery—a statistically significant finding.
Comment. ICSS had limitations: eg, it included only patients with symptoms, and the training for the stenting procedure was not standardized. Furthermore, the use of embolic protection devices was not mandated in stenting procedures.
Because of the controversial and incongruous findings of the above trials, there has been much anticipation for further large, appropriately conducted, randomized controlled trials such as CREST.
CREST STUDY DESIGN
CREST was a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication. Assignment to stenting or surgery occurred in a one-to-one fashion, and patients were stratified by medical center and symptomatic status.
Conducted at 108 sites in the United States and nine sites in Canada, CREST was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and by the manufacturer of the catheter and stent delivery and embolic protection systems. The manufacturer’s representative held a nonvoting position on the executive committee and reviewed the manuscript of the results before submission.
CREST included patients with or without symptoms
CREST was initially designed to compare carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptoms, but enrollment was later extended to patients without symptoms.
Patients with symptoms were included if they had stenosis of at least 50% on angiography, at least 70% on ultrasonography, or at least 70% on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if stenosis on ultrasonography was 50% to 69%. Carotid artery stenosis was considered symptomatic if the patient had a transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax, or minor disabling stroke in the hemisphere supplied by the target vessel within 180 days of randomization.
Patients without symptoms were eligible if they had at least 60% stenosis on angiography, at least 70% stenosis on ultrasonography, or at least 80% stenosis on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if the stenosis was 50% to 69% on ultrasonography.
Other eligibility criteria included favorable anatomy and clinical stability for both stenting and surgical procedures.
Exclusion criteria were evolving stroke, history of major stroke, chronic or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy, MI within the previous 30 days, and unstable angina.
Patients received antiplatelet agents
Patients undergoing stenting received aspirin and clopidogrel (Plavix) before and up to 30 days after the procedure. Continuation of antiplatelet therapy was recommended beyond 1 month.
Patients undergoing endarterectomy received aspirin before surgery and continued to receive aspirin for at least 1 year.
Alternatives to aspirin in both groups were ticlopidine (Ticlid), clopidogrel, or aspirin with extended-release dipyridamole (Aggrenox).
End points: Stroke, MI, death
The primary end point was a composite of periprocedural clinical stroke (any type), MI, or death, and of ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years after the procedure. Secondary analyses were also planned for evaluation of treatment modification by age, symptom status, and sex.
Stroke was defined as any acute neurologic ischemic event lasting at least 24 hours with focal signs and symptoms.
Two separate definitions were applied to distinguish major stroke from nonmajor stroke. Major stroke was defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score greater than 9 or records suggesting that the event was a disabling stroke if admitted to another facility. Nonmajor stroke included an event that did not fit these criteria. The stroke review process was initiated with a significant neurologic event, a positive transient ischemia attack or stroke questionnaire, or a two-point or greater increase in the NIHSS score.
MI was defined as a combination of an elevation of cardiac enzymes to at least twice the laboratory upper limit of normal, as well as clinical signs suggesting MI or electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia.29
Stroke was adjudicated by two independent neurologists, and MI was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists blinded to treatment group assignment.
The Rankin scale, the transient ischemic attack and stroke questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Survey were also used to assess for disability and quality of life in long-term follow-up.
Intention-to-treat analysis
Intention-to-treat survival analysis was used along with time-to-event statistical modeling with adjustment for major baseline covariates. Differences in outcomes were assessed, and a noninferiority analysis was performed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were constructed of the proportion of patients remaining free of the composite end point at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter, and of the associated confidence intervals. The hazard ratios between groups were estimated after adjustment for important covariates.
Most patients enrolled were available for analysis
From December 2000 to July 2008, 2,522 patients were enrolled; 1,271 were assigned to stenting, and 1,251 were assigned to surgery. After randomization, 2.8% of the patients assigned to stenting withdrew consent, 5.7% underwent surgery, and 2.6% were lost to follow-up. Of those assigned to surgery, 5.1% withdrew consent, 1.0% underwent stenting, and 3.8% were lost to follow-up.
A ‘conventional-risk’ patient population
The trial sought to include a “conventional-risk” patient population to make the study more applicable to real-world practice. The mean age was 69 years in both groups. Of the 2,522 patients enrolled:
35% were women
47% had asymptomatic carotid disease
86% had carotid stenosis of 70% or greater
86% had hypertension
30% had diabetes mellitus
83% had hyperlipidemia
26% were current smokers
42% had a history of cardiovascular disease
21% had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
The only statistically significant difference in measured baseline variables between the two treatment groups was a slightly higher rate of dyslipidemia in the group undergoing surgery.
The interventionalists and surgeons were highly experienced
Operators performing stenting underwent a lead-in phase of training, with close supervision and scrutiny before eligibility. Of patients undergoing stenting, 96.1% also received an embolic protection device. Antiplatelet therapy was continued in 99% of the patients.
The surgeons performing endarterectomy were experienced and had documented low complication rates. General anesthesia was used in 90% of surgical patients. Shunts were used during surgery in 57%, and patches were used in 62%. After endarterectomy, 91% of the patients received antiplatelet therapy.
CREST STUDY RESULTS: STENTING WAS AS GOOD AS SURGERY
Periprocedural outcomes
Stroke, MI, or death: 5.2% with stenting vs 4.5% with surgery, HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82–1.68, P = .38
Stroke: 4.1% vs 2.3%, HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.14–2.82, P = .01
Major ipsilateral stroke: 0.9% vs 0.3%, HR 2.67, 95% CI 0.85–8.40, P = .09.
MI: 1.1% vs 2.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26–0.94, P = .03
Cranial nerve palsy: 0.3% vs 4.8%, HR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.18, P < .0001 (Table 2).
Outcomes at 4 years
Brott TG, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:11–23. Copyright 2010, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the primary outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization) for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy.The primary end point (periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after the procedure): 7.2% with stenting vs 6.8% with surgery, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81–1.51, P = .51. A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar findings with statistically similar outcomes (Figure 2).
Ipsilateral stroke: 2.0% vs 2.4%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50–1.76, P = .85.
The primary outcome was analyzed for interactions of baseline variables, and no effect was detected for symptomatic status or sex. There was a suggestion of an interaction with age, with older patients (over age 70) benefiting more from endarterectomy.
Quality-of-life indices showed that both major and minor strokes were likely to produce long-term physical limitations, with minor stroke associated with worse mental and physical health at 1 year. The effect of periprocedural MI on long-term physical and mental health was less certain. The increased incidence of cranial nerve palsy noted with endarterectomy has been found before and has had no effect on quality of life.
WHAT DO THE CREST FINDINGS MEAN?
CREST is the largest trial to date to compare stenting and surgery. It is an important addition to the literature, not only because of its size, but also because it focused on a real-world patient population. For this reason, its results are more applicable to patients seen in primary care clinics, ie, with peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and smoking.
As noted, previous studies of endarterectomy had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which selected against patients at high surgical risk. Therefore, the CREST findings are of greater relevance when comparing stenting and endarterectomy.
Periprocedural and long-term neurologic outcomes
CREST showed similar findings for the composite end point of periprocedural stroke, death, or MI (ie, within 30 days of the procedure) and long-term stroke, establishing similar outcomes in patients undergoing stenting and surgery.
