Hitinder S Gurm1, Brahmajee K Nallamothu, Jay Yadav. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, 2A 394, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0311, USA. hgurm@med.umich.edu
Abstract
AIMS: Clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease have produced conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate currently available data by comparing CAS with CEA in patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and scientific meeting abstracts up to 31 October 2006 and then calculated summary risk ratios (RRs) for mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, and death using random- and fixed-effect models. Data from five trials with 2122 patients were pooled. There was no difference in risk of 30-day mortality (summary RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.47, P = 0.25), stroke (summary RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67-4.00, P = 0.34), disabling stroke (summary RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.50-5.62, P = 0.50), death and stroke (summary RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81-2.92, P = 0.19), or death and disabling stroke (summary RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.57-2.51, P = 0.64) among patients randomized to CAS, compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences could be identified between CAS and CEA in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. Larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two strategies.
AIMS: Clinical trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease have produced conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate currently available data by comparing CAS with CEA in patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and scientific meeting abstracts up to 31 October 2006 and then calculated summary risk ratios (RRs) for mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, and death using random- and fixed-effect models. Data from five trials with 2122 patients were pooled. There was no difference in risk of 30-day mortality (summary RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.47, P = 0.25), stroke (summary RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67-4.00, P = 0.34), disabling stroke (summary RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.50-5.62, P = 0.50), death and stroke (summary RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81-2.92, P = 0.19), or death and disabling stroke (summary RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.57-2.51, P = 0.64) among patients randomized to CAS, compared with CEA. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences could be identified between CAS and CEA in the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery disease. Larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two strategies.
Authors: I Q Grunwald; M Politi; W Reith; C Krick; K Karp; A Zimmer; T Struffert; C Roth; A L Kühn; A Haass; P Papanagiotou Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2008-12-23 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Karolina Dzierwa; Piotr Pieniazek; Piotr Musialek; Jacek Piatek; Lukasz Tekieli; Piotr Podolec; Rafał Drwiła; Marta Hlawaty; Mariusz Trystuła; Rafał Motyl; Jerzy Sadowski Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2011-08
Authors: Georgiana-Aura Giurgea; Markus Haumer; Irene Mlekusch; Schila Sabeti-Sandor; Petra Dick; Martin Schillinger; Erich Minar; Wolfgang Mlekusch Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: L Nelson Hopkins; Christopher J White; Malcolm T Foster; Richard J Powell; Gerald Zemel; Juan Diaz-Cartelle Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 2.692