27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Critical appraisal of medical devices in the management of cerebrovascular disease

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Medical devices may revolutionize the management of acute ischemic stroke and prevention of recurrent events. By comparison with pharmaceuticals, the device approval process and subsequent application of these devices in stroke treatment is founded on a paucity of Class I evidence-based clinical trial data. Thromboembolectomy for acute stroke, stenting of cervical or cerebral arteries for stroke prevention, and percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for prevention or recurrent cerebral ischemia are being done with an ever-increasing frequency despite few, if any, randomized clinical trials to confirm the appropriateness of the interventions. The current basis, or lack thereof, for these interventions for cerebrovascular disease is therefore discussed. As such, a critical appraisal of the available clinical data does not support widespread use of medical devices at this time outside of well-designed clinical trials.

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of warfarin and aspirin for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis.

          Atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis is an important cause of stroke. Warfarin is commonly used in preference to aspirin for this disorder, but these therapies have not been compared in a randomized trial. We randomly assigned patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke caused by angiographically verified 50 to 99 percent stenosis of a major intracranial artery to receive warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) or aspirin (1300 mg per day) in a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. The primary end point was ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage, or death from vascular causes other than stroke. After 569 patients had undergone randomization, enrollment was stopped because of concerns about the safety of the patients who had been assigned to receive warfarin. During a mean follow-up period of 1.8 years, adverse events in the two groups included death (4.3 percent in the aspirin group vs. 9.7 percent in the warfarin group; hazard ratio for aspirin relative to warfarin, 0.46; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.90; P=0.02), major hemorrhage (3.2 percent vs. 8.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.84; P=0.01), and myocardial infarction or sudden death (2.9 percent vs. 7.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.91; P=0.02). The rate of death from vascular causes was 3.2 percent in the aspirin group and 5.9 percent in the warfarin group (P=0.16); the rate of death from nonvascular causes was 1.1 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively (P=0.05). The primary end point occurred in 22.1 percent of the patients in the aspirin group and 21.8 percent of those in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.48; P=0.83). Warfarin was associated with significantly higher rates of adverse events and provided no benefit over aspirin in this trial. Aspirin should be used in preference to warfarin for patients with intracranial arterial stenosis. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis.

            Without strong evidence of benefit, the use of carotid endarterectomy for prophylaxis against stroke rose dramatically until the mid-1980s, then declined. Our investigation sought to determine whether carotid endarterectomy reduces the risk of stroke among patients with a recent adverse cerebrovascular event and ipsilateral carotid stenosis. We conducted a randomized trial at 50 clinical centers throughout the United States and Canada, in patients in two predetermined strata based on the severity of carotid stenosis--30 to 69 percent and 70 to 99 percent. We report here the results in the 659 patients in the latter stratum, who had had a hemispheric or retinal transient ischemic attack or a nondisabling stroke within the 120 days before entry and had stenosis of 70 to 99 percent in the symptomatic carotid artery. All patients received optimal medical care, including antiplatelet therapy. Those assigned to surgical treatment underwent carotid endarterectomy performed by neurosurgeons or vascular surgeons. All patients were examined by neurologists 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after entry and then every 4 months. End points were assessed by blinded, independent case review. No patient was lost to follow-up. Life-table estimates of the cumulative risk of any ipsilateral stroke at two years were 26 percent in the 331 medical patients and 9 percent in the 328 surgical patients--an absolute risk reduction (+/- SE) 17 +/- 3.5 percent (P less than 0.001). For a major or fatal ipsilateral stroke, the corresponding estimates were 13.1 percent and 2.5 percent--an absolute risk reduction of 10.6 +/- 2.6 percent (P less than 0.001). Carotid endarterectomy was still found to be beneficial when all strokes and deaths were included in the analysis (P less than 0.001). Carotid endarterectomy is highly beneficial to patients with recent hemispheric and retinal transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling strokes and ipsilateral high-grade stenosis (70 to 99 percent) of the internal carotid artery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial.

              Among patients with substantial carotid artery narrowing but no recent neurological symptom (stroke or transient ischaemia), the balance of surgical risks and long-term benefits from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was unclear. During 1993-2003, 3120 asymptomatic patients with substantial carotid narrowing were randomised equally between immediate CEA (half got CEA by 1 month, 88% by 1 year) and indefinite deferral of any CEA (only 4% per year got CEA) and were followed for up to 5 years (mean 3.4 years). Kaplan-Meier analyses of 5-year risks are by allocated treatment. The risk of stroke or death within 30 days of CEA was 3.1% (95% CI 2.3-4.1). Comparing all patients allocated immediate CEA versus all allocated deferral, but excluding such perioperative events, the 5-year stroke risks were 3.8% versus 11% (gain 7.2% [95% CI 5.0-9.4], p<0.0001). This gain chiefly involved carotid territory ischaemic strokes (2.7% vs 9.5%; gain 6.8% [4.8-8.8], p<0.0001), of which half were disabling or fatal (1.6% vs 5.3%; gain 3.7% [2.1-5.2], p<0.0001), as were half the perioperative strokes. Combining the perioperative events and the non-perioperative strokes, net 5-year risks were 6.4% versus 11.8% for all strokes (net gain 5.4% [3.0-7.8], p<0.0001), 3.5% versus 6.1% for fatal or disabling strokes (net gain 2.5% [0.8-4.3], p=0.004), and 2.1% versus 4.2% just for fatal strokes (net gain 2.1% [0.6-3.6], p=0.006). Subgroup-specific analyses found no significant heterogeneity in the perioperative hazards or (apart from the importance of cholesterol) in the long-term postoperative benefits. These benefits were separately significant for males and females; for those with about 70%, 80%, and 90% carotid artery narrowing on ultrasound; and for those younger than 65 and 65-74 years of age (though not for older patients, half of whom die within 5 years from unrelated causes). Full compliance with allocation to immediate CEA or deferral would, in expectation, have produced slightly bigger differences in the numbers operated on, and hence in the net 5-year benefits. The 10-year benefits are not yet known. In asymptomatic patients younger than 75 years of age with carotid diameter reduction about 70% or more on ultrasound (many of whom were on aspirin, antihypertensive, and, in recent years, statin therapy), immediate CEA halved the net 5-year stroke risk from about 12% to about 6% (including the 3% perioperative hazard). Half this 5-year benefit involved disabling or fatal strokes. But, outside trials, inappropriate selection of patients or poor surgery could obviate such benefits.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Departments of Neurology and Neurological Surgery, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine Maywood, Illinois, USA
                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                February 2008
                February 2008
                : 4
                : 1
                : 19-29
                Affiliations
                Departments of Neurology and Neurological Surgery, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine Maywood, Illinois, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Michael J Schneck Department of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maguire Building, Suite 2700, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA Tel +1 708 216 3407 Fax +1 708 216 5617 Email mschneck@ 123456lumc.edu
                Article
                2503654
                18728708
                16b358b8-991d-48ac-a76c-4b277078251b
                © 2008 Dove Medical Press Limited. All rights reserved
                History
                Categories
                Review

                Medicine
                stroke,stents,medical devices,pfo closure,clinical trials,clot retrieval devices
                Medicine
                stroke, stents, medical devices, pfo closure, clinical trials, clot retrieval devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article