Affiliation:
1. China International Neuroscience Institute (China-INI), Peoples Republic of China (J.W., X.B., T.W., L.J.).
2. Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China (J.W., X.B., T.W., L.J.).
3. Neuroendovascular Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston (A.A.D.).
4. Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Peoples Republic of China (L.J.).
Abstract
Background:
To compare safety and efficacy between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis based on results from randomized controlled trials.
Methods:
Randomized controlled trials comparing CAS and CEA in treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were searched from databases of the EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane libraries. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted relevant data, and used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess quality. Mantel-Haenszel method random-effects models were used to estimate odds ratio (OR) regarding perioperative risks between CAS and CEA. Kaplan-Meier curve data were extracted and analyzed through Exp[(O-E)/Var] fixed-effect models to calculate the Peto odds ratio (OR) regarding long-term outcomes.
Results:
Sixteen articles from 7 randomized controlled trials were included, reporting relevant outcomes for 7118 asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients (CAS: n=3920; CEA: n=3198). Compared with the CEA group, CAS group had no difference in perioperative composite end point events including stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI; OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.87–1.47];
P
=0.37, I
2
=0%). Compared with CEA, CAS had a higher risk of any stroke during the perioperative period (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.16–2.24];
P
=0.004, I
2
=0%) and an increased risk of nondisabling stroke (OR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.23–2.65];
P
=0.003, I
2
=0%), but there was no significant difference in disabling stroke and death between groups (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.50–1.65];
P
=0.76, I
2
=0%). For long-term outcomes, no difference regarding the composite outcome of any stroke, death, and myocardial infarction existed between CEA and CAS (Peto OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.94–1.48];
P
=0.14, I
2
=0%). Individual-level patient data would be important to verify the long-term outcome results.
Conclusions:
When treating asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS has comparable perioperative and long-term composite outcomes compared with CEA. However, CAS may have a higher risk of any stroke and nondisabling stroke in the perioperative period.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurology (clinical)
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献