Meta-Analysis of the Procedural Risks of Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting Over Time

Background:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.Methods:A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity.Results:Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21).Conclusions:In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications.

Download Full-text

Comparison of postoperative results between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion: A meta-analysis

Vascular ◽

10.1177/1708538119841232 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 27 (6) ◽

pp. 595-603 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Wen-Qiang Xin ◽

Yan Zhao ◽

Tie-Zhu Ma ◽

Yi-Kuan Gao ◽

Wei-Han Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myocardial Infarction ◽

Carotid Artery ◽

Carotid Endarterectomy ◽

Carotid Artery Stenting ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Carotid Occlusion ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Post Procedure ◽

Pubmed Database ◽

Significant Difference

Objectives The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in contralateral carotid occlusion patients who needed reperfusion. Methods This study retrieved potential academic articles comparing results between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid occlusion from the MEDLINE database, the PubMed database the EMBASE database, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to May 2018. The reference articles for the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available documents were represented in the study. Results Four retrospective cohort study involving 6252 patients with contralateral carotid occlusion were included in our meta-analysis. During 30-day follow-up, there is significant difference in post-procedure mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.476, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.306–0.740), P = 0.001); no significant differences are not found in post-procedure stroke (risk difference (RD) = 0.002, 95%CI (–0.007 to 0.011); P = 0.631), myocardial infarction (RD = 0.003, 95%CI (–0.002 to 0.008); P = 0.301), and transient cerebral ischemia (RD = 1.059, 95%CI (–0.188 to 5.964); P = 0.948). Conclusions Carotid endarterectomy was associated with a lower incidence of mortality compared to carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid occlusion. Regarding stroke, myocardial infarction, and transient ischemic attack, there was no significant difference between the two groups. More randomized controlled trials and prospective cohorts are necessary to help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.

Download Full-text