Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) of the Carotid Artery Concurrent with Stenting

CMS NCA document | source_status=Closed | review_type=6th Recon | public_comment_open=False | document_id=CAG-00085R6

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has decided to make no changes to the national coverage determination (NCD) for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7). The NCD for PTA of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting continues to provide coverage for the certain patient populations under specific conditions as described below. Patients who are at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and who also have symptomatic carotid artery stenosis > 70%. Coverage is limited to procedures performed using FDA approved carotid artery stenting systems and embolic protection devices; Patients who are at high risk for CEA and have symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between 50% and 70%, in accordance with the Category B IDE clinical trials regulation (42 CFR 405.201), as a routine cost under the clinical trials policy (Medicare NCD Manual 310.1), or in accordance with the National Coverage Determination on CAS post approval studies (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B3); Patients who are at high risk for CEA and have asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis > 80%, in accordance with the Category B IDE clinical trials regulation (42 CFR 405.201), as a routine cost under the clinical trials policy (Medicare NCD Manual 310.1), or in accordance with the National Coverage Determination on CAS post approval studies (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B3). CAS is only covered when used with an embolic protection device and is, therefore, not covered if deployment of the distal embolic protection device is not technically possible. CAS procedures performed on symptomatic patients at high risk for CEA with ≥ 70% stenosis must be performed in facilities approved by CMS to perform CAS. The complete NCD language can be found in Appendix B of this decision memorandum. We are aware of other data that has yet to be published and strongly urge that publication at the soonest possible time. We will work with any requestor as soon as that data is published to determine the need for an expedited review and reconsideration.

Decision Memo: To: Administrative File: CAG-00085R6 Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) of the Carotid Artery Concurrent with Stenting From: Steve Phurrough, MD, MPA Director, Coverage and Analysis Group Marcel Salive, MD, MPH Director, Division of Medical and Surgical Services Sarah McClain, MHS Lead Analyst Lawrence Schott, MD, MS Lead Medical Officer Subject: Coverage Decision Memorandum for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) of the Carotid Artery Concurrent with Stenting Date: October 14, 2008 I. Decision The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has decided to make no changes to the national coverage determination (NCD) for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7). The NCD for PTA of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting continues to provide coverage for the certain patient populations under specific conditions as described below. Patients who are at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and who also have symptomatic carotid artery stenosis > 70%. Coverage is limited to procedures performed using FDA approved carotid artery stenting systems and embolic protection devices; Patients who are at high risk for CEA and have symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between 50% and 70%, in accordance with the Category B IDE clinical trials regulation (42 CFR 405.201), as a routine cost under the clinical trials policy (Medicare NCD Manual 310.1), or in accordance with the National Coverage Determination on CAS post approval studies (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B3); Patients who are at high risk for CEA and have asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis > 80%, in accordance with the Category B IDE clinical trials regulation (42 CFR 405.201), as a routine cost under the clinical trials policy (Medicare NCD Manual 310.1), or in accordance with the National Coverage Determination on CAS post approval studies (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B3). CAS is only covered when used with an embolic protection device and is, therefore, not covered if deployment of the distal embolic protection device is not technically possible. CAS procedures performed on symptomatic patients at high risk for CEA with ≥ 70% stenosis must be performed in facilities approved by CMS to perform CAS. The complete NCD language can be found in Appendix B of this decision memorandum. We are aware of other data that has yet to be published and strongly urge that publication at the soonest possible time. We will work with any requestor as soon as that data is published to determine the need for an expedited review and reconsideration. II. Background Every year about 780,000 people in the United States experience new or recurrent stroke. About 600,000 are first attacks and 180,000 are recurrent attacks (Rosamond et al., 2008). The term stroke refers to a “group of cerebrovascular disorders in which part of the brain is transiently or permanently affected by ischemic or hemorrhage, or in which one or more blood vessels of the brain are primarily affected by a pathologic process, or both” (Topol, 2002). Of all strokes 87% are ischemic, 10% are intracerebral hemorrhage and 3% are subarachnoid hemorrhage (Rosamond et al., 2008). Although carotid artery stenosis is an important predictor for stroke, it has been estimated that 20% and 45% of all strokes in patients with 70-99% carotid stenosis are unrelated to the carotid disease (Barnett, 2000). In patients whose stroke is not due to carotid artery disease, aggressive medical therapy would be the most important treatment since surgical intervention would not reduce these strokes. Treatment strategies for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis include aggressive medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Aggressive medical therapy may involve the utilization of anti-platelet agents, statins, antihypertensives, anti-ischemic perioperative beta blockers, risk factor modification (including smoking cessation and diabetic control) plus lifestyle modification (exercise). CEA is a surgical procedure used to prevent stroke in which a surgeon removes fatty deposits