Asymptomatic means no one knows about it so how can you even measure stroke risk?
Risk of stroke in relation to degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis
Published:March, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30484-1
Summary
Background
There
is uncertainty around which patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis
should be offered surgical intervention. Although stroke rates were
unrelated to the degree of stenosis in the medical-treatment-only groups
in previous randomised trials, this could simply reflect recruitment
bias and there has been no systematic analysis of a stenosis-risk
association in cohort studies. We aimed to establish whether there is
any association between the degree of asymptomatic stenosis and
ipsilateral stroke risk in patients on contemporary medical treatment.
Methods
We
did a prospective population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study;
OxVasc), and a systematic review and meta-analysis. All patients in
OxVasc with a recent suspected transient ischaemic attack or stroke,
between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, who had asymptomatic carotid
stenosis were included in these analyses. We commenced contemporary
medical treatment and determined ipsilateral stroke risk in this cohort
by face-to-face follow-up (to Oct 1, 2020). We also did a systematic
review and meta-analysis of all published studies (from Jan 1, 1980, to
Oct 1, 2020) reporting ipsilateral stroke risk in patients with
asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and included both
observational cohort studies and medical treatment groups of randomised
controlled trials if the number of patients exceeded 30, ipsilateral
stroke rates (or the raw data to calculate these) were provided, and
were published in English.
Findings
Between
April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, 2354 patients were consecutively
enrolled in OxVasc and 2178 patients underwent carotid imaging, of whom
207 had 50–99% asymptomatic stenosis of at least one carotid bifurcation
(mean age at imaging: 77·5 years [SD 10·3]; 88 [43%] women). The 5-year
ipsilateral stroke risk increased with the degree of stenosis; patients
with 70–99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral
stroke risk than did those with 50–69% stenosis (six [14·6%; 95% CI
3·5–25·7] of 53 patients vs none of 154; p<0·0001); and
patients with 80–99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year
ipsilateral stroke risk than did those with 50–79% stenosis (five
[18·3%; 7·7–29·9] of 34 patients vs one [1·0%; 0·0–2·9] of 173;
p<0·0001). Of the 56 studies identified in the systematic review
(comprising 13 717 patients), 23 provided data on ipsilateral stroke
risk fully stratified by degree of asymptomatic stenosis (in 8419
patients). Stroke risk was linearly associated with degree of
ipsilateral stenosis (p<0·0001); there was a higher risk in patients
with 70–99% stenosis than in those with 50–69% stenosis (386 of 3778
patients vs 181 of 3806 patients; odds ratio [OR] 2·1 [95% CI
1·7–2·5], p<0·0001; 15 cohort studies, three trials) and a higher
risk in patients with 80–99% stenosis than in those with 50–79% stenosis
(77 of 727 patients vs 167 of 3272 patients; OR 2·5 [1·8–3·5],
p<0·0001; 11 cohort studies). Heterogeneity in stroke risk between
studies for patients with severe versus moderate stenosis (phet<0·0001) was accounted for by highly discrepant results (pdiff<0·0001)
in the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy compared with
cohort studies (trials: pooled OR 0·8 [95% CI 0·6–1·2], phet=0·89; cohorts: 2·9 [2·3–3·7], phet=0·54).
Interpretation
Contrary
to the assumptions of current guidelines and the findings of subgroup
analyses of previous randomised controlled trials, the stroke risk
reported in cohort studies was highly dependent on the degree of
asymptomatic carotid stenosis, suggesting that the benefit of
endarterectomy might be underestimated in patients with severe stenosis.
Conversely, the 5-year stroke risk was low for patients with moderate
stenosis on contemporary medical treatment, calling into question any
benefit from revascu
No comments:
Post a Comment