German carotid trial
fails to show equivalence

SPACE trial
|

|
Results
have been announced from two trials that were comparing carotid
endarterectomy versus stenting for the treatment of carotid artery
stenosis. As previously announced the Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty
in patients with Symptomatic Severe carotid Stenosis (EVAS-3S)
following concerns regarding the stenting arm of the trial. The
Stent-protected Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid vs.
Endarterectomy (SPACE) was stopped after recruitment of 1200 patients
as statisticians had calculated that with even 1900 patients the chance
to prove equivalence would have been only 50% rising to 80% if the
study recruited 2500 patients.
The EVA-3S trial was a multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority
trial, that was evaluating whether stenting is not inferior to
endarterectomy concerning (a) the risk of stroke or death within 30
days of procedure and (b) the long-term risk of ipsilateral stroke, in
patients with recently symptomatic, severe carotid stenosis. The
primary end point was a composite of any stroke or death occurring
within 30 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: myocardial
infarction; transient ischaemic attack; cranial nerve injury, major
local complications and systemic complications.
Full results were presented by Jean-Louis Mas, Sainte-Anne
Hospital, Paris, France, at the recent European Stroke Conference.
Brief highlights of the results were presented at the European Vascular
Course, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, by Professor Alain Branchereau,
Paris, France, The study enrolled 527 patients (265 in the stenting
arm; 262 in the surgical arm) at 31 centres. Thirty-day results showed
that the risk of stroke or mortality was significantly increased in the
stenting group compared with the endarterectomy group (3.9% vs. 9.6%,
respectively; P=.01).
In addition, stenting showed a significantly lower risk for cranial
nerve injury (10.4% vs. 1.5%), and a beneficial trend for systemic
complications (3.1% vs. 1.9%;) but a much higher risk for both major
local complications (1.2% vs. 3.1%) and TIA (0.8% vs. 2.3%). In
September 2005, the Safety Committee recommended to stop inclusions
into the trial because of safety concerns. In particular, the Committee
said the benefit in favour of the surgical arm means that any further
enrolment would be futile.
The SPACE-trial was a multicentre, prospective, randomized trial in
Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The study was designed to test the
hypothesis that carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are
equivalent in treating patients with symptomatic carotid artery
stenosis.
The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death of any cause
from randomization until 30 days after intervention. Secondary
endpoints were ipsilateral within 24 months after randomization;
ipsilateral stroke with permanent handicap (modified Rankin Score
>=3) within 30 days after intervention; stroke of any localisation
within 30 days and 24 months after intervention; residual stenosis and
restenosis >= 70% in ultrasound and procedural failure. Up to
January 2006 1,200 (605 in the stent group; 595 in the surgical group)
patients were randomized in 37 centres. The non-inferiority threshold
was set at 2.5%.
Presenting the results at the annual meeting of the Society for
Vascular Surgery, Professor Hans-Henning Eckstein, Munich, Germany,
revealed that after 30 days ipsilateral stroke or death in the stenting
arm was 6.84% (n=41) and 6.34% (n=37) in the surgical arm. The absolute
difference was -2.37% vs 3.39%, which exceeded the threshold of 2.5%.
Therefore, patient recruitment was stopped.
Overall, Eckstein said that the trial failed to prove equivalence
peri-procedural risk of stenting vs surgery for the treatment of
symptomatic carotid artery stenoses. In most endpoints there seems to
be a trend towards he surgical arm, but in most cases these were not
statistically significant. He concluded by stating that although the
long-term follow-up of stroke prevention and sub-group analysis will be
published shortly it seems unlikely that the superiority of stenting
will be established. In addition, he commented that there was no
evidence for stenting asymptomatic patients. Interestingly, although
only a third of patients underwent stenting with a cerebral protection
device, it seems the device had no effect on outcomes.