or ulcerated and stenotic plaques from the carotid arteries, the two main arteries in the neck supplying blood to the brain. CAS is performed with a catheter, usually inserted through the femoral artery, and threaded up to the carotid artery beyond the area of narrowing. A distal embolic protection device or filter is usually placed first to catch emboli or debris that may dislodge during the procedure. A self-expandable or balloon-expandable, metal mesh stent is then placed to widen the stenosis and the protection device is removed. For patients with carotid artery stenosis, the decision to treat with CEA or CAS may be influenced by anatomical factors. Certain anatomical lesions may place patients at high risk for CEA while other lesions may make CAS much more risky On December 14, 2007, CMS received a joint request from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN) and the Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM) to revise current Medicare policy to extend coverage to “patients who are at high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) due to defined anatomic factors, and who have either symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50 - 69% (or greater) or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of ≥ 80%.” The requestors define anatomic factors as: Previous CEA with recurrent stenosis, Prior radiation therapy to neck, Previous ablative neck surgery (e.g., radical neck dissection, laryngectomy), Surgically inaccessible carotid lesion located above cervical vertebra C2, Common carotid artery lesion below the clavicle, Contralateral vocal cord palsy, Presence of tracheostomy stoma, Contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion, Immobile neck, and Severe tandem lesions. The requestors stated that “There is compelling clinical rationale and need for patients in the anatomic group defined above to have access to CAS. These patients do not have an acceptable surgical option, due to their anatomic conditions, which inherently preclude or severely limit safe surgical access.” They also “recommend that CMS’s new coverage policy mandate participation in robust data registries such as NCDR’s CARE registry (see: http://www.accncdr.com/webncdr/CarotidStent/Default.aspx). High quality audited data generated by such registries will help CMS assess the wisdom of our requested coverage expansion and may provide some guidance for future decisions regarding coverage.” III. History of Medicare Coverage Over the past seven years, Medicare has expanded coverage for PTA and stenting of the carotid artery. Medicare first covered PTA of the carotid artery concurrent with stent placement in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved protocols governing Category B Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) clinical trials and later in FDA required post approval studies (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B2, B3). Effective March 17, 2005, Medicare expanded coverage for PTA and stenting of the carotid artery when performed on patients at high risk for CEA who also have symptomatic carotid artery stenosis ≥ 70% only when performed in a CMS approved facility for CAS with FDA-approved carotid artery stenting systems and embolic protection devices. Symptoms of carotid artery stenosis include carotid transient ischemic attack (TIA) (distal focal neurological dysfunction persisting less than 24 hours), non-disabling stroke (Modified Rankin Scale score < 3 with symptoms for 24 hours or more), and transient monocular blindness (amaurosis fugax) (Medicare NCD Manual 20.7B4). Effective April 30, 2007, Medicare maintained the existing coverage policy and included detailed facility recertification instructions in the NCD. Medicare’s NCD for PTA concurrent with carotid stenting can be found in NCD Manual 20.7. Medicare’s NCD for PTA concurrent with carotid stenting in FDA approved post approval studies can also be found in NCD Manual 20.7B3. Benefit Category Determination For an item or service to be covered by the Medicare program, it must meet one of the statutorily defined benefit categories outlined in the Social Security Act. PTA of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting, at a minimum, falls under the benefit categories set forth in section §1861(b) (inpatient hospital services), a part A benefit under §1812(a)(1) and §1861(s)(1) (physician services), a part B benefit. This may not be an exhaustive list of all applicable Medicare benefit categories for this item or service. IV. Timeline of Recent Activities Date Action February 1, 2008 CMS accepted formal request and initiated review. March 2, 2008 Initial 30-day public comment period closed. June 11, 2008 CMS received an additional request to "consider a requirement that the national society registries serve as the CAS outcomes reporting mechanism, with simultaneous discontinuation of the current CMS CD-based data submission system." July 31, 2008 Proposed decision memorandum posted; 30-day comment period begins. October 14, 2008 Final decision memorandum posted. NCD becomes effective. V. FDA Status There are currently six carotid stent systems with Premarket Approval (PMA) approval by the FDA plus five distal filter embolic protection devices (EPDs) and one distal balloon occlusion (EPD) with FDA 510(k) clearance available for use in the common and internal carotid arteries. VI. General Methodological Principles When making national coverage decisions, CMS evaluates relevant clinical evidence to determine whether or not the evidence is of sufficient quality to support a finding that an item or service falling within a benefit category is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. The critical appraisal of the evidence enables us to determine to what degree we are confident that: 1) the specific assessment questions can be answered conclusively; and 2) the intervention will improve health outcomes for patients. An improved health outcome is one of several considerations in determining whether an item or service is reasonable and necessary. A detailed account of the methodological principles of study design that the agency utilizes to assess the relevant literature on a therapeutic or diagnostic item or service for specific conditions can be found in App e n dix A. In general, features or clinical studies that improve quality and decrease bias include the selection of a clinically relevant cohort, the consistent use of a single good reference standard, and the blinding of readers of the index test, and reference test results. Public