Carotid Artery Stenting vs Carotid Endarterectomy

Abstract

Background: The role of carotid artery stenting (CAS) when compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is controversial, with recent trials showing an increased risk of harm with CAS. Objective: To evaluate the periprocedural and intermediate to long-term benefits and harms of CAS compared with CEA. Data Sources and Study Selection: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized clinical trials until June 2010 of CAS compared with CEA for carotid artery disease. Periprocedural (Յ30-day) outcomes (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke; death or any stroke; any stroke; and MI) and intermediate to long-term outcomes (outcomes as in the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy [SAPPHIRE] trial: composite of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke plus ipsilateral stroke or death thereafter; periprocedural death or stroke plus ipsilateral stroke thereafter; death or any stroke; and any stroke) were evaluated. Data Extraction: Two of us independently extracted data in duplicate. Baseline characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, use of an embolic protection device, US vs non-US study, and the earlier-mentioned outcomes of interest were extracted from each trial. Data Synthesis: We identified 13 randomized clinical trials randomizing 7477 participants. Carotid artery stent-ing was associated with an increased risk of periprocedural outcomes of death, MI, or stroke (odds ra-tio=1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.59), 65% and 67% increases in death or stroke and any stroke, respectively, but with 55% and 85% reductions in the risk of MI and cranial nerve injury, respectively, when compared with CEA. The trial sequential monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 20% relative risk increase of periprocedural death or stroke and any stroke and at least a 15% reduction in MI with CAS compared with CEA. Similarly, CAS was associated with 19%, 38%, 24%, and 48% increases in the intermediate to long-term outcomes of SAPPHIRE-like outcome, periprocedural death or stroke and ipsilateral stroke thereafter, death or any stroke, and any stroke, respectively. The trial sequential monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 20% relative risk increase of any stroke. Conclusions: In this largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis to date using outcomes that are standard in contemporary studies, CAS was associated with an increased risk of both periprocedural and intermediate to long-term outcomes, but with a reduction in periprocedural MI and cranial nerve injury. Strategies are urgently needed to identify patients who are best served by CAS vs CEA.

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“……”

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“……”

Incidence of Perioperative Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization With Special Emphasis on Myocardial Infarction – A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

“…35 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. 37 • Randomized controlled trials comparing endarterectomy and endovascular treatment for carotid artery stenosis: a Cochrane systematic review.…”

“…• Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36…”

Changing Trends in Carotid Revascularization in Australia: A Nationwide Study Over 30 Years

“…The CREST 1 trial, while showing a higher rate of perioperative stroke in CAS patients, showed that younger patients (< 70) had better outcomes with CAS [ 5 ]. More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ].…”

“…More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ]. These findings could explain the trends for CAS in our data, with the AIHW dataset showing only a small relative increase and the Medicare dataset showing very little change.…”

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“……”

Incidence of Perioperative Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization With Special Emphasis on Myocardial Infarction – A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

“…35 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. 37 • Randomized controlled trials comparing endarterectomy and endovascular treatment for carotid artery stenosis: a Cochrane systematic review.…”

“…• Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36…”

Changing Trends in Carotid Revascularization in Australia: A Nationwide Study Over 30 Years

“…The CREST 1 trial, while showing a higher rate of perioperative stroke in CAS patients, showed that younger patients (< 70) had better outcomes with CAS [ 5 ]. More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ].…”

“…More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ]. These findings could explain the trends for CAS in our data, with the AIHW dataset showing only a small relative increase and the Medicare dataset showing very little change.…”

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“……”

Incidence of Perioperative Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization With Special Emphasis on Myocardial Infarction – A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

“…35 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36 • Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. 37 • Randomized controlled trials comparing endarterectomy and endovascular treatment for carotid artery stenosis: a Cochrane systematic review.…”

“…• Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. 36…”

Changing Trends in Carotid Revascularization in Australia: A Nationwide Study Over 30 Years

“…The CREST 1 trial, while showing a higher rate of perioperative stroke in CAS patients, showed that younger patients (< 70) had better outcomes with CAS [ 5 ]. More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ].…”

“…More recent literature has shown that CAS is associated with a significantly higher risk of the combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of treatment compared with CEA [ 4 , 16 , 17 ]. CAS has shown up to a 31% increased risk of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke when compared to CEA [ 17 ]. These findings could explain the trends for CAS in our data, with the AIHW dataset showing only a small relative increase and the Medicare dataset showing very little change.…”