However, an analysis of the individual components of the composite end point showed significant differences between the two treatments. The risk of ipsilateral periprocedural stroke was higher with stenting; these events were defined as nonmajor by NIHSS criteria. The risk of contralateral stroke was similar and low with each treatment.
While the increased risk of periprocedural ipsilateral stroke was not synonymous with an increased risk of major stroke, post hoc analysis showed that any stroke was associated with decreased physical and mental health at 1 year. Therefore, patients who had even a minor stroke did worse from a physical and mental standpoint, a finding that argues for the superiority of surgery in selected patients at risk of periprocedural stroke.
If periprocedural stroke is excluded, the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke was similar for each treatment, and extremely low (2% for stenting, 2.4% for surgery). Despite this, given the importance of periprocedural minor and major stroke, better predictive models are needed to identify patients at risk of procedural neurologic events. These prediction models will allow better patient selection.
The CREST data and medical therapy
The rates of stroke in this trial were similar to those observed with current medical treatment (approximately 1% per year), especially for patients with asymptomatic disease. Such findings introduce fresh controversy in the necessity of performing either procedure for this patient subset and may lead to further studies evaluating current medical therapy vs intervention.
Periprocedural myocardial infarction
Vascular surgery has long been associated with high cardiovascular risk, especially an increased risk of periprocedural MI.30 Findings from CREST provide further evidence of the risk of MI with endarterectomy in a real-world patient population. Given the evidence of a strong correlation between periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevations and adverse outcomes, the increased incidence of periprocedural MI is worrisome.31 As with risk assessment for periprocedural stroke, better predictive models are needed for patients at risk of cardiovascular events during endarterectomy.
Procedural complications
Carotid endarterectomy entails incisions in the neck with disruption of tissue planes, as opposed to catheter entry site wounds with stenting. The more invasive nature of endarterectomy thus carries a higher risk of wound complications. In fact, in the NASCET trial, the risk of wound complications was 9.3%.10,19 In CREST, surgery carried a higher risk of wound complications compared with stenting (42 vs 0 cases), although stenting involved more periprocedural transfusions, presumably due to retroperitoneal bleeding in four patients.
Use of general anesthesia is also associated with adverse outcomes.17,18 In CREST, 90% of endarterectomy procedures required general anesthesia, whereas none of the stenting procedures required this.
Cranial nerve palsy is an often overlooked but real complication after these procedures. Cranial nerve palsies can lead to vocal, swallowing, and sensory problems that can have a transient or permanent impact on quality of life. In CREST, as in EVA-3S, SAPPHIRE, and ICSS, this risk was substantially higher with surgery,23,25,27 although the long-term consequences of these palsies were not found to affect quality of life at 1 year of follow-up.
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.
The CREST data suggest that interventions for carotid artery stenosis should only be performed by rigorously trained, experienced personnel at high-volume centers, as this provided lower event rates compared with previous studies. Additional data should also help identify those at risk of periprocedural stroke and MI, thereby helping to match the patient to the most appropriate procedure. The pros and cons of surgery and stenting are shown in Table 3.1,10,23,25,27
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.
References
Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med2010; 363:11–23.
Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation2006; 113:e85–e151.
Rosamond WD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults: 9-year follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke1999; 30:736–743.
Chaturvedi S, Bruno A, Feasby T, et al; Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Carotid endarterectomy—an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology2005; 65:794–801.
Howell GM, Makaroun MS, Chaer RA. Current management of extracranial carotid occlusive disease. J Am Coll Surg2009; 208:442–453.
Barnett HJ, Gunton RW, Eliasziw M, et al. Causes and severity of ischemic stroke in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis. JAMA2000; 283:1429–1436.
Biller J, Feinberg WM, Castaldo JE, et al. Guidelines for carotid endarterectomy: a statement for healthcare professionals from a Special Writing Group of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association. Circulation1998; 97:501–509.
Goldstein LB, Adams R, Alberts MJ, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Stroke Council. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council: cosponsored by the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Interdisciplinary Working Group; Cardiovascular Nursing Council; Clinical Cardiology Council; Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism Council; and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation2006; 113:e873–e923.
Strully KJ, Hurwitt ES, Blankenberg HW. Thrombo-endarterectomy for thrombosis of the internal carotid artery in the neck. J Neurosurg1953; 10:474–482.
Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1991; 325:445–453.
Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1998; 339:1415–1425.
Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet1998; 351:1379–1387.
Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al; MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet2004; 363:1491–1502.
Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, et al. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med1993; 328:221–227.
Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA1995; 273:1421–1428.
Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation2006; 113:e409–e449.
Watts K, Lin PH, Bush RL, et al. The impact of anesthetic modality on the outcome of carotid endarterectomy. Am J Surg2004; 188:741–747.
Weber CF, Friedl H, Hueppe M, et al. Impact of general versus local anesthesia on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction following carotid endarterectomy: GALA Study Subgroup Analysis. World J Surg2009; 33:1526–1532.
Ferguson GG, Eliasziw M, Barr HW, et al. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial: surgical results in 1415 patients. Stroke1999; 30:1751–1758.
Golledge J, Mitchell A, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. Systematic comparison of the early outcome of angioplasty and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid artery disease. Stroke2000; 31:1439–1443.
Kastrup A, Gröschel K, Krapf H, Brehm BR, Dichgans J, Schulz JB. Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke2003; 34:813–819.
Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al; SAPPHIRE Investigators. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2008; 358:1572–1579.
Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al; Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy Investigators. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2004; 351:1493–1501.
Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol2008; 7:893–902.
Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, et al; EVA-3S Investigators. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med2006; 355:1660–1771.
Roffi M, Sievert H, Gray WA, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus surgery: adequate comparisons?Lancet Neurol2010; 9:339–341.
International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators; Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2010; 375:985–997.
Bonati LH, Jongen LM, Haller S, et al; ICSS-MRI study group. New ischaemic brain lesions on MRI after stenting or endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a sub-study of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Lancet Neurol2010; 9:353–362.
Sheffet AJ, Roubin G, Howard G, et al. Design of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST). Int J Stroke2010; 5:40–46.
Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 50:e159–e241.
Bhatt DL, Topol EJ. Does creatinine kinase-MB elevation after percutaneous coronary intervention predict outcomes in 2005? Periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevation predicts adverse outcomes. Circulation2005; 112:906–915.
Hobson RW, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, et al; CREST. Credentialing of surgeons as interventionalists for carotid artery stenting: experience from the lead-in phase of CREST. J Vasc Surg2004; 40:952–957.
Olcay Aksoy, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Samir R. Kapadia, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Christopher Bajzer, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Wayne M. Clark, MD Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland; Investigator, Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, PhD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Address: Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, Heart & Vascular Institute, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail shishem@gmail.com
Dr. Shishehbor has disclosed teaching and speaking for Abbott Vascular.
Olcay Aksoy, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Samir R. Kapadia, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Christopher Bajzer, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Wayne M. Clark, MD Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland; Investigator, Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, PhD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Address: Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, Heart & Vascular Institute, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail shishem@gmail.com
Dr. Shishehbor has disclosed teaching and speaking for Abbott Vascular.
Author and Disclosure Information
Olcay Aksoy, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Samir R. Kapadia, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Christopher Bajzer, MD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Wayne M. Clark, MD Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland; Investigator, Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, PhD Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Address: Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO, MPH, Heart & Vascular Institute, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail shishem@gmail.com
Dr. Shishehbor has disclosed teaching and speaking for Abbott Vascular.