comments sometimes cite the published clinical evidence and give CMS useful information. Public comments that give information on unpublished evidence such as the results of individual practitioners or patients are less rigorous and therefore less useful for making a coverage determination. CMS uses the initial public comments to inform its proposed decision. CMS responds in detail to the public comments on a proposed decision when issuing the final decision memorandum. VII. Evidence A. Introduction This section summarizes the evidence evaluating CAS for patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis who exhibit “anatomic factors” potentially placing them at high surgical risk for CEA. It incorporates all evidence from prior decision memoranda regarding this issue. A summary of the body of evidence reviewed to date in developing this decision memorandum is available via the final decision memoranda released following the completion of each of the prior national coverage analyses (NCAs) for reconsiderations of the CAS national coverage determination. Although older age (> 80 years) is not an anatomical factor, a commenter suggested coverage modifications in this group, so we also reviewed new articles that addressed this population. Our present discussion of evidence reviewed focuses upon whether the body of evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about health outcomes for CAS, as well as whether the available evidence is generalizable to Medicare patients. As in our prior reviews of CAS, the key outcomes of interest to CMS are the periprocedural (occurring during procedure or up to 30 days after) and long-term risk of stroke and death following CAS. As noted in the reconsideration of this topic issued April 30, 2007, we have considered the professional society guidance that the accepted standards for carotid revascularization should apply to CAS if it is to be considered an alternative to CEA. Professional guidelines developed and published by the American Heart Association (AHA) (Sacco, et al., 2006; Goldstein et al., 2006) identify these benchmarks and suggest that CEA is indicated in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis when surgeons can achieve perioperative morbidity and mortality rates that are < 3% and < 6% respectively. Similar periprocedural rates would be expected to demonstrate that CAS improves health outcomes. This NCA is focused on the anatomical factors that would make CEA relatively or explicitly contraindicated and for which CAS could be an alternative. While we will not discuss those circumstances where CAS is contraindicated, we encourage the stenting community to be very cognizant of the limitations of CAS and to consider these and other factors when selecting patients for the procedure. Questions CMS analyzed the following questions for this decision memorandum: Is the evidence sufficient to conclude that defined anatomic factors can be identified among patients with carotid stenosis that make CEA contraindicated? Is the evidence sufficient to conclude that PTA with CAS improves health outcomes for patients in whom CEA surgery is contraindicated due to anatomic factors with either (a) symptomatic carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or (b) asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis ≥ 80%? B. Discussion of evidence reviewed 1. Literature Search Because this is a reconsideration, CMS focused on new clinical research studies, technology assessments, guidelines and reviews published since the April 30, 2007 decision memorandum, but also considered literature addressing the patient populations under consideration which was published prior to the 2007 NCD. PubMed was searched and general keywords included carotid, stent, stenting, endarterectomy, revascularization, restenosis, anatomic factors and anatomical characteristics. New studies must have presented original data, examined primary health outcomes and been published in peer-reviewed English language journals. Abstracts were excluded. CMS reviewed all evidence returned from the PubMed search and identified the relevant literature that specifically examined the patient populations under reconsideration. Those studies and articles that did not provide information specific to these populations and thereby were not relevant in answering the questions identified above are not summarized below. That evidence was not included in developing the decision memorandum. 2. External technology assessments and systematic reviews Blue Cross Blue Shield, 2007 In June 2007, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) published a Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) assessment for “Angioplasty and Stenting of the Cervical Carotid Artery with Embolic Protection of the Cerebral Circulation.” In its discussion sections for symptomatic (1C) and asymptomatic patients (2C) at “increased anatomic risk,” 1 BCBS TEC found insufficient evidence but noted for “increased anatomic risk” patients: “No study reported outcomes specific to this group. However, in BEACH [Boston Scientific EPI: A Carotid Stenting Trial for High-Risk Surgical Patients], the periprocedural stroke rate in the increased anatomic risk group (symptomatic and asymptomatic) was 3.5% and death/stroke or MI rate was 3.9% [30 day results by White, et al. 2006]. While the result is suggestive, the absence of reporting according to the presence of symptoms and being a single registry, precludes conclusions.” 2 In its summary section, the BCBS Medical Advisory Panel made the following judgments about whether CAS with or without embolic protection device (EPD) met its TEC criteria (i.e., its five standard criteria) to reduce stroke risk from symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis: The technology must have final approval from the appropriate governmental regulatory bodies. CAS with or without EPD is a procedure and thus does not require U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, the devices used for CAS and for EPD require FDA approval. As of this writing, five manufacturers’ stents are FDA approved and indicated specifically for use in carotid arteries. The FDA has mandated postmarketing studies for these devices, including longer follow-up for patients already reported to the FDA, and additional registry studies primarily to compare outcomes as a function of clinician training and facility experience. The devices are indicated for combined use of a stent and EPD to reduce stroke risk in patients at increased risk for perioperative complications from CEA who are symptomatic with ≥ 50% stenosis or asymptomatic with ≥ 80% stenosis. CAS with these devices for patients outside these indications is an off-label use.” The scientific evidence must permit conclusions concerning the effect of the technology on health outcomes. Available evidence permits conclusions regarding periprocedural complication rates (particularly stroke or death) following CAS in patients of average risk and increased medical risk. Periprocedural stroke/death rates surpassed those established as clinically acceptable and associated with an overall net health benefit following CEA. There is limited evidence and a clinical rationale to suggest CAS may be beneficial in the group of patients at increased anatomic risk, but present evidence has not clearly differentiated outcomes for this subgroup according to symptomatic status. