Endarterectomy achieves lower stroke and death rates compared with stenting in patients with asymptomatic carotid
Stavros K Kakkos1, Ioannis Kakisis2, Ioannis A Tsolakis3
1Department of Vascular Surgery, University of Patras Medical School, Patras, Greece; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Insights
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) showed lower stroke and death rates compared to carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients with asymptomatic stenosis. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm if CAS is inferior to CEA.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Neurology
Background:
- Asymptomatic carotid stenosis management remains debated.
- Direct comparison of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) safety and efficacy is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CAS and CEA in patients with significant asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CAS versus CEA.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE and Scopus.
- Meta-analysis using Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
- Quality of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method.
Main Results:
- Nine RCTs involving 3709 patients were analyzed.
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) demonstrated significantly lower 30-day stroke or death rates (1.89% vs. 2.94%) and 30-day stroke rates (1.82% vs. 2.90%) compared to carotid artery stenting (CAS).
- Carotid artery stenting (CAS) showed significantly lower cranial nerve injury (CNI) rates (0.11% vs. 3.21%), while myocardial infarction (MI) rates were nonsignificantly lower (0.66% vs. 1.50%).
Conclusions:
- Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) appears safer in the short term, with significantly lower stroke and death rates compared to carotid artery stenting (CAS).
- CEA maintained long-term efficacy in preventing ipsilateral stroke.
- Moderate-quality evidence suggests CEA may be superior, but high-quality research is urgently needed to confirm CAS inferiority.
Background:
It is currently unclear if carotid artery stenting (CAS) is as safe as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant asymptomatic stenosis. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing CAS with CEA.
Methods:
On March 17, 2017, a search for randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus databases with no time limits. We performed meta-analyses with Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. The primary safety and efficacy outcome measures were stroke or death rate at 30 days and ipsilateral stroke at 1 year (including ipsilateral stroke and death rate at 30 days), respectively. Perioperative stroke, ipsilateral stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were all secondary outcome measures.
Results:
The systematic review of the literature identified nine randomized controlled trials reporting on 3709 patients allocated into CEA (n = 1479) or CAS (n = 2230). Stroke or death rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (64/2176 [2.94%]) compared with CEA (27/1431 [1.89%]; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = .044), with low level of heterogeneity beyond chance (I2 = 0%). Also, stroke rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (63/2176 [2.90%]) than for CEA (26/1431 [1.82%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.04-2.54; P = .032; I2 = 0%). MI at 30 days was nonsignificantly lower for CAS (12/1815 [0.66%]) compared with CEA (16/1070 [1.50%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.14; P = .105; I2 = 0%); however, CNI at 30 days was significantly lower for CAS (2/1794 [0.11%]) than for CEA (33/1061 [3.21%]; OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). Regarding the long-term outcome of stroke or death rate at 30 days plus ipsilateral stroke during follow-up, this was significantly higher for CAS (79/2173 [3.64%]) than for CEA (35/1430 [2.45%]; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.02-2.24; P = .04; I2 = 0%). Quality of evidence for all stroke outcomes was graded moderate.
Conclusions:
Among patients with asymptomatic stenosis undergoing carotid intervention, there is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that CEA had significantly lower 30-day stroke and also stroke or death rates compared with CAS at the cost of higher CNI and nonsignificantly higher MI rates. The long-term efficacy of CEA in ipsilateral stroke prevention, taking into account perioperative stroke and death, was preserved during follow-up. There is an urgent need for high-quality research before a firm recommendation is made that CAS is inferior or not to CEA.
More Related Videos
04:30A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
09:11Performing Permanent Distal Middle Cerebral with Common Carotid Artery Occlusion in Aged Rats to Study Cortical Ischemia with Sustained Disability
Published on: February 23, 2016
Related Concept Videos
01:27Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
01:26Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
01:27Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
01:26Atherosclerosis III: Management