For patients with carotid artery stenosis, percutaneous intervention with stenting is as good as surgery (carotid endarterectomy). This was the major finding of the recently completed Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)1—with some qualifications.
CREST is the latest in a series of clinical trials of treatment of carotid stenosis that have generated reams of numbers and much debate. The topic of surgery vs percutaneous intervention is a moving target, as techniques evolve and improve. We believe the CREST results are valuable and should help inform decisions about treatment in the “real world.”
In this article, we offer a critical review of CREST, with a careful evaluation of its methods, results, and conclusions.
AN EVOLVING FIELD
Despite improvements in diagnosis and management, stroke remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and death in the United States, with an annual incidence of 780,000 cases and 270,000 deaths.2,3
Figure 1. Carotid endarterectomy has long been an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater. However, percutaneous carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and placement of an embolic protection device is gaining ground as a reasonable, safe, less invasive alternative.From 10% to 30% of ischemic strokes are due to emboli from the carotid arteries.4–6 Carotid endarterectomy is an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater.7,8 However, percutaneous techniques such as carotid artery angioplasty with stenting have improved, making them a viable, less invasive option (Figure 1).
Randomized trials of stenting have had mixed results, leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to adopt strict reimbursement policies. Currently, CMS reimburses for stenting only in symptomatic cases with at least 50% carotid artery stenosis. It also reimburses for stenting in asymptomatic cases in patients at high risk with 80% or greater stenosis, but only if the patients are enrolled in ongoing clinical trials or registries.
CREST compared stenting with endarterectomy and provided important insights into each approach.1
BEFORE CREST
Endarterectomy is superior to medical therapy for symptomatic stenosis
First described in 1953, carotid endarterectomy became the most widely used invasive treatment for significant carotid stenosis.9 Several studies have described patient subsets that benefit from this procedure.
NASCET (the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial)10 assigned 2,226 patients with symptomatic stenosis (transient ischemic attack or stroke within the past 180 days) to medical management or endarterectomy.
Surgery was associated with a 65% lower rate of ipsilateral cerebral events in patients with 70% or greater stenosis.10 Surgery was also found to be superior in patients with moderate disease (50% to 69% stenosis), but the difference only approached statistical significance. In patients with stenosis of less than 50%, the outcomes were similar with endarterectomy and medical management.11
ECST (the European Carotid Surgery Trial)12 included a similar population of 3,024 patients. Those with high-grade disease (stenosis ≥ 80%) had significantly better outcomes with endarterectomy, but in those with stenosis less than 70%, surgery was no better than drug therapy.
Comment. NASCET and ECST taught us that endarterectomy is clearly superior to medical therapy in patients with severe symptomatic carotid disease. However, both trials excluded patients at high surgical risk, eg, those with severe coronary artery disease, kidney disease, or heart failure. Additionally, medical management was not aggressive by today’s standards in terms of control of blood pressure and hyperlipidemia, and this could have skewed the results in favor of carotid endarterectomy.
The case for carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis
Endarterectomy has also been compared with drug therapy for asymp tomatic carotid artery stenosis in several trials.13–15
ACAS (the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study)15 assigned 1,662 patients who had no symptoms and had at least 60% carotid artery stenosis to endarterectomy or to medical management, and found a relative risk reduction of 53% in favor of surgery.15
The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group14 corroborated these results in 444 patients with asymptomatic stenosis of greater than 50%. Endarterectomy was associated with a 61% lower risk of transient ischemic attack, transient monocular blindness, or stroke compared with medical therapy. However, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of stroke or death at 30 days.14
ACST (the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial),13 the largest study to compare carotid endarterectomy with drug therapy for asymptomatic stenosis, randomized 3,120 patients to surgery or drug therapy. The net 5-year risk of stroke was 6.4% with endarterectomy vs 11.8% with drug therapy (P < .0001). The rate of fatal stroke was also lower with endarterectomy: 2.1% vs 4.2% (P = .006).13
Comment. The results of these and other studies of endarterectomy vs medical therapy may not be applicable to current practice, since medical therapy has evolved and the risks with current drug therapy are likely much lower than seen in these trials, some of which began 2 decades ago. Another problem with interpreting these trials is that they excluded surgically “high-risk” patients, which limits the generalizability of the findings to this particular patient population.
The American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association have, on the basis of these trials, recommended carotid endarterectomy in patients with7,8,16:
Ipsilateral, symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 70% to 99% (class I, level of evidence A)
Symptomatic stenosis of 50% to 69%, depending on patient-specific factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities
High-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis, if the patients are carefully selected and the surgery is performed by surgeons with procedural morbidity and mortality rates of less than 3% (class I, level of evidence A).
In all cases, treatment should be individualized according to the patient’s comorbid conditions and preferences, with a thorough discussion of risks and benefits (Table 1).7,8,16
The case for percutaneous intervention
While carotid endarterectomy is proven to be more efficacious than medical management in certain patient subsets, studies favoring surgery over medical therapy have been criticized because they excluded patients with significant comorbidities. In addition, surgery has been associated with significant cardiovascular events, wound complications, and cranial nerve damage, and it requires general anesthesia in most cases.12,17–19 These and other factors spurred the development of less invasive, percutaneous approaches for patients with substantial comorbidities.
So far, several trials have investigated carotid angioplasty with or without stents and with or without devices to capture distal emboli. This interest set the stage for CREST.20,21
Initial attempts at angioplasty without distal protection were not very successful. A meta-analysis of nonrandomized trials that included 714 patients from the initial 13 studies of angioplasty (with or without stenting) and 6,970 patients from 20 studies of carotid endarterectomy found angioplasty to be possibly associated with higher rates of stroke within 30 days of the procedure.20
With improvements in technology, routine use of embolic protection devices, more experience, and better selection of patients, the outcome of carotid stenting has improved. In fact, a meta-analysis comparing stenting without an embolic protection device (26 trials with 2,357 patients) vs stenting with an embolic protection device (11 trials with 839 patients) showed that embolic protection led to significantly better outcomes with fewer strokes—outcomes arguably similar to those of carotid endarterectomy.21
SAPPHIRE (the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy trial)22 was the only completed US trial until CREST that compared carotid artery stenting with distal protection against surgery. It included 334 high-risk patients with either symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater.
The results suggested that the outcomes with stenting with embolic protection were in fact similar to those of endarterectomy, with possibly fewer complications.23 The benefit persisted up to 2 years.22
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the basis of these data, approved the use of stenting with distal protection for high-risk patients, and the CMS reimburses for symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater and for asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater as long as the patient is enrolled in a registry.
SPACE (the Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients trial),24 conducted in Germany, included 1,214 patients with symptomatic stenosis of at least 50%. Results were similar in terms of the combined primary end point of stroke or death at 30 days. However, the results were not similar enough to prove that stenting is not inferior to surgery, according to preset study criteria.
EVA-3S (the Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial),25 in France, evaluated 527 patients with symptomatic carotid disease (stenosis ≥ 60%), but was terminated early due to significantly higher rates of death or stroke at 30 days in the stenting group.
Comment. SPACE and EVA-3S have been widely criticized for not mandating the use of an embolic protection device (used in 27% of cases in SPACE and in 91.9% of cases in EVA-3S). Questions were also raised about the experience level of the operators who performed the carotid stenting: up to 39% of the primary operators involved in stent placement were trainees.26 Also, myocardial infarction (MI), an important complication of carotid endarterectomy, was not included in the primary end point.