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding patients at increased anatomic risk. A number of large ongoing trials will yield more evidence in the near future (e.g., “Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial” [symptomatic and asymptomatic]; “International Carotid Stenting Study” [symptomatic]; and the “Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial” ACT-1).” The technology must improve the net health outcome. Available evidence does not support concluding that CAS with EPD improves the net health outcome among patients at average or increased medical risk. Evidence regarding patients at increased anatomic risk is suggestive of benefit, but insufficient to draw conclusions.” The technology must be as beneficial as any established alternatives. Available evidence does not support concluding that CAS with or without EPD is as beneficial as CEA for symptomatic patients at average risk or increased medical risk. Whether CAS with EPD is as beneficial as CEA for asymptomatic patients at average medical or anatomic risk cannot be determined because available evidence is insufficient to permit conclusions. There is no evidence comparing best medical therapy for symptomatic or asymptomatic patients at increased medical or anatomic risk, preventing conclusions.” The improvement must be attainable outside the investigational settings. Whether CAS with EPD improves health outcomes has not yet been demonstrated in the investigational setting. Based on the above, use of carotid artery angioplasty and stenting with or without embolic protection of the cerebral circulation for patients with carotid artery stenosis does not meet the TEC criteria.” Cochrane, 2007 In October 2007, Ederle et al. published the latest Cochrane Database of Systematic Review on “Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty and Stenting for Carotid Artery Stenosis. The review assessed the benefits and risks of CAS compared with CEA or medical therapy, and searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched 14 March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library , Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2007), EMBASE (1980 to March 2007) and Science Citation Index (1945 to March 2007). It also contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria included randomised trials of CAS compared with CEA or medical therapy for carotid stenosis. One review author independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed trial quality, and search results were validated by a second review author. For the main results, data were available from 12 trials (3227 patients) but not all contributed to each analysis. The Cochrane group’s primary outcome comparison of any stroke or death within 30 days of treatment favored surgery (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, P = 0.02, not significant (NS) in the random-effects model). The following outcome comparisons favored CAS over CEA: cranial neuropathy (OR 0.07, P < 0.01); 30 day neurological complication or death (OR 0.62, P = 0.004, NS in the random-effects model, with significant heterogeneity). The following outcome comparisons showed little difference between CAS and CEA: 30 day stroke, myocardial infarction or death (OR 1.11, P = 0.57 with significant heterogeneity); stroke during long-term follow up (OR 1.00). Comparison between CAS with or without protection device showed no significant difference in 30 day stroke or death (OR 0.77, P = 0.42 with significant heterogeneity). Analysis of stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure in asymptomatic carotid stenosis showed no difference (OR 1.06, P = 0.96). In patients not suitable for surgery, there was no significant difference in 30 day stroke or death (OR 0.39, P = 0.09 with significant heterogeneity). The authors concluded that the data were difficult to interpret because trials were substantially heterogeneous (different patients, endovascular procedures, and duration of follow up) and five trials were stopped early, perhaps leading to an over-estimate of the risks of CAS. The pattern of effects on different outcomes did not support a change in practice away from recommending CEA as treatment of choice for suitable carotid stenosis. Regarding research implications, the 2007 Cochrane review advised that the data support continued enrollment of patients within RCTs evaluating endovascular and surgical interventions, that randomization should continue in ongoing trials, and that facilities not participating in large multicenter trials randomize suitable patients locally (Ederle et al., 2007). Schnaudigel et al., 2008 In June 2008, Schnaudigel and colleagues reported a systematic analysis of all peer-reviewed studies published between January 1990 and June 2007 describing occurrence of new diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) lesions after CAS or CEA. In 32 studies comprising 1363 CAS and 754 CEA procedures, results showed incidence of any new DWI lesion was significantly higher after CAS (37%) versus CEA (10%) (P < 0.01). Similar results were obtained in a meta-analysis focusing on those studies comparing incidence of new DWI lesions after either CEA or CAS (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 4.19 to 8.87; P < 0.01). Use of cerebral protection devices (33% with versus 45% without; P < 0.01), closed-cell designed stents during CAS (31% closed-cell vs 51% with open-cell stents; P < 0.01) and selective versus routine shunt use during CEA (6% vs 16%; P < 0.01) significantly reduced incidence of new ipsilateral DWI lesions. The authors described that the major risk for both CEA and CAS appeared to be the possibility of periprocedural embolic strokes attributable to release of debris during surgical or endovascular manipulation with distal embolization into the cerebral vasculature, as well as that the higher incidence of new DWI lesions (37% for CAS versus 10% for CEA) pointed to increased risk of periprocedural embolism during CAS largely related to manipulation of catheters, guidewires and sheaths in the supra-aortic vasculature, plus possibly a consequence of diagnostic angiography performed before CAS. Schnaudigel’s group concluded that new DWI lesions occur more frequently after CAS than after CEA, and that DWI presently appears to be an ideal tool to compare and improve both interventions (Schnaudigel et al., 2008). 