BACKGROUND: To compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of carotid stenosis, including two recently published, large, prospective, randomized trials of these therapies. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials involving carotid stenosis patients who underwent CAS or CEA, focusing on studies published in 1995 to 2010. Primary outcomes were death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Thirteen trials containing 7,501 patients were analyzed, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for CAS versus CEA. The risk of stroke or death within 30 days was higher after CAS than CEA (OR = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.22), especially in previously symptomatic patients (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.48-2.41). However, the risk of stroke or death within 1 year was comparable (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.55-2.30). In a subgroup analysis, the risk of death and disabling stroke at 30 days did not differ significantly between CEA and CAS (death: OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.85-2.40; disabling stroke: OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 0.89-1.83), whereas the rate of nondisabling stroke within 30 days was much higher in the CAS group (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.40-2.50). The risks of myocardial infarction within 30 days and 1 year were significantly less for CAS. CONCLUSION: CAS is inferior to CEA with regard to the incidence of stroke or death for periprocedural outcomes, especially in symptomatic patients. However, CAS was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction. These procedures may be considered complementary rather than competing modes of therapy, each of which can be optimized with careful patient selection.
BACKGROUND: To compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the treatment of carotid stenosis, including two recently published, large, prospective, randomized trials of these therapies. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials involving carotid stenosispatients who underwent CAS or CEA, focusing on studies published in 1995 to 2010. Primary outcomes were death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Thirteen trials containing 7,501 patients were analyzed, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for CAS versus CEA. The risk of stroke or death within 30 days was higher after CAS than CEA (OR = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.22), especially in previously symptomatic patients (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.48-2.41). However, the risk of stroke or death within 1 year was comparable (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.55-2.30). In a subgroup analysis, the risk of death and disabling stroke at 30 days did not differ significantly between CEA and CAS (death: OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.85-2.40; disabling stroke: OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 0.89-1.83), whereas the rate of nondisabling stroke within 30 days was much higher in the CAS group (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.40-2.50). The risks of myocardial infarction within 30 days and 1 year were significantly less for CAS. CONCLUSION:CAS is inferior to CEA with regard to the incidence of stroke or death for periprocedural outcomes, especially in symptomatic patients. However, CAS was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction. These procedures may be considered complementary rather than competing modes of therapy, each of which can be optimized with careful patient selection.
Authors: Gianfranco Varetto; Lorenzo Gibello; Riccardo Faletti; Andrea Gattuso; Paolo Garneri; Claudio Castagno; Simone Quaglino; Pietro Rispoli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 3.469