ICSS (the International Carotid Stenting Study)27 compared stenting with endarterectomy in 1,713 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of greater than 50%. The primary end point was the rate of fatal or disabling stroke at 3 years.
An interim safety analysis at 120 days of follow-up showed the primary end point had occurred in 4.0% of stenting cases vs 3.2% of endarterectomy cases, a difference that was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–2.11). However, the risk of any stroke was higher with stenting, with a rate of 7.7% vs 4.1% in the surgical group—a statistically significant difference (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27–2.89).
In a substudy of ICSS,28 the investigators corroborated these findings, using magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate for new ischemic brain lesions periprocedurally. They found more new ischemic brain lesions in patients who underwent stenting than in patients who underwent surgery—a statistically significant finding.
Comment. ICSS had limitations: eg, it included only patients with symptoms, and the training for the stenting procedure was not standardized. Furthermore, the use of embolic protection devices was not mandated in stenting procedures.
Because of the controversial and incongruous findings of the above trials, there has been much anticipation for further large, appropriately conducted, randomized controlled trials such as CREST.
CREST STUDY DESIGN
CREST was a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication. Assignment to stenting or surgery occurred in a one-to-one fashion, and patients were stratified by medical center and symptomatic status.
Conducted at 108 sites in the United States and nine sites in Canada, CREST was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and by the manufacturer of the catheter and stent delivery and embolic protection systems. The manufacturer’s representative held a nonvoting position on the executive committee and reviewed the manuscript of the results before submission.
CREST included patients with or without symptoms
CREST was initially designed to compare carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptoms, but enrollment was later extended to patients without symptoms.
Patients with symptoms were included if they had stenosis of at least 50% on angiography, at least 70% on ultrasonography, or at least 70% on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if stenosis on ultrasonography was 50% to 69%. Carotid artery stenosis was considered symptomatic if the patient had a transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax, or minor disabling stroke in the hemisphere supplied by the target vessel within 180 days of randomization.
Patients without symptoms were eligible if they had at least 60% stenosis on angiography, at least 70% stenosis on ultrasonography, or at least 80% stenosis on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if the stenosis was 50% to 69% on ultrasonography.
Other eligibility criteria included favorable anatomy and clinical stability for both stenting and surgical procedures.
Exclusion criteria were evolving stroke, history of major stroke, chronic or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy, MI within the previous 30 days, and unstable angina.
Patients received antiplatelet agents
Patients undergoing stenting received aspirin and clopidogrel (Plavix) before and up to 30 days after the procedure. Continuation of antiplatelet therapy was recommended beyond 1 month.
Patients undergoing endarterectomy received aspirin before surgery and continued to receive aspirin for at least 1 year.
Alternatives to aspirin in both groups were ticlopidine (Ticlid), clopidogrel, or aspirin with extended-release dipyridamole (Aggrenox).
End points: Stroke, MI, death
The primary end point was a composite of periprocedural clinical stroke (any type), MI, or death, and of ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years after the procedure. Secondary analyses were also planned for evaluation of treatment modification by age, symptom status, and sex.
Stroke was defined as any acute neurologic ischemic event lasting at least 24 hours with focal signs and symptoms.
Two separate definitions were applied to distinguish major stroke from nonmajor stroke. Major stroke was defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score greater than 9 or records suggesting that the event was a disabling stroke if admitted to another facility. Nonmajor stroke included an event that did not fit these criteria. The stroke review process was initiated with a significant neurologic event, a positive transient ischemia attack or stroke questionnaire, or a two-point or greater increase in the NIHSS score.
MI was defined as a combination of an elevation of cardiac enzymes to at least twice the laboratory upper limit of normal, as well as clinical signs suggesting MI or electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia.29
Stroke was adjudicated by two independent neurologists, and MI was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists blinded to treatment group assignment.
The Rankin scale, the transient ischemic attack and stroke questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Survey were also used to assess for disability and quality of life in long-term follow-up.
Intention-to-treat analysis
Intention-to-treat survival analysis was used along with time-to-event statistical modeling with adjustment for major baseline covariates. Differences in outcomes were assessed, and a noninferiority analysis was performed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were constructed of the proportion of patients remaining free of the composite end point at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter, and of the associated confidence intervals. The hazard ratios between groups were estimated after adjustment for important covariates.
Most patients enrolled were available for analysis
From December 2000 to July 2008, 2,522 patients were enrolled; 1,271 were assigned to stenting, and 1,251 were assigned to surgery. After randomization, 2.8% of the patients assigned to stenting withdrew consent, 5.7% underwent surgery, and 2.6% were lost to follow-up. Of those assigned to surgery, 5.1% withdrew consent, 1.0% underwent stenting, and 3.8% were lost to follow-up.
A ‘conventional-risk’ patient population
The trial sought to include a “conventional-risk” patient population to make the study more applicable to real-world practice. The mean age was 69 years in both groups. Of the 2,522 patients enrolled:
35% were women
47% had asymptomatic carotid disease
86% had carotid stenosis of 70% or greater
86% had hypertension
30% had diabetes mellitus
83% had hyperlipidemia
26% were current smokers
42% had a history of cardiovascular disease
21% had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
The only statistically significant difference in measured baseline variables between the two treatment groups was a slightly higher rate of dyslipidemia in the group undergoing surgery.
The interventionalists and surgeons were highly experienced
Operators performing stenting underwent a lead-in phase of training, with close supervision and scrutiny before eligibility. Of patients undergoing stenting, 96.1% also received an embolic protection device. Antiplatelet therapy was continued in 99% of the patients.
The surgeons performing endarterectomy were experienced and had documented low complication rates. General anesthesia was used in 90% of surgical patients. Shunts were used during surgery in 57%, and patches were used in 62%. After endarterectomy, 91% of the patients received antiplatelet therapy.
CREST STUDY RESULTS: STENTING WAS AS GOOD AS SURGERY
Periprocedural outcomes
Stroke, MI, or death: 5.2% with stenting vs 4.5% with surgery, HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82–1.68, P = .38
Stroke: 4.1% vs 2.3%, HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.14–2.82, P = .01
Major ipsilateral stroke: 0.9% vs 0.3%, HR 2.67, 95% CI 0.85–8.40, P = .09.
MI: 1.1% vs 2.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26–0.94, P = .03
Cranial nerve palsy: 0.3% vs 4.8%, HR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.18, P < .0001 (Table 2).
Outcomes at 4 years
Brott TG, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:11–23. Copyright 2010, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the primary outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization) for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy.The primary end point (periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after the procedure): 7.2% with stenting vs 6.8% with surgery, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81–1.51, P = .51. A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar findings with statistically similar outcomes (Figure 2).
Ipsilateral stroke: 2.0% vs 2.4%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50–1.76, P = .85.
The primary outcome was analyzed for interactions of baseline variables, and no effect was detected for symptomatic status or sex. There was a suggestion of an interaction with age, with older patients (over age 70) benefiting more from endarterectomy.
Quality-of-life indices showed that both major and minor strokes were likely to produce long-term physical limitations, with minor stroke associated with worse mental and physical health at 1 year. The effect of periprocedural MI on long-term physical and mental health was less certain. The increased incidence of cranial nerve palsy noted with endarterectomy has been found before and has had no effect on quality of life.
WHAT DO THE CREST FINDINGS MEAN?