3. Internal technology assessment CMS found no new comparative studies powered for statistical significance allowing analysis of the requestors’ group of “anatomic factors,” but CMS did summarize 17 retrospective observational studies and one postmarket registry. Evidence for use of CAS in patients with anatomical lesions making CEA potentially contraindicated Friedell, et al., 2007 Friedell and colleagues reported a single-center, retrospective review of 44 consecutive patients who underwent 46 CAS procedures, including 34 (74%) carotid stents placed in asymptomatic (asx) patients, which were all performed by one interventional radiologist between February 1999 and July 2003. Arch aortography was performed, followed by carotid and intracranial arteriograms before and after stenting. Two cases each required two stents, and embolic protection devices (EPDs) were notably only used late in the series in three procedures. Mean age was 73 years (range, 56-87 years), including 25 males (57%) and 10 patients (23%) ≥ 80 years old. All patients had ≥ 80% carotid stenosis and were considered anatomically or medically at high-risk for CEA, including 34 patients with prior CEA (28 asx), three irradiated neck (two asx), one prior CEA/irradiated neck (asx), one radical neck dissection (asx), one high lesion (asx) and six medical risk (three asx). Half of the 34 recurrent stenoses occurred < 3 years and half ≥ 3 years after the original CEA. Results showed no deaths at 30 days but one stroke (on day 26) due to an occluded ipsilateral carotid documented arteriographically after the patient became acutely hemiparetic, plus three periprocedural transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) – two occurring with use of EPDs – and an acute MI in one of the TIA patients. Duplex ultrasound scans were performed on 44 of 46 (96%) patients at mean follow-up of 40 months (range, 2-88 months). Two patients, both of whom had prior irradiation, developed three new 80-99% stenoses requiring three stents. The authors concluded that CAS in a community hospital is durable and can have 30-day stroke/mortality equivalent to CEA. A supplemental discussion section following the conclusion emphasized that 34 of 46 stents had been placed for recurrent stenosis (mostly in asymptomatic patients) and that their findings were not generalizable (Friedell et al., 2007). Protack et al., 2007 Protack and colleagues examined a prospective database of patients undergoing CAS for significant atherosclerotic occlusive disease (ASOD) and radiotherapy-induced (XRT) occlusive disease. Twenty three (15%) patients were treated with CAS for XRT and 127 (85%) patients were treated with CAS for ASOD. All cause mortality at 30-days was 0% for the XRT group and 1% for the ASOD group (no statistical significance) and overall survival at 3 years was equivalent. As defined in the SAPPHIRE trial, there was no significant difference in major adverse event rates nor was there a significant difference in the 3-year neurologic event free rates (87% for XRT and 85% for ASOD). The XRT group has a significantly worse 3-year freedom from restenosis rate of 20% vs. 74% for the ASOD group (P < .05). The XRT group also experienced a significantly worse 3-year patency rate of 91% as compared to 100% for the ASOD group. Based upon these findings, the authors conclude that “CAS is equally effective in preventing recurrent symptoms in XRT patients as in ASOD patients,” although the “XRT patients show increased rates of restenosis, reintervention, and occlusion.” Protack and colleagues conclude that “CAS for radiation arteritis has poor long-term anatomic outcome and can present with late occlusions. These findings suggest that these patients require closer perioperative surveillance and raise the question of whether CAS is appropriate for carotid occlusive lesions caused by radiation arteritis” (Protack et al., 2007). CASES-PMS, 2007 Katzen and colleagues reported 30 day results for the “ C arotid A rtery S tenting with E mboli Protection S urveillance- P ost M arketing S tudy” ( CASES-PMS ), which was initiated as a non-randomized, condition of approval study under an FDA investigational device exemption (IDE). This single-arm, industry-sponsored registry study examined whether physicians with varying carotid stent experience would obtain safety and efficacy outcomes as good as those from the pivotal “ S tenting and A ngioplasty with P rotection in P atients at Hi gh R isk for E ndarterectomy” (SAPPHIRE) (Yadav et al., 2004) trial following participation in a comprehensive carotid stent training program. Patients at high surgical risk who were either symptomatic with ≥ 50% stenosis or asymptomatic with ≥ 80% stenosis of the common or internal carotid artery received CAS with distal emboli protection. Physicians were qualified based on prior experience in CAS or following participation in a formal training program. The primary endpoint of major adverse events (MAE) at 30 days (death, MI, or stroke) was tested for noninferiority compared with an objective performance criterion (OPC) of 6.3% established from the stent cohort of the SAPPHIRE trial. Results showed the 30-day MAE rate was 5.0%, meeting the criteria for noninferiority to the prespecified OPC (95% CI [3.9%, 6.2%] P < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients (N = 1158, 78.2%) had similar outcomes to overall results (MAE 4.7%). Outcomes were similar across levels of physician experience, carotid stent volume, geographic location and presence/absence of training program. The authors concluded that utilizing a comprehensive training program, CAS by operators with differing experience in a variety of practice settings yielded safety and efficacy outcomes similar to those reported in the SAPPHIRE trial (Katzen et al., 2007). Eskandari et al., 2007 Eskandari and colleagues reported a single-center, retrospective review of 269 