Revascularization approaches in patients with radiation-induced carotid stenosis: an updated systematic review and
Andreas Tzoumas1, Dimitrios Xenos1, Stefanos Giannopoulos2
1Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Background:
Ionizing radiation remains a well-known risk factor of carotid artery stenosis. The survival rates of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy have risen owing to medical advancements in the field. As a consequence, the incidence of carotid artery stenosis in these high-risk patients has increased.
Aims:
In this study we sought to compare the outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) for radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis.
Methods:
This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central until July 2020. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity.
Results:
Seven studies and 201 patients were included. Periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death rates were similar between the two revascularization approaches. However, the risk for cranial nerve (CN) injury was higher in the CEA group (OR, 7.40; 95% CI, 1.58-34.59; I2 = 0%). Analysis revealed no significant difference in terms of long-term mortality (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.14-1.16; I2 = 0%) and restenosis rates (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.29-1.66; I2 = 0%) between CEA and CAS after a mean follow-up of 40.5 months.
Conclusions:
CAS and CEA appear to have a similar safety and efficacy profile in patients with radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis. Patients treated with CEA have a higher risk for periprocedural CN injuries. Future prospective studies are warranted to validate these results.