CREST is the largest trial to date to compare stenting and surgery. It is an important addition to the literature, not only because of its size, but also because it focused on a real-world patient population. For this reason, its results are more applicable to patients seen in primary care clinics, ie, with peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and smoking.
As noted, previous studies of endarterectomy had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which selected against patients at high surgical risk. Therefore, the CREST findings are of greater relevance when comparing stenting and endarterectomy.
Periprocedural and long-term neurologic outcomes
CREST showed similar findings for the composite end point of periprocedural stroke, death, or MI (ie, within 30 days of the procedure) and long-term stroke, establishing similar outcomes in patients undergoing stenting and surgery.
However, an analysis of the individual components of the composite end point showed significant differences between the two treatments. The risk of ipsilateral periprocedural stroke was higher with stenting; these events were defined as nonmajor by NIHSS criteria. The risk of contralateral stroke was similar and low with each treatment.
While the increased risk of periprocedural ipsilateral stroke was not synonymous with an increased risk of major stroke, post hoc analysis showed that any stroke was associated with decreased physical and mental health at 1 year. Therefore, patients who had even a minor stroke did worse from a physical and mental standpoint, a finding that argues for the superiority of surgery in selected patients at risk of periprocedural stroke.
If periprocedural stroke is excluded, the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke was similar for each treatment, and extremely low (2% for stenting, 2.4% for surgery). Despite this, given the importance of periprocedural minor and major stroke, better predictive models are needed to identify patients at risk of procedural neurologic events. These prediction models will allow better patient selection.
The CREST data and medical therapy
The rates of stroke in this trial were similar to those observed with current medical treatment (approximately 1% per year), especially for patients with asymptomatic disease. Such findings introduce fresh controversy in the necessity of performing either procedure for this patient subset and may lead to further studies evaluating current medical therapy vs intervention.
Periprocedural myocardial infarction
Vascular surgery has long been associated with high cardiovascular risk, especially an increased risk of periprocedural MI.30 Findings from CREST provide further evidence of the risk of MI with endarterectomy in a real-world patient population. Given the evidence of a strong correlation between periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevations and adverse outcomes, the increased incidence of periprocedural MI is worrisome.31 As with risk assessment for periprocedural stroke, better predictive models are needed for patients at risk of cardiovascular events during endarterectomy.
Procedural complications
Carotid endarterectomy entails incisions in the neck with disruption of tissue planes, as opposed to catheter entry site wounds with stenting. The more invasive nature of endarterectomy thus carries a higher risk of wound complications. In fact, in the NASCET trial, the risk of wound complications was 9.3%.10,19 In CREST, surgery carried a higher risk of wound complications compared with stenting (42 vs 0 cases), although stenting involved more periprocedural transfusions, presumably due to retroperitoneal bleeding in four patients.
Use of general anesthesia is also associated with adverse outcomes.17,18 In CREST, 90% of endarterectomy procedures required general anesthesia, whereas none of the stenting procedures required this.
Cranial nerve palsy is an often overlooked but real complication after these procedures. Cranial nerve palsies can lead to vocal, swallowing, and sensory problems that can have a transient or permanent impact on quality of life. In CREST, as in EVA-3S, SAPPHIRE, and ICSS, this risk was substantially higher with surgery,23,25,27 although the long-term consequences of these palsies were not found to affect quality of life at 1 year of follow-up.
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.
The CREST data suggest that interventions for carotid artery stenosis should only be performed by rigorously trained, experienced personnel at high-volume centers, as this provided lower event rates compared with previous studies. Additional data should also help identify those at risk of periprocedural stroke and MI, thereby helping to match the patient to the most appropriate procedure. The pros and cons of surgery and stenting are shown in Table 3.1,10,23,25,27
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.
For patients with carotid artery stenosis, percutaneous intervention with stenting is as good as surgery (carotid endarterectomy). This was the major finding of the recently completed Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)1—with some qualifications.
CREST is the latest in a series of clinical trials of treatment of carotid stenosis that have generated reams of numbers and much debate. The topic of surgery vs percutaneous intervention is a moving target, as techniques evolve and improve. We believe the CREST results are valuable and should help inform decisions about treatment in the “real world.”
In this article, we offer a critical review of CREST, with a careful evaluation of its methods, results, and conclusions.
AN EVOLVING FIELD
Despite improvements in diagnosis and management, stroke remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and death in the United States, with an annual incidence of 780,000 cases and 270,000 deaths.2,3
Figure 1. Carotid endarterectomy has long been an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater. However, percutaneous carotid artery angioplasty with stenting and placement of an embolic protection device is gaining ground as a reasonable, safe, less invasive alternative.From 10% to 30% of ischemic strokes are due to emboli from the carotid arteries.4–6 Carotid endarterectomy is an established treatment in selected patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 60% or greater.7,8 However, percutaneous techniques such as carotid artery angioplasty with stenting have improved, making them a viable, less invasive option (Figure 1).
Randomized trials of stenting have had mixed results, leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to adopt strict reimbursement policies. Currently, CMS reimburses for stenting only in symptomatic cases with at least 50% carotid artery stenosis. It also reimburses for stenting in asymptomatic cases in patients at high risk with 80% or greater stenosis, but only if the patients are enrolled in ongoing clinical trials or registries.
CREST compared stenting with endarterectomy and provided important insights into each approach.1
BEFORE CREST
Endarterectomy is superior to medical therapy for symptomatic stenosis
First described in 1953, carotid endarterectomy became the most widely used invasive treatment for significant carotid stenosis.9 Several studies have described patient subsets that benefit from this procedure.
NASCET (the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial)10 assigned 2,226 patients with symptomatic stenosis (transient ischemic attack or stroke within the past 180 days) to medical management or endarterectomy.
Surgery was associated with a 65% lower rate of ipsilateral cerebral events in patients with 70% or greater stenosis.10 Surgery was also found to be superior in patients with moderate disease (50% to 69% stenosis), but the difference only approached statistical significance. In patients with stenosis of less than 50%, the outcomes were similar with endarterectomy and medical management.11
ECST (the European Carotid Surgery Trial)12 included a similar population of 3,024 patients. Those with high-grade disease (stenosis ≥ 80%) had significantly better outcomes with endarterectomy, but in those with stenosis less than 70%, surgery was no better than drug therapy.
Comment. NASCET and ECST taught us that endarterectomy is clearly superior to medical therapy in patients with severe symptomatic carotid disease. However, both trials excluded patients at high surgical risk, eg, those with severe coronary artery disease, kidney disease, or heart failure. Additionally, medical management was not aggressive by today’s standards in terms of control of blood pressure and hyperlipidemia, and this could have skewed the results in favor of carotid endarterectomy.
The case for carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis
Endarterectomy has also been compared with drug therapy for asymp tomatic carotid artery stenosis in several trials.13–15
ACAS (the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study)15 assigned 1,662 patients who had no symptoms and had at least 60% carotid artery stenosis to endarterectomy or to medical management, and found a relative risk reduction of 53% in favor of surgery.15
The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group14 corroborated these results in 444 patients with asymptomatic stenosis of greater than 50%. Endarterectomy was associated with a 61% lower risk of transient ischemic attack, transient monocular blindness, or stroke compared with medical therapy. However, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of stroke or death at 30 days.14
ACST (the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial),13 the largest study to compare carotid endarterectomy with drug therapy for asymptomatic stenosis, randomized 3,120 patients to surgery or drug therapy. The net 5-year risk of stroke was 6.4% with endarterectomy vs 11.8% with drug therapy (P < .0001). The rate of fatal stroke was also lower with endarterectomy: 2.1% vs 4.2% (P = .006).13
Comment. The results of these and other studies of endarterectomy vs medical therapy may not be applicable to current practice, since medical therapy has evolved and the risks with current drug therapy are likely much lower than seen in these trials, some of which began 2 decades ago. Another problem with interpreting these trials is that they excluded surgically “high-risk” patients, which limits the generalizability of the findings to this particular patient population.