CAS procedures performed on 264 patients from May 2001 to July 2006 that included 66 procedures following external-beam neck irradiation (N = 26) or CEA (N = 40). In this “hostile neck” group, 47 of 66 procedures (71%) were for asymptomatic ≥ 80% stenosis. A variety of cerebral protection devices were used in 249 of 269 cases (93%). In the remaining 20 cases, devices were not yet available (15) or were unable to be safely delivered (5). In 37 cases, two stents were used due to target lesion length, tandem (ostial and bifurcation) lesions or stent malpositioning. Results showed no significant difference in the rate of restenosis or occlusion between hostile neck lesions (4.5%, 3 of 66) and the remaining group of de novo atherosclerotic lesions (2.0%, 4 of 203), but multiple patient characteristics (including age, sex, comorbidities, stent and embolic protection device type) exhibited significant differences between the groups. During mean follow-up of 16 ± 14 months (range, 1-70 months), two asymptomatic carotid occlusions were detected and those patients were subsequently managed medically. The other five patients with restenosis, repeat angioplasty with stenting (3 patients) or with angioplasty alone (2 patients) resulted in no periprocedural stroke or death. The authors concluded that early periprocedural CAS outcomes were similar in de novo lesions as in patients with a history of neck irradiation or CEA (Eskandari et al., 2007). BEACH, 2008 Iyer and colleagues’ multicenter, single-arm “ B oston Scientific E PI: A C arotid Stenting Trial for H igh-Risk Surgical Patients” ( BEACH ) study reported one year outcomes in high surgical risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. This non-randomized, industry-sponsored registry study enrolled 480 “pivotal” patients (i.e., 480 of 747 total patients in the trial and excluding 189 patients from the roll-in group and 78 patients in the bilateral registry group) who were candidates for carotid revascularization but considered high surgical risk due to pre-specified anatomic criteria and/or medical comorbidities. The primary endpoint (all stroke, death, or Q-wave MI through 30 days; non–Q-wave MI through 24 hours; and ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death through one year) was compared with a proportionally weighted OPC of 12.6% for published surgical endarterectomy results in similar patients, plus a pre-specified noninferiority margin of 4%. Results among the pivotal patients showed 41.2% were at high surgical risk due to comorbid risk factors and 58.8% due to anatomic risk factors; 76.7% were asymptomatic with flow-limiting carotid stenosis > 80%. At one year, the composite primary endpoint occurred in 8.9% (40 of 447), with repeat revascularization rate of 4.7%. Within this group, age ≥ 75, comorbid risk category, diabetes and symptomatic status were associated with 1-year morbidity and mortality, although the magnitude of the effect was not reported. With an upper 95% confidence limit of 11.5% for the primary composite endpoint, study results met prespecified criteria for noninferiority relative to a calculated OPC plus noninferiority margin (16.6%) for historical surgical CEA outcomes in similar patients (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). The authors concluded that CAS with embolic protection is noninferior to CEA at one year in high surgical risk patients. The BEACH registry study was not powered to show statistical significance for unfavorable anatomical characteristics as defined by either anatomic risk only or both anatomic and comorbid risks or a combination of the two (Iyer et al., 2008). CABERNET, 2008 Hopkins and colleagues’ multicenter, single-arm “ C arotid A rtery Revascularisation Using the B oston Scientific E PI Filte r Wire EX/EZ and the EndoTex Ne xSten t ” ( CABERNET ) study reported one year outcomes in high surgical risk patients with carotid artery stenosis. This non-randomized, industry-sponsored registry examined 454 patients – 288 (63.4%) with anatomic-only risk factors, 89 (19.6%) with comorbid-only risk factors, and 77 with both anatomic and comorbid risk factors - including 110 patients (24.2%) who were symptomatic at entry with ≥ 50% angiographic carotid stenosis and 344 patients (75.8%) who were asymptomatic at entry with ≥ 60% angiographic carotid stenosis. The study was designed with two primary endpoints: 1) the one year major adverse event (MAE) rate defined as any death, stroke or MI as compared to an OPC of 12.1% plus a prespecified noninferiority margin or “delta” of 4%; and 2) the composite rate of 30-day MAE plus late (31-365 days) ipsilateral stroke. Excluding 16 patients in the denominator, results showed the first primary endpoint – the one year MAE rate – equaled 11.6% (51/438), which was noninferior to the OPC of 12.1% (95% upper CI of 14.5% versus OPC plus delta of 16.1%, P = 0.005). Excluding 30 event-free patients with insufficient follow-up from the denominator, the second primary endpoint – the composite rate of 30-day MAE plus late ipsilateral stroke – was 4.7% (20/424) with a 95% upper CI of 6.8%. At one year there was 4.3% mortality, 5.0% stroke and 4.1% MI; and late ipsilateral stroke was 0.7%. Based on “historical controls,” the authors concluded that CAS was noninferior to “traditional CEA” at one year in high surgical risk patients. There were no significant differences in one year outcomes between the anatomic and comorbid high-risk groups. The CABERNET registry study was not powered to show statistical significance for unfavorable anatomical characteristics as defined by either anatomic risk only or both anatomic and comorbid risks or a combination of the two (Hopkins et al., 2008). Evidence on CAS in patients > 80 years old Chiam et al., 2008 Chiam and colleagues conducted a single center, nonrandomized analysis of CAS in elderly patients. The study examined 153 CAS procedures performed from July 2003 through October 2007 on 142 patients age 80 and above. The patients were considered for CAS if they had symptomatic stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 70%. Patients were considered not suitable for CAS if they had reduced cerebral reserve, “if lesion severity did not meet angiographic criteria, or if adverse arch or vessel anatomy was identified.” The authors define adverse arch or vessel anatomy as “excessive vascular tortuosity (arch or carotid artery) and heavy concentric carotid lesion calcification.” Out of the 153 CAS procedures performed, 114 (74.5%) were in patients with asymptomatic lesions and 39 (25.5%) in