Cumulative incidence of restenosis in the endovascular treatment of extracranial carotid artery stenosis: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 916-923
Author(s):  
Pierre Clavel ◽  
Solène Hebert ◽  
Suzana Saleme ◽  
Charbel Mounayer ◽  
Aymeric Rouchaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Protection Device ◽  
Embolic Protection Device ◽  
Embolic Protection ◽  
Hostile Neck

ObjectiveTo assess the cumulative incidence of restenosis and stroke after stenting for cervical carotid artery stenosis.MethodsWe reviewed PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus and included all studies reporting restenosis after stenting. The cumulative incidence of restenosis at 6 and 12 months was calculated. We also estimated the cumulative incidence of ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting. Random effect meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using relevant study level covariates. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated.ResultsAmong 7765 records, 40 studies were selected. 15 943 patients and 16 337 carotid arteries were considered. The overall pooled cumulative incidence of restenosis >50% at 12 months was 5.7% (95% CI 3.8% to 8.6%), >70% at 12 months was 5.2% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.2%), >50% at 6 months was 3.9% (95% CI 2.2% to 6.8%), and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting was 1.6% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.5%) without association with the use of an embolic protection device. We did not identify any relevant source of heterogeneity of the cumulative incidence of restenosis >50% at 12 months. Mean age explained 80.9% (R2=80.9%, p=0.01) of heterogeneities of restenosis >70% at 12 months. The presence of hostile neck explained 53.9% (R2=53.9%, p=0.03) of heterogeneities of restenosis >50% at 6 months.ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed a low cumulative rate of restenosis at 12 months and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days after stenting. Older patients and those with hostile neck present a lower risk of in-stent restenosis. The use of an embolic protection device was not associated with a lower risk of stroke.

scholarly journals Review: Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, et al: Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:1493–1501, 2004

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Oren N. Gottfried ◽  
William T. Couldwell
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Protection Device ◽  
Less Invasive ◽  
End Point ◽  
Percentage Points

Background Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. Methods We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year—a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. Results The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, −7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, −16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). Conclusions Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

Abstract P540: Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection: A Single Centre Experience

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Hawkes ◽  
Aviraj Deshmukh ◽  
Brian van Adel
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Atheromatous Plaque ◽  
Stroke Rate ◽  
Protection Device ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Stent Occlusion ◽  
Embolic Protection Device ◽  
Embolic Protection

Introduction: One of the most feared complications of carotid revascularization, including carotid artery stenting (CAS), is peri-procedural ischemic stroke. Several studies suggest that the use of a distal embolic protection device (EPD), as well as over-sized pre- and post-stenting balloon angioplasty, may increase the risk of dislodgement of atheromatous plaque in patients undergoing CAS. The CREST trial, that mandated the use of an EPD, had a peri-procedural ischemic stroke rate of 4.1%. We hypothesize that our technique of stenting without the use of an EPD and sub-maximal angioplasty will have a low risk of peri-procedural complications. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive cases of ICA stenting without use of an embolic protection device between January 2012 and June 2020 at a Canadian stroke centre. Data was extracted from the patient electronic medical record and Picture Archives and Communications Systems (PACS). Both symptomatic and asymptomatic CAS cases were included. Results: A total of 220 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 70 years (range 39-93 years), and 83 patients (38%) were female. The vast majority of patients were symptomatic (216 patients [98%]). A large portion of patients had a contralateral ICA occlusion or near occlusion (56 patients [25%]). In the majority of cases, a Precise Cordis RX carotid stent (Cordis) was placed. There were four patients with peri-procedural ischemic strokes (1.8%), with two occurring 8-30 days after stenting. There was one case of acute stent occlusion associated with an ischemic stroke. Two patients (less than 1%) had hyperperfusion syndrome after CAS. Median length of stay following the procedure was one day. Conclusions: In this single centre series, the peri-procedural risks of CAS without using an EPD are low. The ischemic stroke rate is less than 2%, lower than what has been reported in large randomized controlled trials using embolic protection.

scholarly journals Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yavin ◽  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Michael Tso ◽  
Garnette R. Sutherland ◽  
Misha Eliasziw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Endarterectomy ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenosis ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Cranial Neuropathy ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Lower Odds

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document