The American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association have, on the basis of these trials, recommended carotid endarterectomy in patients with7,8,16:
Ipsilateral, symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 70% to 99% (class I, level of evidence A)
Symptomatic stenosis of 50% to 69%, depending on patient-specific factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities
High-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis, if the patients are carefully selected and the surgery is performed by surgeons with procedural morbidity and mortality rates of less than 3% (class I, level of evidence A).
In all cases, treatment should be individualized according to the patient’s comorbid conditions and preferences, with a thorough discussion of risks and benefits (Table 1).7,8,16
The case for percutaneous intervention
While carotid endarterectomy is proven to be more efficacious than medical management in certain patient subsets, studies favoring surgery over medical therapy have been criticized because they excluded patients with significant comorbidities. In addition, surgery has been associated with significant cardiovascular events, wound complications, and cranial nerve damage, and it requires general anesthesia in most cases.12,17–19 These and other factors spurred the development of less invasive, percutaneous approaches for patients with substantial comorbidities.
So far, several trials have investigated carotid angioplasty with or without stents and with or without devices to capture distal emboli. This interest set the stage for CREST.20,21
Initial attempts at angioplasty without distal protection were not very successful. A meta-analysis of nonrandomized trials that included 714 patients from the initial 13 studies of angioplasty (with or without stenting) and 6,970 patients from 20 studies of carotid endarterectomy found angioplasty to be possibly associated with higher rates of stroke within 30 days of the procedure.20
With improvements in technology, routine use of embolic protection devices, more experience, and better selection of patients, the outcome of carotid stenting has improved. In fact, a meta-analysis comparing stenting without an embolic protection device (26 trials with 2,357 patients) vs stenting with an embolic protection device (11 trials with 839 patients) showed that embolic protection led to significantly better outcomes with fewer strokes—outcomes arguably similar to those of carotid endarterectomy.21
SAPPHIRE (the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy trial)22 was the only completed US trial until CREST that compared carotid artery stenting with distal protection against surgery. It included 334 high-risk patients with either symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater.
The results suggested that the outcomes with stenting with embolic protection were in fact similar to those of endarterectomy, with possibly fewer complications.23 The benefit persisted up to 2 years.22
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the basis of these data, approved the use of stenting with distal protection for high-risk patients, and the CMS reimburses for symptomatic stenosis of 50% or greater and for asymptomatic stenosis of 80% or greater as long as the patient is enrolled in a registry.
SPACE (the Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients trial),24 conducted in Germany, included 1,214 patients with symptomatic stenosis of at least 50%. Results were similar in terms of the combined primary end point of stroke or death at 30 days. However, the results were not similar enough to prove that stenting is not inferior to surgery, according to preset study criteria.
EVA-3S (the Endarterectomy Versus Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial),25 in France, evaluated 527 patients with symptomatic carotid disease (stenosis ≥ 60%), but was terminated early due to significantly higher rates of death or stroke at 30 days in the stenting group.
Comment. SPACE and EVA-3S have been widely criticized for not mandating the use of an embolic protection device (used in 27% of cases in SPACE and in 91.9% of cases in EVA-3S). Questions were also raised about the experience level of the operators who performed the carotid stenting: up to 39% of the primary operators involved in stent placement were trainees.26 Also, myocardial infarction (MI), an important complication of carotid endarterectomy, was not included in the primary end point.
ICSS (the International Carotid Stenting Study)27 compared stenting with endarterectomy in 1,713 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of greater than 50%. The primary end point was the rate of fatal or disabling stroke at 3 years.
An interim safety analysis at 120 days of follow-up showed the primary end point had occurred in 4.0% of stenting cases vs 3.2% of endarterectomy cases, a difference that was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–2.11). However, the risk of any stroke was higher with stenting, with a rate of 7.7% vs 4.1% in the surgical group—a statistically significant difference (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27–2.89).
In a substudy of ICSS,28 the investigators corroborated these findings, using magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate for new ischemic brain lesions periprocedurally. They found more new ischemic brain lesions in patients who underwent stenting than in patients who underwent surgery—a statistically significant finding.
Comment. ICSS had limitations: eg, it included only patients with symptoms, and the training for the stenting procedure was not standardized. Furthermore, the use of embolic protection devices was not mandated in stenting procedures.
Because of the controversial and incongruous findings of the above trials, there has been much anticipation for further large, appropriately conducted, randomized controlled trials such as CREST.
CREST STUDY DESIGN
CREST was a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication. Assignment to stenting or surgery occurred in a one-to-one fashion, and patients were stratified by medical center and symptomatic status.
Conducted at 108 sites in the United States and nine sites in Canada, CREST was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and by the manufacturer of the catheter and stent delivery and embolic protection systems. The manufacturer’s representative held a nonvoting position on the executive committee and reviewed the manuscript of the results before submission.
CREST included patients with or without symptoms
CREST was initially designed to compare carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptoms, but enrollment was later extended to patients without symptoms.
Patients with symptoms were included if they had stenosis of at least 50% on angiography, at least 70% on ultrasonography, or at least 70% on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if stenosis on ultrasonography was 50% to 69%. Carotid artery stenosis was considered symptomatic if the patient had a transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax, or minor disabling stroke in the hemisphere supplied by the target vessel within 180 days of randomization.
Patients without symptoms were eligible if they had at least 60% stenosis on angiography, at least 70% stenosis on ultrasonography, or at least 80% stenosis on computed tomographic angiography or magnetic resonance angiography if the stenosis was 50% to 69% on ultrasonography.
Other eligibility criteria included favorable anatomy and clinical stability for both stenting and surgical procedures.
Exclusion criteria were evolving stroke, history of major stroke, chronic or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy, MI within the previous 30 days, and unstable angina.
Patients received antiplatelet agents
Patients undergoing stenting received aspirin and clopidogrel (Plavix) before and up to 30 days after the procedure. Continuation of antiplatelet therapy was recommended beyond 1 month.
Patients undergoing endarterectomy received aspirin before surgery and continued to receive aspirin for at least 1 year.
Alternatives to aspirin in both groups were ticlopidine (Ticlid), clopidogrel, or aspirin with extended-release dipyridamole (Aggrenox).
End points: Stroke, MI, death
The primary end point was a composite of periprocedural clinical stroke (any type), MI, or death, and of ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years after the procedure. Secondary analyses were also planned for evaluation of treatment modification by age, symptom status, and sex.
Stroke was defined as any acute neurologic ischemic event lasting at least 24 hours with focal signs and symptoms.
Two separate definitions were applied to distinguish major stroke from nonmajor stroke. Major stroke was defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score greater than 9 or records suggesting that the event was a disabling stroke if admitted to another facility. Nonmajor stroke included an event that did not fit these criteria. The stroke review process was initiated with a significant neurologic event, a positive transient ischemia attack or stroke questionnaire, or a two-point or greater increase in the NIHSS score.