patients with symptomatic lesions. In hospital any stroke and death rates were 5.1% in symptomatic patients and 2.6% in asymptomatic patients, for an overall rate of 3.3%. The 30 day any stroke and death rate was also 3.3%, with rates of 5.1% in symptomatic patients and 2.6% in asymptomatic patients. The authors state that “these results compare favorably to comparable CEA studies in elderly patients which had adverse event rates ranging from 1.1 to 6.8%.” They conclude that CAS “in the elderly can be performed with low adverse event rates comparable to those achieved in a younger population” (Chiam et al., 2008). Lam et al., 2007 Lam and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the impact of increasing age on anatomic factors and complications in 135 carotid stenting procedures performed in 133 patients, which included 87 (65%) men, 46 (35%) women and 37 (28%) patients > 80 years old. Digital subtraction angiograms for each patient were evaluated by two independent observers blinded to patient identifiers, and anatomic characteristics – including aortic arch elongation, arch calcification, arch vessel origin stenosis, common and internal carotid artery tortuosity, treated lesion stenosis, calcification and length – impacting the performance of CAS were assessed as favorable or unfavorable. Postoperative events were defined as MI, stroke and death. Results showed patients > 80 years old had increased prevalence of unfavorable arch elongation ( P = 0.008), arch calcification ( P = 0.003), common carotid or innominate artery origin stenosis ( P = 0.006), common carotid artery tortuosity ( P = 0.0009), internal carotid artery tortuosity ( P = 0.019), and treated lesion stenosis ( P = 0.007). No significant difference was found for treated lesion calcification or length. Perioperative cerebrovascular accidents occurred in four patients (3.0%; three no residual deficit, one residual deficit), MI in three patients (2.2%), and one death (0.8%) secondary to hemorrhagic stroke. Combined stroke, MI and death rate for the entire study population was 3.7%, which was significantly increased ( P = 0.012) in patients > 80 years old (10.8%) compared to those < 80 years old (1%). Lam et al. concluded that patients > 80 years had a higher incidence of anatomy increasing technical difficulty of performing CAS and that this increase in unfavorable anatomy might be associated with CAS complications. The authors acknowledged the relatively small number of patients treated and the infrequency of neurologic events limiting their ability to demonstrate statistically significant associations between unfavorable anatomic characteristics and neurologic complications. While additional limitations included the qualitative assessment of arterial anatomic features and that CAS patient selection was not randomized, Lam and colleagues cautioned that the presence of unfavorable anatomy warrants serious consideration during workup of patients being evaluated for carotid stenting (Lam et al., 2007). Sayeed et al., 2008 Sayeed and colleagues reported on 421 patients who underwent 429 CAS procedures between June 1996 and June 2005 for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis who met minimal review criteria for availability of preoperative angiographic data and follow-up records including pre-procedural, intra-procedural and immediate post-procedural evaluation as well as 30 day follow-up visit. Demographic data and procedural variables were recorded, including use of cerebral protection device. Angiograms were reviewed for lesion length, percent stenosis, ostial involvement, ulceration, calcification and occlusion of the contralateral common or internal carotid artery. Neurologists evaluated patients before and ≤ 24 hours after CAS, and periprocedural stroke and 30 day adverse event rates (stroke, MI and death) were recorded. Results showed periprocedural all-stroke rate was 3.7%. Octogenarians had significantly higher incidence of 30 day adverse events (10% versus 3.8%; P = 0.029), and patients with lesions ≥ 15 mm had 17% periprocedural stroke and 19.1% 30 day adverse events. Incidence of periprocedural stroke was significantly increased for lesions ≥ 15 mm (8/47, 17% versus 8/382, 2.1%; P < 0.001) and for ostial centered lesions (11/154, 7.1% versus 5/275, 1.8%; P = 0.007). Multivariate regression identified lesion length ≥ 15 mm (OR, 6.38; 95% CI, 35 to 17.29) and ostial involvement (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 3.12 to 8.36) as independently associated with 30 day stroke rate. Lesion calcification, ulceration, degree of stenosis, and presence of contralateral occlusion were not associated with adverse outcomes. Use of cerebral protection devices studied separately in 241 patients (56%) did not change observed correlations between angiographic characteristics and adverse procedural events. The authors concluded that angiographic characteristics such as long stenotic lesions (≥ 15 mm) and involvement of the internal carotid ostium predicted a higher risk of adverse outcomes, and that the indication for CAS in such patients should be carefully evaluated (Sayeed et al., 2008). Velez et al., 2008 Velez and colleagues analyzed 126 CAS procedures performed between January 1994 and December 2007 at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation’s Heart and Vascular Institute. These procedures were performed on 118 patients ≥ 80 years old. Patients were treated if they had symptomatic carotid stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic stenosis > 80%. Patients were excluded from undergoing CAS if they had excessive tortousity of the aortic arch and cervical vessels, circumferential target lesion calcification, visible intravascular thrombus, and occlusive angiographic “string” sign, a recent disabling stroke, significant dementia, and/or intolerance to antiplatelet therapy. The authors define procedure success as a final diameter stenosis < 50% compared to the reference diameter according to NASCET methodology. The primary endpoint was in hospital composite incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) and included death, stroke and MI. The secondary endpoints were in hospital death, stroke and MI as well as 30 day MACCE. The study accomplished 100% procedure success and in hospital and 30 day MACCE rates of 1.6% and 2.7% respectively. Symptomatic patients had an in hospital MACCE rate of 4% and, for those in whom follow up was possible, a 30 day MACCE rate of 7.3%. No MACCE were reported in asymptomatic patients. The authors state that their results “are consistent with other reports demonstrating that a low complication rate of CAS can be obtained in octogenarians by experienced operators who carefully select their patients.” They conclude that the data demonstrates “that CAS can be safely performed in the very elderly patients, ≥ 80 years of age” (Velez et al., 2008). Evidence on CEA with anatomical risk factors Rouleau et al., 1999 Rouleau and colleagues examined 853 patients who underwent angiogram between January 1994 and June 1996 for carotid occlusive disease. Of these patients, 66 were found to have carotid artery tandem lesions and 48 of these 66 patients underwent CEA. Eight adverse postoperative events occurred in seven of the patients who underwent CEA, which included 3 cerebral infarctions and 2 MIs that were resolved within 90 days, 2 instances of severe cranial nerve palsy persistent beyond 90 days and 1 death due to MI. The authors noted that “It is not apparent that complications occurred at a higher rate in perioperative period in patients undergoing endarterectomy with tandem lesions” and conclude that “The presence of a tandem lesion infrequently alters the surgeon’s decision to perform an endarterectomy” (Rouleau et al., 1999). Rockman et al., 2002 Rockman (2002) conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively compiled computerized database of all primary CEAs performed on 2420 patients between 1985 and 1999 by the Division of Surgery at the New York University Medical Center. The review compared results of CEAs performed in patients with carotid contralateral occlusion (CO) (14%) to results from CEA patients with patent contralateral arteries. The authors found no significant differences in perioperative MI, neurologic deficit and mortality between the two patient groups. In asymptomatic patients, no difference between the groups was seen in the rate of perioperative neurologic events (1.8% for CO cases; 1.9% for non-CO cases). Symptomatic patients also showed no significant difference in the rate of perioperative neurological events (3.7% for CO cases; 2.2% for non-CO cases; P = 0.2). The authors also found no significant difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic cases in perioperative mortality related to CO. Rockman and colleagues concluded that “the presence of a CO does not appear to significantly increase the perioperative risk of CEA…CEA can be performed safely in patients with CO, which should not be considered a high-risk condition for surgery in favor of angioplasty and stenting” (Rockman et al., 2002). Reed et al., 2003 This retrospective analysis of 1370 CEAs performed from 1990 to 1999 examined the influence of numerous risk factors that often cause patients to be excluded from trials on CEA outcome at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The eight risk factors examined included age > 80, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, contralateral carotid artery occlusion, recurrent ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis, ipsilateral hemispheric symptoms within 6 weeks, and recurrent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Of the eight risk factors studied, only contralateral occlusion was found to be a predictor of poor outcome (P = 0.01). Five (6.7%) of the 75 patients with contralateral carotid occlusion, had adverse perioperative outcome (1 death, 1 disabling stroke, 3 nondisabling stroke). Patients with contralateral carotid occlusion as compared to patients without contralateral carotid occlusion had significantly diminished survival rates at 2 years (P < 0.046) and 5 years (P < 0.004). The authors conclude that “Of the defined preoperative variables examined in this study, only one, contralateral carotid artery occlusion, was predictive of adverse perioperative events after CEA” (Reed et al., 2003). Rockman et al., 2004 This retrospective review of a prospectively compiled database was performed to examine the impact of CAS on the management and outcome of recurrent stenosis. From a registry of patients treated for carotid disease, 105 procedures were performed from 1992 to 2002 for RCS and the data were divided into two time periods: through 1998, 77 reoperations before CAS was introduced at their institution and from 1999 through 2002, 12 reoperations and 16 CAS procedures performed for RCS. Perioperative stroke rates were higher in the later time period, but not significantly (7.2% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). Overall, the risk of perioperative stroke was the same for reoperation (5/89) and CAS (1/16) (5.6% vs. 6.3%, p = NS). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward a higher risk of perioperative stroke for patients treated with reoperation during the latter time period (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = NS). They suggest that during later time period, CAS was most likely to be used in asymptomatic patients (68.6% vs. 41.7%, p = NS) with early (<3 years) RCS (87.5% vs. 41.7%, p= 0.01). They conclude, “Contrary to suggestions that CAS might improve the management of RCS, a review of our data shows the overall risk of periprocedural stroke to be no better since CAS has become available. The bias for using CAS for asymptomatic myointimal hyperplastic lesions, and reoperation for frequently symptomatic late recurrent atherosclerotic disease, makes direct comparisons of the two techniques for treating RCS difficult. It is expected that the overall risk for redo carotid surgery will increase, as fewer low-risk patients will be receiving open procedures. However, the increased risk among symptomatic patients undergoing reoperation suggests that endovascular techniques should be investigated among this group of cases as well.” Hill et al., 1999 Hill (1999) reported that re-do CEAs could be safely performed with a minimum of morbidity and mortality, and in their series of 390 carotid operations, procedure-related stroke-death rate was 0.8%. There were no differences between the stroke-death rates after primary CEA (N = 350, 42% asymptomatic) and reoperation (N = 40, 50% asymptomatic), and there were no postoperative deaths, strokes or permanent cranial nerve deficits in patients operated for recurrent stenosis. They postulated that early restenosis [< 24 months] is associated with myointimal hyperplasia and that late restenosis is related more to the development or progression of atheromatous plaque. Jain et al., 2007 Jain and colleagues reported a retrospective review of 80 patients (46 male; mean age 64.1 years) with asymptomatic > 80% recurrent carotid sten