Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy Research Articles

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid stenosis. This review updates a previous version last published in 2012 including all randomized clinical trials comparing CAS to CEA for treatment of carotid stenosis

Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage After Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: A Population-Based Study

Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage After Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: A Population-Based Study

Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Stroke Prevention: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

BackgroundData conflict regarding the relative effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) for the prevention of stroke due to carotid artery stenosis. ObjectivesThe authors performed an updated meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAS versus CEA, given recently published clinical trial data. MethodsDatabases were searched through April 30, 2016. Randomized trials with ≥50 patients, that had exclusive use of embolic-protection devices, and that compared CAS against CEA for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. ResultsWe analyzed 6,526 patients from 5 trials with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years. The composite outcome of periprocedural death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke was not significantly different between therapies (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.59). The risk of any periprocedural stroke plus nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke was higher with CAS (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.84). The risk of higher stroke with CAS was mostly attributed to periprocedural minor stroke (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.71 to 3.46). CAS was associated with significantly lower risk of periprocedural MI (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.75); cranial nerve palsy (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.14); and the composite outcome of death, stroke, MI, or cranial nerve palsy during the periprocedural period (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.93). ConclusionsCAS and CEA were associated with similar rates of a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, MI, or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke. The risk of long-term overall stroke was significantly higher with CAS, and was mostly attributed to periprocedural minor stroke. CAS was associated with lower rates of periprocedural MI and cranial nerve palsy than CEA.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Long-Term Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy.

Stenting is an endovascular alternative to endarterectomy for the management of carotid stenosis, but its long-term safety and efficacy relative to endarterectomy remain unclear. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of stenting with those of endarterectomy, with a particular focus on long-term outcomes, via meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs with ≥50 patients that compared stenting with endarterectomy in patients with carotid stenosis. Periprocedural and long-term outcomes were assessed, with data pooled across RCTs using random-effects models. Eight RCTs were included in our meta-analysis (n=7091), with follow-up ranging from 2.0 to 10.0 years. When compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with an increased risk of periprocedural stroke (relative risk, 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.01; risk difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.0) but a decreased risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78; risk difference, -0.4%; 95% CI, -0.8% to 0.1%). During long-term follow-up, stenting was associated with an increased risk of stroke (relative risk, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.61) and a composite end point of ipsilateral stroke, periprocedural stroke, or periprocedural death (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.75). Although stenting has more favorable periprocedural outcomes with respect to myocardial infarction, the observed increased risk of stroke and death throughout follow-up with stenting suggests that endarterectomy remains the treatment of choice for carotid stenosis.

New cerebral lesions at magnetic resonance imaging after carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: an updated meta-analysis.

BackgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) or stenting (CAS) are associated with a relatively low rate of clinical events, but diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly being used to compare the incidence of new ischemic lesions. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis on the occurrence of post-procedural new DWI lesions after CAS versus CEA.Methods and ResultsMEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched and 20 studies (2 randomized and 18 non-randomized) with a total of 2104 procedures (CAS = 989; CEA = 1115) were included. The incidence of new DWI cerebral lesions was significantly greater after CAS than CEA (40.3% vs 12.2%; 20 studies; 2104 patients; odds ratio [OR] 5.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.31-8.06; p<0.00001). Also peri-procedural stroke (17 studies; 1833 patients; OR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.14-3.55; p=0.02) and stroke or TIA (17 studies; 1833 patients; OR 2.40; 95% CI, 1.42-4.08; p=0.001) were significantly increased after CAS. This latter clinical advantage in the CEA group over CAS was tempered when CEA procedures were performed with shunting in all instead of selective shunting or when CAS was performed with only closed cell stents instead of both closed and open cell stents, however, no significant differences between subgroups emerged.ConclusionsCAS is associated with an increased incidence of post-procedural brain DWI lesions. This greater amount of ischemic burden may also reflect a higher rate of cerebral events after CAS. However, whether recent technical advances mainly for CAS could potentially reduce these ischemic events still remains to be evaluated.

Restenosis After Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: The Jury is Still Out!

Restenosis After Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy: The Jury is Still Out!

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Protected Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients Reflections From SAPPHIRE

Section Editors: Marc Fisher MD Antoni Davalos MD The Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk of Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) collaborators have attempted to perform a difficult trial.1 It is of special interest because the majority of their randomized patients were asymptomatic. Their article in the New England Journal of Medicine 1 has already been much quoted and inevitably misquoted. The main result was that stenting with protection does not appear to be inferior to endarterectomy; particularly as far as peri-procedural risks are concerned. In asymptomatic carotid stenosis endarterectomy has been shown to halve stroke risk.2 So some are assuming that stenting with protection should now be recommended in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. This is a worry and may not be in the best interests of patients. A number of criticisms of the SAPPHIRE trial need to be considered. Firstly, the authors have misinterpreted the previous carotid surgery trials by saying that carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in stroke prevention; however these trials actually compared best medical treatment with best medical treatment plus carotid endarterectomy.2,3,4,5 Best medical treatment has improved very considerably since the 2 major symptomatic3,4 and 2 asymptomatic trials2,5 were started, with better antiplatelet therapy, more efficient blood pressure control and the widespread use of statins. So the risks are now different, and historical controls may be misleading. The patient characteristics in SAPPHIRE were not the same as in the carotid surgery trials. In particular there was a very high prevalence of significant coronary artery disease (approximately 85%), suggesting that their population had a cardiological bias. Fewer than 30% of patients with carotid stenosis were symptomatic and 70% were asymptomatic. Nearly 30% of patients had had previous carotid endarterectomy and a similar proportion had had previous angioplasty. …