MI was defined as a combination of an elevation of cardiac enzymes to at least twice the laboratory upper limit of normal, as well as clinical signs suggesting MI or electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia.29
Stroke was adjudicated by two independent neurologists, and MI was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists blinded to treatment group assignment.
The Rankin scale, the transient ischemic attack and stroke questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Survey were also used to assess for disability and quality of life in long-term follow-up.
Intention-to-treat analysis
Intention-to-treat survival analysis was used along with time-to-event statistical modeling with adjustment for major baseline covariates. Differences in outcomes were assessed, and a noninferiority analysis was performed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were constructed of the proportion of patients remaining free of the composite end point at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter, and of the associated confidence intervals. The hazard ratios between groups were estimated after adjustment for important covariates.
Most patients enrolled were available for analysis
From December 2000 to July 2008, 2,522 patients were enrolled; 1,271 were assigned to stenting, and 1,251 were assigned to surgery. After randomization, 2.8% of the patients assigned to stenting withdrew consent, 5.7% underwent surgery, and 2.6% were lost to follow-up. Of those assigned to surgery, 5.1% withdrew consent, 1.0% underwent stenting, and 3.8% were lost to follow-up.
A ‘conventional-risk’ patient population
The trial sought to include a “conventional-risk” patient population to make the study more applicable to real-world practice. The mean age was 69 years in both groups. Of the 2,522 patients enrolled:
35% were women
47% had asymptomatic carotid disease
86% had carotid stenosis of 70% or greater
86% had hypertension
30% had diabetes mellitus
83% had hyperlipidemia
26% were current smokers
42% had a history of cardiovascular disease
21% had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
The only statistically significant difference in measured baseline variables between the two treatment groups was a slightly higher rate of dyslipidemia in the group undergoing surgery.
The interventionalists and surgeons were highly experienced
Operators performing stenting underwent a lead-in phase of training, with close supervision and scrutiny before eligibility. Of patients undergoing stenting, 96.1% also received an embolic protection device. Antiplatelet therapy was continued in 99% of the patients.
The surgeons performing endarterectomy were experienced and had documented low complication rates. General anesthesia was used in 90% of surgical patients. Shunts were used during surgery in 57%, and patches were used in 62%. After endarterectomy, 91% of the patients received antiplatelet therapy.
CREST STUDY RESULTS: STENTING WAS AS GOOD AS SURGERY
Periprocedural outcomes
Stroke, MI, or death: 5.2% with stenting vs 4.5% with surgery, HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82–1.68, P = .38
Stroke: 4.1% vs 2.3%, HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.14–2.82, P = .01
Major ipsilateral stroke: 0.9% vs 0.3%, HR 2.67, 95% CI 0.85–8.40, P = .09.
MI: 1.1% vs 2.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26–0.94, P = .03
Cranial nerve palsy: 0.3% vs 4.8%, HR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.18, P < .0001 (Table 2).
Outcomes at 4 years
Brott TG, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:11–23. Copyright 2010, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the primary outcome (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization) for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy.The primary end point (periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after the procedure): 7.2% with stenting vs 6.8% with surgery, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81–1.51, P = .51. A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar findings with statistically similar outcomes (Figure 2).
Ipsilateral stroke: 2.0% vs 2.4%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50–1.76, P = .85.
The primary outcome was analyzed for interactions of baseline variables, and no effect was detected for symptomatic status or sex. There was a suggestion of an interaction with age, with older patients (over age 70) benefiting more from endarterectomy.
Quality-of-life indices showed that both major and minor strokes were likely to produce long-term physical limitations, with minor stroke associated with worse mental and physical health at 1 year. The effect of periprocedural MI on long-term physical and mental health was less certain. The increased incidence of cranial nerve palsy noted with endarterectomy has been found before and has had no effect on quality of life.
WHAT DO THE CREST FINDINGS MEAN?
CREST is the largest trial to date to compare stenting and surgery. It is an important addition to the literature, not only because of its size, but also because it focused on a real-world patient population. For this reason, its results are more applicable to patients seen in primary care clinics, ie, with peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and smoking.
As noted, previous studies of endarterectomy had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which selected against patients at high surgical risk. Therefore, the CREST findings are of greater relevance when comparing stenting and endarterectomy.
Periprocedural and long-term neurologic outcomes
CREST showed similar findings for the composite end point of periprocedural stroke, death, or MI (ie, within 30 days of the procedure) and long-term stroke, establishing similar outcomes in patients undergoing stenting and surgery.
However, an analysis of the individual components of the composite end point showed significant differences between the two treatments. The risk of ipsilateral periprocedural stroke was higher with stenting; these events were defined as nonmajor by NIHSS criteria. The risk of contralateral stroke was similar and low with each treatment.
While the increased risk of periprocedural ipsilateral stroke was not synonymous with an increased risk of major stroke, post hoc analysis showed that any stroke was associated with decreased physical and mental health at 1 year. Therefore, patients who had even a minor stroke did worse from a physical and mental standpoint, a finding that argues for the superiority of surgery in selected patients at risk of periprocedural stroke.
If periprocedural stroke is excluded, the risk of long-term ipsilateral stroke was similar for each treatment, and extremely low (2% for stenting, 2.4% for surgery). Despite this, given the importance of periprocedural minor and major stroke, better predictive models are needed to identify patients at risk of procedural neurologic events. These prediction models will allow better patient selection.
The CREST data and medical therapy
The rates of stroke in this trial were similar to those observed with current medical treatment (approximately 1% per year), especially for patients with asymptomatic disease. Such findings introduce fresh controversy in the necessity of performing either procedure for this patient subset and may lead to further studies evaluating current medical therapy vs intervention.
Periprocedural myocardial infarction
Vascular surgery has long been associated with high cardiovascular risk, especially an increased risk of periprocedural MI.30 Findings from CREST provide further evidence of the risk of MI with endarterectomy in a real-world patient population. Given the evidence of a strong correlation between periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevations and adverse outcomes, the increased incidence of periprocedural MI is worrisome.31 As with risk assessment for periprocedural stroke, better predictive models are needed for patients at risk of cardiovascular events during endarterectomy.
Procedural complications
Carotid endarterectomy entails incisions in the neck with disruption of tissue planes, as opposed to catheter entry site wounds with stenting. The more invasive nature of endarterectomy thus carries a higher risk of wound complications. In fact, in the NASCET trial, the risk of wound complications was 9.3%.10,19 In CREST, surgery carried a higher risk of wound complications compared with stenting (42 vs 0 cases), although stenting involved more periprocedural transfusions, presumably due to retroperitoneal bleeding in four patients.
Use of general anesthesia is also associated with adverse outcomes.17,18 In CREST, 90% of endarterectomy procedures required general anesthesia, whereas none of the stenting procedures required this.
Cranial nerve palsy is an often overlooked but real complication after these procedures. Cranial nerve palsies can lead to vocal, swallowing, and sensory problems that can have a transient or permanent impact on quality of life. In CREST, as in EVA-3S, SAPPHIRE, and ICSS, this risk was substantially higher with surgery,23,25,27 although the long-term consequences of these palsies were not found to affect quality of life at 1 year of follow-up.
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.
