TY - JOUR
T1 - Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2)
T2 - a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy
AU - ACST-2 Collaborative Group
AU - Halliday, Alison
AU - Bulbulia, Richard
AU - Bonati, Leo H.
AU - Chester, Johanna
AU - Cradduck-Bamford, Andrea
AU - Peto, Richard
AU - Pan, Hongchao
AU - Potter, John
AU - Henning Eckstein, Hans
AU - Farrell, Barbara
AU - Flather, Marcus
AU - Mansfield, Averil
AU - Mihaylova, Boby
AU - Rahimi, Kazim
AU - Simpson, David
AU - Thomas, Dafydd
AU - Sandercock, Peter
AU - Gray, Richard
AU - Casana, Renato
AU - Malloggi, Chiara
AU - Silani, Vincenzo
AU - Parati, Gianfranco
AU - Zini, Andrea
AU - Mazzaccaro, Daniela
AU - Meola, Giovanni
AU - Nano, Giovanni
AU - Occhiuto, Maria Teresa
AU - Stegher, Silvia
AU - Faggioli, Gianluca
AU - Gargiulo, Mauro
AU - Pini, Rodolfo
AU - Puddu, Giovanni Maria
AU - Vacirca, Andrea
AU - Bianchi, Paolo
AU - Fontana, Federico
AU - Civilini, Efrem
AU - Corbetta, Riccardo
AU - Quaretti, Pietro
AU - Thyrion, Federico Z.
AU - Cappelli, Alessandro
AU - Rossi, Alessandro
AU - Setacci, Francesco
AU - Palombo, Domenico
AU - Paolucci, Aldo
AU - Trimarchi, Santi
AU - Grassi, Viviana
AU - Burzotta, Francesco
AU - Tinelli, Giovanni
AU - Tshomba, Yamume
AU - Mariani, Luigi
N1 - Funding Information:
The chief acknowledgments are to the patients who agreed to participate, and the collaborating doctors and trial staff listed in the appendix (pp 3–8 ). ACST-2 is currently funded from the core support from the Medical Research Council (MRC), the British Heart Foundation, and Cancer Research UK for the University of Oxford's NDPH, and received grants from the BUPA Foundation (BUPAF/33a/05) and National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA06/301/233) until 2013. Analyses were performed in the MRC Population Health Research Unit, NDPH. AH is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and LHB by the Swiss Heart Foundation.
Funding Information:
The chief acknowledgments are to the patients who agreed to participate, and the collaborating doctors and trial staff listed in the appendix (pp 3?8). ACST-2 is currently funded from the core support from the Medical Research Council (MRC), the British Heart Foundation, and Cancer Research UK for the University of Oxford's NDPH, and received grants from the BUPA Foundation (BUPAF/33a/05) and National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA06/301/233) until 2013. Analyses were performed in the MRC Population Health Research Unit, NDPH. AH is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and LHB by the Swiss Heart Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license
PY - 2021/9/18
Y1 - 2021/9/18
N2 - Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.
AB - Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114686851&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114686851&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01910-3
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01910-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 34469763
AN - SCOPUS:85114686851
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 398
SP - 1065
EP - 1073
JO - The Lancet
JF - The Lancet
IS - 10305
ER -