R Zahn1, M Hochadel, A Grau, J Senges. 1. Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Kardiologie, Bremserstr. 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. erzahn@aol.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue. METHODS: RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication. RESULTS: Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02). CONCLUSION: The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue. METHODS: RCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication. RESULTS: Six finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02). CONCLUSION: The available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.
Authors: William H Brooks; Rick R McClure; Michael R Jones; Timothy L Coleman; Linda Breathitt Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: A R Naylor; A Bolia; R J Abbott; I F Pye; J Smith; N Lennard; A J Lloyd; N J London; P R Bell Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: G S Roubin; G New; S S Iyer; J J Vitek; N Al-Mubarak; M W Liu; J Yadav; C Gomez; R E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Zahn; T Ischinger; M Hochadel; B Mark; U Zeymer; J Jung; A Schramm; K E Hauptmann; H Seggewiss; I Janicke; H Mudra; J Senges Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Nazmi Krasniqi; Michael Turgut; Marc Husmann; Marco Roffi; Urs Schwarz; Matthias Greutmann; Thomas F Lüscher; Beatrice Amann-Vest; Beatrice Amann; Roberto Corti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240