The CREST data suggest that interventions for carotid artery stenosis should only be performed by rigorously trained, experienced personnel at high-volume centers, as this provided lower event rates compared with previous studies. Additional data should also help identify those at risk of periprocedural stroke and MI, thereby helping to match the patient to the most appropriate procedure. The pros and cons of surgery and stenting are shown in Table 3.1,10,23,25,27
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.
References
Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med2010; 363:11–23.
Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation2006; 113:e85–e151.
Rosamond WD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults: 9-year follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke1999; 30:736–743.
Chaturvedi S, Bruno A, Feasby T, et al; Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Carotid endarterectomy—an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology2005; 65:794–801.
Howell GM, Makaroun MS, Chaer RA. Current management of extracranial carotid occlusive disease. J Am Coll Surg2009; 208:442–453.
Barnett HJ, Gunton RW, Eliasziw M, et al. Causes and severity of ischemic stroke in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis. JAMA2000; 283:1429–1436.
Biller J, Feinberg WM, Castaldo JE, et al. Guidelines for carotid endarterectomy: a statement for healthcare professionals from a Special Writing Group of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association. Circulation1998; 97:501–509.
Goldstein LB, Adams R, Alberts MJ, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Stroke Council. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council: cosponsored by the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Interdisciplinary Working Group; Cardiovascular Nursing Council; Clinical Cardiology Council; Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism Council; and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation2006; 113:e873–e923.
Strully KJ, Hurwitt ES, Blankenberg HW. Thrombo-endarterectomy for thrombosis of the internal carotid artery in the neck. J Neurosurg1953; 10:474–482.
Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1991; 325:445–453.
Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1998; 339:1415–1425.
Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet1998; 351:1379–1387.
Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al; MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet2004; 363:1491–1502.
Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, et al. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med1993; 328:221–227.
Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA1995; 273:1421–1428.
Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation2006; 113:e409–e449.
Watts K, Lin PH, Bush RL, et al. The impact of anesthetic modality on the outcome of carotid endarterectomy. Am J Surg2004; 188:741–747.
Weber CF, Friedl H, Hueppe M, et al. Impact of general versus local anesthesia on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction following carotid endarterectomy: GALA Study Subgroup Analysis. World J Surg2009; 33:1526–1532.
Ferguson GG, Eliasziw M, Barr HW, et al. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial: surgical results in 1415 patients. Stroke1999; 30:1751–1758.
Golledge J, Mitchell A, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. Systematic comparison of the early outcome of angioplasty and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid artery disease. Stroke2000; 31:1439–1443.
Kastrup A, Gröschel K, Krapf H, Brehm BR, Dichgans J, Schulz JB. Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke2003; 34:813–819.
Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al; SAPPHIRE Investigators. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2008; 358:1572–1579.
Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al; Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy Investigators. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2004; 351:1493–1501.
Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol2008; 7:893–902.
Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, et al; EVA-3S Investigators. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med2006; 355:1660–1771.
Roffi M, Sievert H, Gray WA, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus surgery: adequate comparisons?Lancet Neurol2010; 9:339–341.
International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators; Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2010; 375:985–997.
Bonati LH, Jongen LM, Haller S, et al; ICSS-MRI study group. New ischaemic brain lesions on MRI after stenting or endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a sub-study of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Lancet Neurol2010; 9:353–362.
Sheffet AJ, Roubin G, Howard G, et al. Design of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST). Int J Stroke2010; 5:40–46.
Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 50:e159–e241.
Bhatt DL, Topol EJ. Does creatinine kinase-MB elevation after percutaneous coronary intervention predict outcomes in 2005? Periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevation predicts adverse outcomes. Circulation2005; 112:906–915.
Hobson RW, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, et al; CREST. Credentialing of surgeons as interventionalists for carotid artery stenting: experience from the lead-in phase of CREST. J Vasc Surg2004; 40:952–957.
References
Brott TG, Hobson RW, Howard G, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med2010; 363:11–23.
Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation2006; 113:e85–e151.
Rosamond WD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults: 9-year follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke1999; 30:736–743.
Chaturvedi S, Bruno A, Feasby T, et al; Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Carotid endarterectomy—an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology2005; 65:794–801.
Howell GM, Makaroun MS, Chaer RA. Current management of extracranial carotid occlusive disease. J Am Coll Surg2009; 208:442–453.
Barnett HJ, Gunton RW, Eliasziw M, et al. Causes and severity of ischemic stroke in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis. JAMA2000; 283:1429–1436.
Biller J, Feinberg WM, Castaldo JE, et al. Guidelines for carotid endarterectomy: a statement for healthcare professionals from a Special Writing Group of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association. Circulation1998; 97:501–509.
Goldstein LB, Adams R, Alberts MJ, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Stroke Council. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council: cosponsored by the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Interdisciplinary Working Group; Cardiovascular Nursing Council; Clinical Cardiology Council; Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism Council; and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation2006; 113:e873–e923.
Strully KJ, Hurwitt ES, Blankenberg HW. Thrombo-endarterectomy for thrombosis of the internal carotid artery in the neck. J Neurosurg1953; 10:474–482.
Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1991; 325:445–453.
Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med1998; 339:1415–1425.
Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet1998; 351:1379–1387.
Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, et al; MRC Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet2004; 363:1491–1502.
Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, et al. Efficacy of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med1993; 328:221–227.
Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA1995; 273:1421–1428.
Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation2006; 113:e409–e449.
Watts K, Lin PH, Bush RL, et al. The impact of anesthetic modality on the outcome of carotid endarterectomy. Am J Surg2004; 188:741–747.
Weber CF, Friedl H, Hueppe M, et al. Impact of general versus local anesthesia on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction following carotid endarterectomy: GALA Study Subgroup Analysis. World J Surg2009; 33:1526–1532.
Ferguson GG, Eliasziw M, Barr HW, et al. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial: surgical results in 1415 patients. Stroke1999; 30:1751–1758.
Golledge J, Mitchell A, Greenhalgh RM, Davies AH. Systematic comparison of the early outcome of angioplasty and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid artery disease. Stroke2000; 31:1439–1443.
Kastrup A, Gröschel K, Krapf H, Brehm BR, Dichgans J, Schulz JB. Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke2003; 34:813–819.
Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al; SAPPHIRE Investigators. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2008; 358:1572–1579.
Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al; Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy Investigators. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med2004; 351:1493–1501.
Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol2008; 7:893–902.
Mas JL, Chatellier G, Beyssen B, et al; EVA-3S Investigators. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med2006; 355:1660–1771.
Roffi M, Sievert H, Gray WA, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus surgery: adequate comparisons?Lancet Neurol2010; 9:339–341.
International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators; Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2010; 375:985–997.
Bonati LH, Jongen LM, Haller S, et al; ICSS-MRI study group. New ischaemic brain lesions on MRI after stenting or endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a sub-study of the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS). Lancet Neurol2010; 9:353–362.
Sheffet AJ, Roubin G, Howard G, et al. Design of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST). Int J Stroke2010; 5:40–46.
Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 50:e159–e241.
Bhatt DL, Topol EJ. Does creatinine kinase-MB elevation after percutaneous coronary intervention predict outcomes in 2005? Periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevation predicts adverse outcomes. Circulation2005; 112:906–915.
Hobson RW, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, et al; CREST. Credentialing of surgeons as interventionalists for carotid artery stenting: experience from the lead-in phase of CREST. J Vasc Surg2004; 40:952–957.
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.
Brott TG, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:11–23. Copyright 2010, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
