Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Wang Jie12ORCID,Bai Xuesong12ORCID,Wang Tao12ORCID,Dmytriw Adam A.3ORCID,Patel Aman B.ORCID,Jiao Liqun124ORCID

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)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3